Concepts

Equality of opportunity is a political ideal that is opposed to caste hierarchy but not to hierarchy per se. The background assumption is that a society contains a hierarchy of more and less desirable, superior and inferior positions. Or there may be several such hierarchies. In a caste society, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is fixed by birth. The child acquires the social status of his or her parents at least if their union is socially sanctioned. Social mobility may be possible in a caste society, but the process whereby one is admitted to a different level of the hierarchy is open only to some individuals depending on their initial ascriptive social status. In contrast, when equality of opportunity prevails, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is determined by some form of competitive process, and all members of society are eligible to compete on equal terms. Different conceptions of equality of opportunity construe this idea of competing on equal terms variously.

Fairness and equality: One of the most popular posts on this blog is called Fair Isnt Equal. In it include a wonderful graphic that helps to illustrate the difference between the concepts of fairness and equality.

Most people believe that "fairness means that everyone gets the same"; whereas in reality "fairness means that everyone gets what he or she needs." Further, fairness is one of the most commonly used arguments against inclusion. "Teaching students of different abilities in the same class isnt fair to those who can move at a quicker pace," or "Its not fair to hold back some students to prevent others from falling behind."

The best way to accommodate students of varying abilities in the same learning environment is through differentiated instruction; a methodology which enables students to progress at their own pace via activities that are developmentally appropriate.

I also firmly believe in transparency. I think that the methodology and the premise behind it should be shared with students, enabling them to understand and support one another more fully. "The Band-Aid Activity" is not something that I created, but it is a successful way to help students understand the concept of fairness (versus equality) in a differentiated classroom.

Luck egalitarianism: Luck egalitarianism is a view about distributive justice espoused by a variety of egalitarian and other political philosophers. According to this view. justice demands that variations in how well-off people are should be wholly determined by the responsible choices people make and not to differences in their unchosen circumstances. This expresses the intuition that it is a bad thing for some people to be worse off than others through no fault of their own.

Luck egalitarians therefore distinguish between outcomes that are the result of brute luck (e.g. misfortunes in genetic makeup, or being struck by a bolt of lightning) and those that are the consequence of conscious options (such as career choice or fair gambles). Luck egalitarianism is intended as a fundamental normative idea that might guide our thinking about justice rather than as an immediate policy prescription. The idea has its origin in John Rawls thought that distributive shares should not be influenced by arbitrary factors. Luck egalitarians disagree among themselves about the proper way to measure how well off people are (for instance, whether we should measure material wealth, psychological happiness or some other factor) and the related issue of how to assess the value of their resources.

Many philosophers think that the term "luck egalitarianism" is a misnomer, because many so-called "luck egalitarians” (of the resourcist strand at least) do not in fact want to equalize luck or eliminate uncertainty, but instead believe that individuals should be equal in the amount of resources they have when facing luck or uncertainty.

Critics of equality of opportunity: Although there is widespread agreement that equality of opportunity is a requirement of justice, there are also critics of the principle. Dissenters on the left argue that equality of opportunity is simply a way to legitimate inequalities of wealth and income that are inherently unjust. Another challenge comes from libertarians, who argue that employers are entitled to fill vacant positions within their workforce with whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. According to that view, for whatever reason they want. According to that view, the entitlement of employers to decide who should work for them on whatever basis they choose is grounded in their property rights.

The Elitist Theory of Democracy: In the twentieth century thinkers began to question the Classical Liberal theory of democracy by asking questions like: Can the public really play a role in day to day politics without democracy and not be participative and representative? Can ordinary citizens who are busy with many things like trying to earn a living spare the time and energy to play a public role? Will liberty be destroyed if the impulses of masses is allowed free play via electoral democracy without restrictions? In an attempt to answer these questions new theories came up like the Elitist Theory of Democracy and the Pluralist Theory of Democracy.

