The Political Egalitarian’s Dilemma

Political egalitarianism is at the core of most normative conceptions of democratic legitimacy. It finds its minimal expression in the “one person one vote” formula. In the literature on deliberative democracy, political equality is typically interpreted in a more demanding sense, but different interpretations of what political equality requires can be identified. In this paper I shall argue that the attempt to specify political equality in deliberative democracy is affected by a dilemma. I shall illustrate the political egalitarian’s dilemma by a hypothetical choice between two informational bases for political equality: Rawlsian primary goods and Amartya Sen’s capability approach. The political egalitarian’s dilemma reveals a clash between the requirement of ensuring equal possibilities to participate in the democratic process and the requirement of subjecting substantive judgments to deliberative evaluation. As such, the dilemma is a variant of the procedure vs. substance dilemma that is well-known in democratic theory. While it has sometimes been argued that deliberative democracy solves the tension between procedure and substance, the political egalitarian’s dilemma shows that this tension continues within deliberative democracy.

What's So Egalitarian About Luck Egalitarianism?

Luck egalitarians typically hold that it is bad for some to be worse off than others through no fault or choice of their own. In this paper I want to address two complaints against standard luck egalitarianism that do not question responsibility‐sensitivity (or ‘luck‐ism’). The first objection says that equality itself lacks inherent non‐instrumental value, and so the luckist component ought to be attached to a different pattern, say prioritarianism (thus producing ‘luck‐prioritarianism’). The second objection also endorses luckism but worries that luck egalitarianism as conventionally formulated is committed in fact to neutralizing not just brute luck but also option luck. And this would mean, among other things, compensating unsuccessful gamblers, which is something many egalitarians find counterintuitive. My aim is to show that there is a way for luck egalitarianism to meet both criticisms; that it can maintain its egalitarian credentials while avoiding the counterintuitive consequences of compensating unsuccessful gamblers. To do so, I propose, we ought to understand luck egalitarianism as resting on the disvalue of being arbitrarily worse off compared to others. In addition, I suggest, the badness of luck egalitarian inequality – that of arbitrary disadvantage – has both an inter‐personal and an intra‐personal dimension.     

Exemptions for Whom? On the Relevant Focus of Egalitarian Concern

Granting differential treatment is often considered a way of placing some groups in a better position in order to maintain or improve their cultural, economic, health-related or other conditions, and to address persistent inequalities. Critics of multiculturalism have pointed out the tension between protection for groups and protection for group members. The ‘rule-and-exemption’ approach has generally been conceived as more resistant to such criticism insofar as exemptions are not conceded to minorities or ethical and religious groups as such, but to individuals who are part of those groups. However, I show that when a government grants an exemption, it inevitably provides a definition of the relevant group in question, and the tendency is to take cultural membership as ‘given’ or as defined by group spokespersons. I discuss some problems related to these definitions and defend instead a definition based on shared group interests.     

Can Darwinian Feminism Save Female Autonomy and Leadership in Egalitarian Society?

As a Darwinian feminist I welcome any attempt at correcting the historical neglect of women’s roles in human evolution, as Rebecca J. Hannagan (2008, in this issue) does in her paper “Gendered Political Behavior: A Darwinian Feminist Approach.” There is much to be said for the view that women’s political agency in foraging societies has systematically been underestimated, due to a combination of researcher bias and the lesser visibility of women’s political strategies. As a feminist Darwinian, however, I must conclude that wishful thinking seems to have led Hannagan into overestimating the degree of female autonomy and leadership in these societies.     

Studying Sexual Harassment in the Laboratory: Are Egalitarian Women at Higher Risk?

A laboratory experiment is reported in whichmale participants in Northern Italy (N = 120 universitystudents) were given the opportunity to sendpornographic material to a female interaction partner(“computer harassmentparadigm”). The allegedgender-role orientation of the female (traditional vs.egalitarian) and the construal of the interaction aseither intergroup or interpersonal were variedsystematically. Results show that participants molest femaleinteraction partners more when they express egalitarianrather than traditional gender-role attitudes; this isparticularly true for males with a high propensity to harass (high scores on likelihood of sexualharassment scale, Pryor, 1987), with sexist attitudes,with a strong identification as “males,” andfor low self-monitors. Also, males with a highpropensity to harass were more likely to harass theirinteraction partner when they perceived the situation asa male-female inter-group setting (rather than asinterpersonal). Results are interpreted as supporting a social identity account ofmisogyny.     

