Obama is on the warpath about equality; this ultimately may be something like a mid-life crisis, as Barry O. tries to prove to his early supporters that he’s still “cool” after years of drone warfare — but it is at least leftoid, and worth considering a little bit. Verso had a book from Negri out a couple of years ago called Political Descartes, a hatchet job on “possessive individualism” as a result of the familiar externalist litanies. But what if there really was more to political equality than meets the philosophical eye?
“I have never understood the passion for equality”, said Peirce’s friend Oliver Wendell Holmes. Yet waves upon waves of metaphysical anti-individualism have done little to disturb the importance of droits de l’homme, even if Simon Blackburn takes it as ‘obvious’ that some people have the worth of others many times over. Perhaps pragmatism was a first inkling of something that appeared full-blown in Chomsky’s theoretical writings, the idea that the equality of abilities among human beings is, roughly, empirically verified by enlightened measures.
In a surprisingly comic line, Adorno doubted that running a trust was ultimately more complicated than reading a meter; and perhaps once the still-existing left gets over a Deleuzist fascination with flows and flesh and all that rhizomatic jazz the early-modern era will appear like something more than a time when “the rich were so mean” — the structures of capitalism yield political equality as a matter of something more than ‘onto-theology’, more than denatured Christianity, but rather as a corollary of modern praxis.

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 23, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Beany Garbonzo
This doesn’t sound like the post of someone who believes in the equal abilities of human beings. Concerning, for example, questions of justice.
February 24, 2013 at 11:20 am
jeffrubard
I am not really discussing Rawlsian questions, and at any rate Rawls has a curiously foreshortened picture of the human ability to deliberate. The idea (even if it is half-baked) is that modernity’s notions of “equaliberty”, in contrast to the estates of feudalism, are not deduced a priori from an equality of humans before God but are really *empirical* consequences of capitalist social organization that naturally push us beyond capitalist social organization.
February 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Beany Garbonzo
As far as I know modern liberal democracy and the capitalism that goes with it was egalitarian in principle from its origins in Locke and Hobbes and others. The question concerning the rationality of egalitarianism has to be taken up with these early modern philosophers.
Ancient democracy was also egalitarian but without even the pretense of a philosophical deduction. It does not take any grand argument for the demos to be persuaded that it deserves an equal share of the public honors.
If I may be bold I think you are presupposing too much historical materialism, whether by that name or another, in your suggestion that egalitarianism derives from capitalism.
In any case what I meant by my comment was that you yourself do not appear to be an egalitarian in matters of philosophy, given your sharp ranking of various people’s opinions. Does this not seem inconsistent to you with the claim that people have equal capacities by nature?
March 11, 2013 at 1:00 am
Joe Eiwen
Mr. Jeff Rubard is still the man.
March 11, 2013 at 2:07 pm
jeffrubard
Well, I’m trying to be a *person*. Hey, Joe.