On Equality

[VIROS 2915]

On Equality

 

An Essay Regarding Recent Political Sentiments and Fashions

 

        I had occasion recently to read a certain essay on the subject of inequality. The author contended that Orenian society was suffering because of our tolerance of those of mixed blood. These individuals, he argued, were of inferior birth and would inhibit the progress our Empire has achieved. He further asserted that they had attained high offices in our nation not through their own competence, but instead through a social fad of ‘equality’, whereby the disadvantaged were raised above their natural position to achieve some moral satisfaction. In the author’s viewpoint, inequality was quite a natural and desirable thing, because competition between unequally-matched individuals drove progress. Thus, we were called to abandon the fad of equality, and to return society to its natural, unequal state.

 

        This topic, of equality and inequality, has been of much public interest recently. Our society is at a fascinating juncture where we must reconcile our past with our present. Historically, the Empire has engaged in certain discriminatory practices (I use discriminatory here in the most neutral sense, of dividing one thing from another), such as barring commoners, foreigners, mixed-bloods, or women from certain offices and dignities. Generally, the stated bases for these prohibitions were either: A. That the particular group naturally lacked the competence for the office, or B. That the group was in some way dishonorable, and membership in it ought to be discouraged by way of social exclusion. We can intuit, then, the unstated assumption that the most competent and honorable members of our society were high-born, native-born, men of purely human descent. Individuals with these overlapping identities were not barred from any office or dignity by mere reason of birth.

 

        However, we must also note that despite the tradition of privileging the aforementioned groups, it has never been the case that their counterparts were altogether excluded. The Empire has always had a meritocratic strain, and individuals of sufficient competence have risen to high offices despite their disadvantages. Some elves have achieved much success in human society (e.g. Tristin Tresury, Darius DeNurem, Minuvas Melphestaus), as have some lowborn human women in patriarchal, aristocratic environments (e.g. Renna Talraen and Celestine Herbert). In other cases, it was not meritocracy but aristocracy that raised individuals above their social disadvantages: we need only observe the unfortunate cases of High Pontiff Pius I, an elf born to the ancient noble house of Silverblade, and Emperor Robert I, who was a quarter-elf and called ‘the Quadroon’.

 

        We see, then, that when it is convenient for the country to make use of an individual, whether because that individual is competent (in the cases of Darius DeNurem and Renna Talraen) or because he is supported by powerful allies (in the cases of Pius I and Robert I), then they were thrust into office without regard for their supposed defects. We can also see that this practice is common historically speaking, stretching all the way to the time of the Old Kingdom of Oren through the various empires, to today. So we must dismiss the reactionary notion that there has ever been a time in Orenian history when such inequalities were enforced in any real, strict sense.

 

        Even so, we do acknowledge that certain inequalities (such as those of individual physical or mental ability) are indeed naturally occurring, and they do have the desirable and meritocratic effect of causing capable individuals to rise to the top. However, these truly natural inequalities do not need external social forces like laws to enact their proper and meritocratic effect. There are no laws prohibiting simpletons from public office because simpletons, by virtue of their personal defects, are incapable of attaining such offices in the first place. 

 

(I have no doubt that, upon hearing the aforementioned, those whose politics are merely rhetoric and aesthetic are now clamoring to declare that the House of Commons is proof that simpletons can attain high office. How droll.)

 

        Likewise, if a disadvantaged group is barred from office not because of its inborn incompetence, but because it is dishonorable and membership in it ought to be discouraged, such prohibition would only be effective if membership in the group was voluntary, and therefore could be discouraged at all. But this is not the case for such common ‘defects’ as being mixed-blooded, foreign-born, lowborn, or a woman.

 

        We have seen that when a member of a disadvantaged group is successful in high office, anti-egalitarians will either ignore them or treat them as an exception to the rule. Yet, when such a disadvantaged individual is unsuccessful in high office, anti-egalitarians raise them up as an archetype of their group. e.g. In the recent debate surrounding the Rosemoor Bill, it was fashionable for anti-feminists to point to Empress Anne’s unfortunate expulsion of the Kingdom of Haense as evidence that women were unfit for leadership. Yet what of the more than twenty male emperors who preceded her, many of whom failed in more spectacular ways? At least Anne I did not oversee the abolition of her own Empire, unlike several of her predecessors. We do not see anyone calling for the removal of men from public office on account of the failures of emperors Orian I or Philip the Arrogant

 

        This reactionary preoccupation with excluding some individuals from the public sphere because of the circumstances of their birth is, in reality, a form of scapegoating. By definition, most people are of mediocre ability. Accordingly, for such average persons, the only advantage they might possess is that they were born into one or more privileged groups for whom certain roles are reserved; the luckiest of these persons are high-born, native-born, men of purely human descent. Discriminatory practices and laws are really a form of job security for such privileged individuals of mediocre ability. While they must still compete with both talented and mediocre members of their own class, along with a handful of particularly talented ‘exceptions’ from disadvantaged groups, they are saved from competing with the masses of perfectly average women, elves, and mixed-blooded individuals in the country. 

 

        Thus, if we truly believe that competition is the only vehicle for progress, and we truly believe in meritocracy, then it is in our country’s best interest to remove discriminatory practices rather than to add them. If it is true that women, commoners, nonhumans, or mixed-blooded individuals are, by nature of their birth, inferior in ability, why is it so dangerous that the law should permit them to compete with human noblemen of pure blood? Either the disadvantaged person in question is an average member of his or her class, which means he or she is inferior in ability and will fail, or he or she is an ‘exception’, and so should be allowed to rise beyond his or her birth. In either case, whether there is truly some naturally inferiority or not, the resulting competition will be of great use to the progress of society.

 

IUSTITIA OMNIBUS,

HIH Josephine Augusta, Duchess of Sunholdt

 

[LithiumSedai 5750]

Holy Sir Armand Talraen took note of the well-written rebuke, and with delight read the mention of his ancestor as an example of competence! However, he felt that the conclusion really drove the point home.

 

"That is," he spoke, "the most sensible counter-proposal to exclusionary policies."

[Urahra 5781]

Anthony Bentarus picks up a copy of Her Highness’s rebuttal from his local print shoppe. He goes to his favorite cafe to read it over a cup of coffee.

 

”Utterly inspired!” he declares, slapping the paper onto the table with such vigor that it nearly toppled his coffee cup. “Her Highness has the right of it. If women, Adunians, and nonhumans are so inferior… then why are these people so terrified of them that they must encode their inferiority into law? No, the source of exclusionary policy is cowardice, just as the good princess said!”

 

A few of the cafe patrons eye this strange man talking to himself, but decline to comment - as talking to one’s self in public appears to be an Orenian pastime.

[EmiliainWonderland 2311]

Maria wasn't sure how to feel about the paper at first but she soon found herself agreeing with many of the points given. "Yes. What exactly are they afraid of?"