The term 'elite' is used to refer to a minority among a group of people who are in advantageous position in that community due to some factors whatever they may be. Elites are usually those minorities who stand out in a society for their pre-eminence in the distribution of authority. The political elite is composed of a 'minority of specialized leaders who enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in the community's affairs' according to Presthus.

The Elite theory arose after the Second World War and the main contributors have been Vilfredo Pareto, Geatano Mosca and Robert Michels and American authors like James Burnham and C. Wright Mills. The elite theory has as its main premise the belief that society consists of two kinds of people - the special selected few or the elite and a vast mass of people. The special people always rise to the top because they are the best and have the qualities. The elite, particularly the political lite performs all political functions, monopolises power and enjoys the advantages that power brings. The numerically vast and larger non-elite is ruled by the elite and directed and controlled in a manner that is essentially arbitrary. It is always the organized minority that rules over the unorganised majority. Robert Michels who gave what is known as the 'iron law of oligarchy' claimed the non-elite should submit to the elite because the majority of human beings are ‘apathetic, indolent and slavish and permanently incapable of self-government. The main features of elitist theories of democracy are: (a) People are not equal in their abilities and so the development of a elite and a non-elite is inevitable, (b) The elite can contr power and command influence because of their superior abilities (c) The group of elites is not constant and their is constant entry of new people and exit of old people from the group (d) The majority of the masses who constitute the non elite are apathetic, lazy and indifferent and so there is a need for a capable minority to provide leadership and (e) Ruling elite in the modern times are mainly either intellectuals, industrial managers or bureaucrats.

Joseph Schumpeter in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942) first formulated what can be regarded as a systematic formulation of the elite theory of demoracy. Later it was supported in the writings of Sartori, Robert Dahl, Eckstein, Raymond Aron, Karl Manhiumand Sydney Verba etc. This concept of democracy is based on the idea that the vast majority of people who are mostly incapable and disinterested chose from a group of competent people who comprise the minority elite and who are mostly chosen on merit. Te people this way get a narrow choice but a choice nevertheless between rival elites who control political parties. The minority are too busy earning a living and are anyway neither interested mostly nor capable of having rational well thought out views on issues and so they chose from among the elite and follow the leadership. The Elite theorists of democracy approve of this state of affairs as they see it to be and argue in complex modern societies the way to efficiency is through specialisation and so rule should be of the elite. The Elite theory also sees too much participation of people as dangerous because a strong leader with dictatorial motivations like Hitler could use the mobilisation of the masses to achieve power and then destroy democracy itself, which would mean end of basic liberties. So they argue democratic and liberal values can only be safeguarded by keeping the masses away from politics. Elite theorists argue there can not be any real rule by the people. Rule is always for the people and never by the people because the people have to choose their representatives who are inevitably from the elite. Democracy in other words should suffice to mean competition between rival groups of elite and people getting a chance to decide which group of elites will rule. So democracy is just a procedure really whereby one of a narrow group gets to rule on marginally extra support from people. The Elite theorists also prescribe that there should be an agreement between elites on democratic values which is essential for the breakdown of constitutionalism. There should be a consensus they argue among the elites-political parties, leaders, executives of large business houses, leaders of voluntary associations and even workers unions so that the fundamental procedure of democracy can be protected from irresponsible leaders. It would seem while one of the aims of elite theory was to make the accepted idea of democracy more realistic and bring it closer to the empirical reality it only transformed democracy into a conservative political doctrine that is happy with the liberal or neo-liberal capitalist status quo at all times and wishes to maintain its stability.

The Elite theories have come under criticism from many thinkers like C.B. Macpherson, Greame Duncan, Barry Hölden, Robert Dahl etc among others. The main complaints against the elite theories are as follows:

(a) The Elite theories distort the very meaning of democracy and make it arbitrary without paying any attention to its fundamental characteristics. If the people only choose representatives, then they have no voice in running the country and hence the system becomes undemocratic

(b) The Elite theory of democracy takes away the moral purpose of the traditional classical notion of democray. The classical notion has the purpose of democracy the improvement of mankind but the Elite theory empties out that moral content and paints the whole situation just as an inevitable passive acceptance of minority rule by the elite.