Using Egalitarian Items to Measure Men’s and Women’s Family Roles

This study was designed to show that measuring gender ideology by egalitarian items might be problematic, as gender egalitarianism is not simply the reverse of gender traditionalism and includes very different stances. Egalitarian items are likely to lead to an insufficient discrimination between traditional and non-traditional respondents. While the former often ignore the egalitarian stance, the latter hold different egalitarian positions which prevents agreement with any specific item. Empirical evidence is reported from quantitative and qualitative data: an international survey based on random samples (n?=?5.692) and a cognitive study, which was conducted in Germany by both internet (n?=?889) and telephone (n?=?285). Here, the selection of a response category was analyzed by using probing questions.     

What is Social Equality? An Analysis of Status Equality as a Strongly Egalitarian Ideal

What kind of equality should we value and why? Current debate centres around whether distributive equality is valuable. However, it is not the only (potentially) morally significant form of equality. David Miller and T. M. Scanlon have emphasised the importance of social equality—a strongly egalitarian notion distinct from distributive equality, and which cannot be reduced to a concern for overall welfare or the welfare of the worst-off. However, as debate tends to focus on distribution, social equality has been neglected and we do not have a clear understanding of what it is and why it might be valuable. This paper aims to address this gap.     

Parental Role Portrayals in Twentieth Century Children’s Picture Books: More Egalitarian or Ongoing Stereotyping?

Gender role stereotyping continues to dominate within many media forms. This research examined the portrayals of mothers and fathers as companions, disciplinarians, caregivers, nurturers, and providers in 300 twentieth century children’s picture books randomly selected from the Children’s Catalog (H.W. Wilson Company, 2001). The books were published in the United States between the years of 1902 and 2000. The list of texts was stratified by time periods before sampling. The impact of time of publication upon each of the five parental role constructs was assessed using cross-tabulations. Previous analyses suggest traditional parental role portrayals are commonplace, but by employing time of publication as an independent variable, the researchers questioned whether an evolvement of roles would be noted. By examining the father and mother role performances independently over time it was expected that some progression toward egalitarianism would be noted. Overall, mothers did outperform fathers in nurturing and caregiving, and fathers outperformed mothers in companion and providing behaviors. However, when these behaviors were cross-tabulated with time of publication, no significant role evolvement was found. For example, while not statistically significant, father characters were most likely to nurture, provide care, and act as a child’s companion in books published in the 1970s, but these behaviors declined in subsequent time periods. The role evolvement of mother characters also lacked statistical significance, suggesting that the traditional male breadwinner-female homemaker model has been consistently portrayed in children’s picture books.     

Are members of low status groups perceived as bad, or badly off? Egalitarian negative associations and automatic prejudice

Three studies explored the hypothesis that implicit measures of prejudice can tap negative, yet egalitarian associations. In Study 1, automatically associating African Americans with oppression predicted greater automatic prejudice. In Studies 2 and 3, classically conditioning associations between the novel group Noffians and words like oppressed, maltreated, and victimized led to greater automatic prejudice against Noffians. Results suggest that White Americans’ negative automatic associations with African Americans may partly result from associating members of low status groups with unfair circumstances. Because automatic associations predict prejudiced behaviors, the burden of proof is on those wishing to argue that egalitarian negative associations complicate the assessment of automatic attitudes rather than contribute to prejudiced responses. Discussion focuses on the implications of egalitarian negative associations for the theory and measurement of automatic prejudice.     

Allies Against Sexism: The Impact of Men’s Egalitarian Versus Paternalistic Confrontation on Women’s Empowerment and Well-Being

Sex Roles - Men as advantaged group members can be involved in actions against inequality. But how do women experience men’s confrontation of sexism? We examine how women perceive men’s...     

Is One’s Own Ethnic Prejudice Always Subtle? The Inconsistency of Prejudice Endorsement and Prejudice Awareness Depends on Self-Related Egalitarian Standards and Motivations

Abstract

In light of current egalitarian norms, it seems intuitive to assume that people endorsing ethnically prejudicial beliefs are largely unaware of their xenophobic content. However, a cognitive consistency perspective would suggest that individuals with low anti-prejudice standards might care less if their opinions are prejudiced. Corroborating this idea, Study 1 (N?=?919) reveals that intra-individually the endorsement of prejudicial beliefs was negatively related to their evaluation as xenophobic (prejudice awareness), but more so among individuals with strong self-related egalitarian standards. Study 2 (N?=?1,201) replicates these findings and shows that egalitarian standards salience led to a stronger negative association between prejudice endorsement and awareness. This suggests that low-egalitarians are less suitable targets for awareness-raising components of anti-prejudice interventions.