Mythic (In)Equality

There are some who would say that equality is a myth. The reasoning is stronger than the justicians of humane social structuring might care for. Hands down, I believe in the value of equality, yet equality and inequality are equally mythic and equally factual.

Differences in ability point towards inequality as a fact. So do wealth and rank. Humans are not fungible. As diversity would dictate, systems of inequality have formed. Diversity includes all the options, which means that yes, outcomes are not equal and people are not identical.

However, it is a fact that all humans are equally human. It’s a fact that life comes with messes, tribulations, and vagaries, which skew outcomes, and can be implemented for desired effect. It’s also a fact that all dogs are equally dog. When you’d need a rottweiler, a chihuahua would not suffice for its substitute.

What does this have to do with myth? Myths are narrational ideas that inform customs and decisions. They’re the beliefs that unite us, building mutual comprehension. Myth makes culture, and in this way, the norms and regulations of society are agreed on.

If you argue that equality is a myth, because nature gives us inequality and diversity, then why wouldn’t you argue that inequality itself is a myth? Think of a King. What makes him King? It’s the agreement and cooperation of his subjects that sustain his sovereignty. In the monarchal system, inequality is inexorable to its structure, yet, there is reliance on the mutually upheld belief that the King is supreme and that Kings exist. Really, it’s just a role, albeit a royal one.

They say he is a King, and that he is superior, therefore, inequal, and it is a mutually accepted myth that upholds that form of inequality. Likewise, the myth of equality says no man is a king and no woman a queen. Basically, choose your myths wisely, know they are myths, and avoid degenerative dogma. Think less of ‘these facts are stolid, impermeable facets of reality, things that never change’ and think more ‘what kinds of outcomes and social structures do I find desirable?’ I’d hope for, believe in, and argue for selecting equality as a guiding thought, even if its factual basis has gaps, and I’m telling you that it is myth that fills those gaps. The real point would be the rights to respect, dignity, and integrity, as these are things that improve quality of life, which should be the societal outcome we’d affect.

An after-thought: generally, people have been increasing in intelligence from one generation to the next, and this is good. More accurate information, more reliable science, better technology, these compound our smarts. Differences in intelligence imply inequality, and prove it as a fact. However, the mythic or subjective side to inequality allows us navigate the complexity of in/equality and provides us with the material to create equality in the right to a humane human experience. The point is to say ‘yes, we are equals in the rights we deserve.’ The purpose of this equality is to improve quality of life, because respect, dignity, and integrity innately make life better.

I feel your pain, broken one, it is something that I’ve known. Here too, there is equality: we are all messed up. Here too, there is inequality: some will care more than others, and there are certain times when care will be doled out more liberally than others. Tenderly, I apologize for your neglect. We all deserve to do our best, to follow the call that rings the clearest, to surmount the cause of truth, and know what we’d suffer for.