(c) The Elite theories undermine the value of participation which is a central theme of democratic governance and instead claims no participation is possible. Hence they condemn rule by the people as impossibility.

(d) The Elite theories seem to patronisingly approve of a politically passive incapable common man who will only earn his living and in the evenings spend his time with his family or friends or listen to the media outlets and not do anything more personally than once in while choose between sets of elite.

(e) The elite theories have been obsessed with maintenance of the stability of the system rather than allow for radical changes through the democratic process. The main focus has been preservation of the democratic procedure and 'the creation of machinery which would produce the most efficient administration and coherent public policies. That is also why Elite theories see social movements as a threat to democracy and disruptive of the process of law managed by the elite.

Difference feminism is a philosophy that stresses those men and women are ontologically different versions of the human being. Difference feminism often stresses a fundamental biological, emotional, psychological or spiritual difference between the sexes. Difference feminists believe that womens experiences are fundamentally different from those of mens. In this view, the problem is not that men and women are different but that sexist cultures devalue feminine" qualities instead, of valuing, celebrating, and promoting them. Regarding war, ethnic conflict, difference feminists argue that women, because of their greater experience with nurturing and human relations, are generally more effective than men in conflict resolution and group decision-making, and less effective than men in combat. Some difference feminists see such gender differences as biologically based, where as others see them as entirely cultural, but they agree that gender differences are real, and not all bad (Goldsten, Josiua, 2001).

Violent men, peaceful women: In this view, womens care giving roles and potential for motherhood best suit them to give life, not take it. Women are more likely than men to oppose war and more likely to find alternatives to violence in resolving conflicts. Thus, according to difference feminism, women have unique abilities as peacemakers. At the time of Rwandan genocide, Hutu males were attacking on Tutsi community (on Tutsi males & females), whereas at that point of time Hutu and Tuts females were trying to safeguard the old age people, young girls & children and pregnant ladies irrespective of their ethnic background. This shows they were more concerned, less violent, more constructive and more connected with fellow females.

Autonomous men, connected women: A second difference feminist argument holds that men and women think differently about their separateness or connection with other people. Boys construct social relationships in terms of autonomous individuals, interacting according to formal rules whereas girls construct social relationships networks of connection. Men tend to see their position relative to others in the group-especially other male-in terms of a competitive hierarchy. Woman end to see their position within a group in terms of mutual support Hierarchical organization is widespread and generally male dominated the military, business, religion, and other spheres of social life. In this situation men are especially attuned to how they look in the eyes of their fellow men. contrast, women are seen as more practical, less concerned with rank or honour and thus better able to cooperate within a group without letting intergroup tensions undermine the groups work. Difference feminists would rather values womens cooperative abilities than to encourage women to become more competitive, as liberal feminism sometimes does.

Marxist feminism is sub-type of feminist theory which focuses the dismantling of capitalism as a way to liberate women. Marxist feminise states that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relation between men and women, is the root of womens oppression in the current social context. Marxist Feminism foundation is laid by Marx and Engels is their analysis of gender oppression in "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State". Here, they outline that a womans subordination in social relationship structure. The institution of a family as it exists is a compel system in which men command and womens services. Marxist feminists second temporary gender inequality as determined ultimately by the capitalist mode of production. Gender oppression is the class oppression and the relationship between man and woman society is similar to the relations between proletarian and a bourgeoisie. Womens subordination is seen as form of class oppression, which is maintained (like racism) because it serve the interests of capital and the ruling class. Marxist feminists have extended traditional Marxist analysis by looking at the domestic labor as well as the wage work.

