Not similar, therefore not equal

 

If two things are not similar, they cannot be equal. This is true in mathematics, and mathematics doesn’t lie. No two men are similar, and no two women are similar either. It is plain to see that if they are not even similar, they cannot be equal. Given the large number of people (all different from each other), the governors in the system are faced with a tangled ball of wool that refuses to show its loose end from where they can begin. Understandably, for purposes of governance, administrations categorize a large number of unequal individuals into sets that can then be addressed to en masse.  

Most real-world situations have hundreds and thousands of variables and intangibles. Models are constructed so that complex situations can be given a shape and form that is amenable to analysis and policy formulation. The challenge in constructing a model is that on one hand the model has to be a simplified version of the complex reality, and on the other its oversimplification would perhaps not be a true representation. In this process, one invariably makes certain assumptions. Thereafter while planning at the macroeconomic level the process would, in effect, evolve plans based on a host of ridiculous generalizations. How sensible does it appear, for instance, when it may be inherent in the government’s dispensation that all men between 18 and 25 belonging to a certain region and a certain income group think alike?  

In socioeconomic modeling, we assume that all men are equal. Not only that, in the name of egalitarian dispensation, we zealously go on assuming men as equal to women. It is unfortunately the most unrealistic assumption, which we go on living with. This leads to skewed policy formulations, which eventually reflect in aggrieved masses.

Granted that placing people in different groups helps selective elimination, which, in turn, narrows the band of alternate choices to a manageable size. However, caution is the key in such an exercise. These classifications should remain tools for administrations rather than badges on the foreheads of our people.

That said, it is necessary that equality we try for must essentially be equality in opportunities provided to our people. These should be lower school and college fees, uniform and book allowances, free mid-career refresher courses, and many other possible supports. A whole group tagged by its religious beliefs, tribe or sex should not be provided safe havens where they would ensconce themselves without delivering what that position demands.

Nothing should be reserved for any set of individuals, no matter what tag they bear on their chests. For instance, men and women alike would go through the selection process our armed forces have designed. Many men fail to pass muster and some women fail too. The selection is based on the yardsticks that are cogent with the needs of the armed forces.      

Airlines worldwide started out with a “women only” norm in their in-flight service for they thought it was their business need. They changed that at some point in time, for we now see many men serving as stewards and pursers.

Coming to the workplace, this equality thing manifests itself in several ways. One of them is the idea of seamless office space where glass cabins and wood partitions are torn down to make the CEO look equal to the manager and the intern who joined the other day. Some offices continue with the ethos, while most quickly relinquish it. Reason: it simply is not very smart to have your business conversations disturbed by your colleague sitting next to you. This and other such steps are misadventures emanating from incapacity to distinguish between equality of opportunity and apparent equality that shall not add any value.   

Merit, defined in terms of number of certificates and diplomas, does not have universal appeal. There are situations where athletic build would be a merit, and there are situations where nimble fingers are desirable. Jobs can obviously not be reserved for people who may consider themselves meritorious on any one particular measure they fancy.

Equality can only be a qualifier for opportunity, not for people.

Pradeep Goorha