In any discussion of human rank ordering it is important to make a distinction between authority and rank. An individual may have authority over a certain area of expertise and therefore be looked to for information and insight and help in that area as an authority. It does not necessarily follow that that expert will have a higher rank and/or be entitled to more privileges.
There have been societies in which equality is not a concern because there is no inequality. It doesn't mean that differences of all kinds were not recognized; it does mean that those differences did not lead to the unequal treatment of individuals as human beings worthy of equal respect and dignity. This was true for the Bantu in Africa and Indians in North America. But regardless of whether it has existed before, there is no reason why it cannot be understood as an important principle for thinking about what kind of society we (some of us) might want to live in. Interestingly, among Jews, the inherited rank of Cohane, or priest, while it gives the bearer of title the obligation and right to lead in certain parts of religious services, does not entitle that person to any privileges outside of the religious rituals. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 7:28 AM Subject: Is inequality good for you? > In the answers given to the above question in the FT last week in the > discussion between Michael Prowse (who said No) and Amity Shlaes (who said > Yes) I found I had a substantial mental reservation in each of the articles. > > In the case of Michael Prowse's article, although he was quite right to say > that the earliest human groups were egalitarian to a considerable extent > (such as sharing food), he was wrong to suggest that there would have been > no rank orderings and thus little stress. But strict rank order has been > found in all primate groups with consequent stress levels in all ranks > below the top one. What's important is not to try and dissolve rank order > in some egalitarian nirvana -- because that's impossible -- but to organise > our institutions with as few levels as possible. > > One weak point in Amity Shlaes' article concerned what she saw as the > benefits of the low quality educational system in America (in that she said > it encouraged personal creativity). I though this was a silly point. > Teaching basic skills thoroughly doesn't militate against creativity -- > indeed, it's a necessary precursor. The following letter in today's FT > concentrates on this weakness on Shlaes' article (and also reinforces the > point I frequently make on FW that America's economic success is due mainly > to the immigration of talented foreignors): > > <<<< > If inequality is good for you, an open door to talent is even better > > Sir, The debate between Michael Prowse and Amity Shlaes on the virtues of > egalitarianism and inequality (FT Weekend, December 7/8), provided a > fascinating read. > > Mr prowse suggests that, in contrast to today's unequal capitalist world, > for most of human history we had lived in small, egalitarian and > consensus-driven groups of hunters and gatherers, more equal and happier > then today as a result. Such arguments are not new and have been mounted > against modernity for a long time. They tend to paitn an unrealistic > picture of idyllic tribal existence. They ignore the fact that an average > human stood small chance of survival past the age of 30, in large part > owing to dangers from fellow humans, who resolved issues of relative status > with clubs and spears. Ms Shlaes (whose point of view I generally share) > gushes at the splendid results that education neglect of American teenagers > has for he country's economy, because it supposedly produces creative > thinkers who translate playing Nintendo into superior software-writing > skills. Curious, then, that the US software indsutry is driven largely by > foreign-born entrepreneurs and computer progrmmers from India, China and > Russia, where the educational emphasis is on discipline and rigorous > pursuit of hard sciences. > > The main strength of the US is not benign neglect of its youth; it is its > openness to top foreign talent, which is allowed to enter and compensate > for the deficiency of secondary education in the US.Experts agree that US > secondary schools are inferior to those of many other countries. However, > its universities and graduate school draw on the best foreign students. who > tend to win admission to these elite schools because of their rigorous > primary education. Armed with advanced degrees from Columbia, Harvard and > MIT, they go on to power the US's knowledge economy and drive growth. > > Ms Shlaes' argument is better served by lauding US openness to foreign > talent than by singing the praises of an educational system painfully in > need of reform. > > Batan M. Shklyar, > Cambridge, MA, US > >>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------ > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________