Socialist Feminism: Socialist feminism appears to adopt some of the same tenets of Marxism but instead of focusing on economic determinism as the primary source of oppression, the socialist feminist sees the oppression as having psychological and social roots. They share a genuine concern for women that transcends politics. Their focus is on people, not profits. Socialist feminism is committed to the abolition of both class and gender. It aims to over throw the current social order to end all forms of exploitation, and create a society in which maleness and femaleness are socially irrelevant. Socialist feminism likes to challenge the ideologies of capitalism and patriarchy. Much like the views of a radical feminist, it is believed that although a class, race, ethnicity, and region divide women, they all experience the same oppression for being women. Socialist feminism believes that the way to end this oppression is to put an end to a class and gender. Women must work side-by-side men in the political sphere: There must see each other as equals in all sphere of life.

Cultural feminism commends the positive aspects of what is seen as the female character or feminine personality. It is also a feminist theory of difference that praises the positive aspect of women early theorists like Jane Addams and Charlotte Perkins Gilman argued that in governing the state, cooperation, caring, and nonviolence in the settlement of conflicts society seem to be what was needed from womens virtues. Cultural feminism seeks to understand womens social relations in a society by concentrating on gender differences between women and men. This type of feminism focuses on the liberation of women through individual change, the recognition and creation masculinity. Cultural feminism utilizes essentialist understandings of male and female differences as the foundation of womens values, particularly compassion and pacifism, believing that these would conquer masculine qualities of selfi: violence, and lack of self-control in relation to sexual behavior. This was also a means to challenge the dominant cultural discourse that women were inferior and subservient to men. Efforts at fighting womens subordination included were inferior and subservient to men. Efforts at fighting womens subordination included working for womens suffrage. Womens right to free expression, and womens culture as well as outreach to: poor and working class women.

Generally, Democracy as a term is used to denote liberal democracy, which implies certain institutions and procedures. It is a form of government based on peoples mandate and balance the principle of limited government against the ideal of popular consent. Its liberal charcters are reflected in a network of internal and external checks upon government that are designed to guarantee liberty and afford citizens protection against the state. Its democratic features are based upon a system of regular and competitive elections, conducted on the basis of universal adult suffrage and political equality. According to Andrew Haywood the core features of liberal democratic regime are :

(a) constitutional government based upon formal, usually legal rules;

(b) guarantee of civil liberties and individual rights by the constitution;

(c) institutional fragmentation and a system of checks and balances;

(d) regular elections respecting the principles of universal adult suffrage and one person, one vote;

(e) political pluralism in the form of electoral choice and a party competition;

(1) a healthy civil society in which organized groups and interests enjoy independence from government;

(g) a capitalist or private enterprise economy organised along market lines (Heywood : 2000 :169).

Seymour Martin Upset: The economic freedom in the liberal democracies promotes economic growth or the per capita income. In 1959, Lipset gave a theory that more well to do nation, the best are its chances to maintain democracy. As a country develops economically, its society and people develop the skills needed to sustain democracy faster and better.

Adam Przeworski: Adam Przeworski and Limongi after studying the period 1950-1991 had calculated that in a democratic county that has a per capita income of under $ 1500, the regime has a life of eight years, with $ 1500-3000, it is 18 years and above $ 6000, it is stable. About two-thirds of democratic countries which had the per capita income of $ 9000 have been the most stable (Przeworski and Limogni: 2000 : 1-10).

The views on the relationship between democracy and economic growth have changed by the time to time. As Rodrik in his recent empirical studies based on samples of more Jhan 100 countries suggests that there is small reason to believe that democracy is conducive to lower growth over long time spans (Rodrick : 1998:2). Similarly, Barros model of economic growth covers three time decade periods (1965-75,1975-85,1985-90). He explain the following measures of correlation between democracy and economic growth:

(a) It controls included in it are : initial income, initial level of human capital (health, schooling), educational spending, fertility rate, government consumption, market distortions (black market premium, rule of law), investment terms and trade;

(b) among democracy variable like political rights and civil liberties are included;

(c) Although not so significant, but positive effect is seen if some of the controls are not included while measuring the correlation between the two:

(d) However, relationship between democracy and economic growth is nonlinear. At the low levels of democracy, more political rights foster growth but is reaches a peak at middle levels (Barro: 1996:1-27). Let us now discuss the arguments for and against democracy versus economic growth.

