Uprooting toxic inequality

Feb 24, 2017

By Andrew Hamilton SJ
In itself inequality is not harmful. It is part of the diversity proper in any human society. But the inequality that is now in question is toxic because it is extreme when measured by any scale, and because it is programmed to increase. It is self-perpetuating and self-intensifying. The increase of wealth of the few entails the marginalisation and impoverishment of others.

Fortunately, it is now notorious and is rightly resented. The cultural beliefs that have previously allowed radical inequality to be accepted as acceptable in a society have frayed. The religious understanding that each person has their God appointed station in life is no longer persuasive.

The ideological substitute — the belief that all in society benefit from unregulated economic competition — is now seen as the self-serving nonsense it has always been. Its fruits are rotten. Economic growth is now tested for fairness. It is no longer accepted as a good for which people can be sacrificed.

Resentment at the injustice inherent in an economy governed by greed ought to lead to the recognition that wealth has a social bond and is at the service of the common good, particularly to help the disadvantaged. That cooperative vision alone will lead to actions that redress increasing disparity of wealth and the resentment that its effects generate.
Much current evidence, however, suggests that resentment prompts behaviour which will intensify inequality, and so will increase resentment itself.

Resentment focuses attention on the wrongs done to oneself and not on the claims of others. So it strengthens the belief, fostered by neoliberal economic theory, that society is made up of competitive individuals and groups, and that consequently the political process is concerned with furthering one’s own interests at the expense of others. It encourages a sense of entitlement.

The wealthy believe they are entitled to increase their wealth and dispose of it as they wish. Politicians believe they are entitled to the perks of office and retirement. Sectional groups believe they are entitled to have their interests served.

Each group regards others as self-interested and tries to strip away their entitlements. Reference to such concepts as the common good and the disinterested service of the community are seen as purely rhetorical: they are deployed in order to persuade but lack conviction. Ultimately the clash between competing interests is not to be resolved by reflection on the good of society but by the decisive use of power.

It is a commonplace that disaffection and alienation lead to political fragmentation and weakness. Politicians who are not trusted cannot take the bold actions required to make the economy serve people equitably. People who are resentful look for a strong leader who will represent their interests. But those who offer themselves as strong leaders usually look after their own interests while perpetuating and further deepening the inequality that brought them to power.
History suggests that authoritarian leaders ultimately protect and extend inequality, whether in the interests of the existing beneficiaries or of the revolutionary cadres and their families. They also act to the detriment of individuals and groups who seek protection of their rights or freedom from discrimination.

Social democracy is based on trust that, through their representatives, citizens will consider the good of the whole nation and of its people. The disillusionment caused by governments extending inequality and ruling for the few imposes great strain. Democratic processes and the respect for the dignity of each human being on which they rest are threatened by increasingly authoritarian practices to divide the community and stifle dissent.--Eureka Street