Democracy and Economic Growth are not compatible: The arguments by various scholars has been developed, in the context of economic growth for the developing nations that democratic freedoms and rights are almost a basic human rights and economic development does not mean more economic growth measured in terms of GDP growth and in the profits of large companies and businesses, but a more holistic phenomenon where how exactly the wealth is distributed, how many children are going to school and whether there are provisions for health care for everybody are more important. This view sees a connection between political freedoms and the fulfilment of economic needs. They also argue that political freedom can have a major role in providing relevant information in solving and fulfilling the economic needs and in providing incentives. There have been many noteworthy examples of rapid growth in some countries under liberal authoritarian regimes that has lent credence to the view that democracy is an impediment to growth. For instance Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, China, Indonesia have had authoritarian governments that were able to take fast decisions and implement them that has lead to rapid growth in these countries.

Lee Kuan yew The liberal capitalist school of thought who insists on seeing democracy is an impediment to growih advance three basic arguments. First, that democratic rights and freedoms hamper economic growth and development. This view is called as the Lee Thesis, after former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who was an ardent proponent of it. Second, if people are given a choice-between political freedom and fulfilling economic needs, people will invariably choose growth to rid themselves of economic misery and deprivation. They would not care for democracy. Third, liberal political freedoms are a western cultural.priority and obsession, and culturally it is not that important for some cultures like those to be formed in the middle-east and Asia. In Asian cultures order and discipline which facilitates prosperity are more important. As Lee Kuan Yew commented. "I do not believe that democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe that what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy". The so called Asian Tiger economies have all followed systen that has been from less than democratic to quite dictatorial. This school of thought argues what is the need for democratic rights and duties when governments think about and work for the welfare of its citizens. They have argued since collective goals are clear, principally of economic growth, the government job of delivering on them should not be hampered by democratic checks and balances (Knutsen : 2010: 455-457).

Przeworski and Limongi views, "the favourable effects between democracy and economic development as single directional; that is, economic development leads to democracy, but democracy retards economic development. Therefore democracy would be directly related with economic level, but inversely related with economic growth". They further says that. "Since wealthy countries might have reached high economic level for other reasons, but would slow down after democracy is established, while for poor countries economic development has not create a favourable environment for democracy, but thus they would also enjoy economic growth not retarded by democracy. Almost all the advanced economics of the world, including the United States, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, Russia etc, and also almost all the emerging economies in contemporary world, made their initial take off and fastest growth under non-democracy we have in mind today". This view can be stretched as for as stating that, dictatorships are needed to generate development (Przeworski and Limongi: 1997 :177).

Norwegian social scientist Jon Elster views that, "democracy does not necessarily lead to economic development, nor the other way round, even though democracy is not necessarily the best form of government for poor countries from the perspective of economic development. The point is economic development can not and should not justify simply because it is not yet clear whether democracy is more effective than its alternatives in bringing about economic development. The economic considerations can be nothing more than just an instrumental point of view, and if we regard it is a sufficient justification for non-democratic regimes (Elster: 1993 269).

Economic growth does not bother democratic value. The main purpose of economic growth is to promote economic rights only. The ideology of growth constitutes indeed, the dominant social paradigm, in both West and the East. According to Serge Latouche. Although the growth economy the offspring of the dynamic of the market economy, the two concepts should not be confused since it is possible to have a growth economy which is not also a market economy-notably the case of actually existing socialism". Growth economy can be defined as the system of economic organization that is geared, either "objectively" or deliberately, towards maximizing economic growth. The growth economy have been already created a growth society, the main features of this society are consumerism, privacy, alienation and the subsequent disintegration of social ties.

The Libertarian Critique: As motioned above, Rawls's liberal-egalitarian conception of social justice occupies a central position within contemporary political philosophy. But it is not an unchallenged or unopposed conception. Many political philosophers have criticised it and have advanced alternative conceptions of justice. Some of these criticisms and alternatives are indicated below.

Rawls's liberal-egalitarian conception of justice has been subjected to a rigorous libertarian critique by his late colleague, Robert Nozick. In his book, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Nozick draws a distinction between "end-state" and "patterning" conceptions of justice on the one hand and "historical" and entitlement-based conceptions of justice on the other. The former types of justice call for social reconstruction or patterning by the state in the name of some end stage goal. Rawls's conception of justice is, according to Nozick, such an end-state and patterning conception., which by undermining the liberty rights of the individuals is unfair or unjust to them. Instead of prescribing any end-state or patterning principles of distribution, Nozick looks for justice or injustice in the history of the acquisition of the titles to our property holdings.

According to him, the individual has absolute liberty rights, including the right to own property and exchange it in the market, regardless of the end-state or pattern of distribution it may lead to. This entitlement theory of justice, however, includes a principle of rectificatory justice, which is meant to correct past injustices, if any, in the acquisition or transfer of property. It can be seen that Nozick's libertarian conception of justice is a defence of free-market capitalism. While it is eloquent on the defence of individual rights from state interference, it is silent on the undermining of individual freedom and equality by very rich people or corporations.

Some Marxist Criticisms: Many Marxists criticise liberal egalitarians for their preoccupation with just or fair distributions within the capitalist system and their failure to address its underlying or inherent exploitative or alienating inequalities between the capitalists and the workers. The ideal communist society, which Marxism seeks to bring about through the destruction of the system of private ownership of the means of production, is envisaged as a society in which there will be no scarcity, no limits to human benevolence and no state. Since the scarcity of social primary goods and the limited nature of human benevolence are the circumstances of justice for Rawls's theory, their (presumed) absence in the communist society/makes any principles of fair or just distribution irrelevant to such a society. Instead of any such juridical, super structural distributive principle, the higher form of community envisaged by communism will function according to the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In the socialist phase, which precedes and gives birth to the higher and final communist phase, a work-based or contribution-based principle of distribution will prevail.

The collapse of Soviet communism and the growing pace of "liberalisation" in country after country, each with its own pattern of inequalities, have served to cast doubts on the "realism" of the traditional Marxist hope for the elimination of the "circumstances of injustice and for ushering in a society in which social or distributive justice is irrelevant. In fact, departing from traditional Marxism, some contemporary Marxists interpret the extraction of surplus value from the workers by the capitalists as a derived form of injustice, which, according to them, rests on a prior and larger injustice in access to the means of production. In this way, the agenda of liberal-egalitarian social justice that has been launched by Rawls seems to be having some impact on Marxism.

The Communitarian Critique: The communitarian theorists criticize Rawls's liberal-egalitarian conception of justice for its emphasis on individual rights at the expense of the good of the community. In his book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). Michael Sandel , also of Harvard University, criticises what he calls Rawls's notion of disembodied or unencumbered self or subject, in opposition to which he advances the notion of the situated self, i.e. the self or subject, who is invariably a member of a community. While, for Rawls, the right is prior to the good and justice is the first virtue of a society, for Sandel, justice is only a remedial virtue that is needed in an individualistic society. For Sandel, moreover, the common good of the community is prior to the rights of the individuals. Charles Taylor, who too is a leading communitarian political philosopher, bemoans liberalism's "atomistic" conception of the self. According to him, the well-being of the individual depends on the good of his community and therefore, the recognition and protection of the group or cultural rights of the community is not less important than the just distribution of the freedom and equality rights to the individuals.

There are different types of justice viz. procedural and substantive. One of the most path breaking works in the domain of justice has been done by Jawn Rawls. It's liberal - egalitarian conception of justice is basically a critique of the utilitarian conception of justice. Of course, Rawls too has had his critics. Thus, the Marxists, libertarians and the communitarians have criticised the Rawlsian framework on different grounds. Be that as it may, Rawls's theory has its non-standing contemporary political discourse.