“Married with my uncle…but no more like my father than I to Hercules” —Shakespeare, Hamlet
Equality. Do we want it?
Equality is, for both the peon and the pundit alike, the political aspiration of modernity.
But what if this honored term—equality—veils something terrible which undermines all that equality is?
What if there is an iron law of psychology that says equals will always be rivals?
In every practical aspect of life, subordination exists, often without us even thinking about it. We who count ourselves fortunate (and enlightened) that we no longer obey royalty, find supervisors, bosses, sub-bosses, managers, assistants to the assistant manager, everywhere we look, never thinking how we are more enslaved than ever by iron laws of inequality.
We have less equality than ever, even as modernity itself is defined by this very idea.
In contemporary parlance: WTF?
Shakespeare’s most important point in his History Plays: Being a king sucks.
Even if you are a peon, don’t envy the king.
This is the core belief of conservatism: social progress is an illusion—because equality is an illusion.
Here is the two-part conservative wisdom:
1. Bad news for the peons: there will always be kings.
2. Good news for the peons: being a king sucks.
This is far better than radical wisdom:
1. Bad news for the peons: there will always be kings.
2. Bad news for the peons: you must kill the kings.
Being a king, being responsible, being public, being wealthy, running things? It’s no fun. You don’t want to do it.
Be glad you don’t have to do it. Better to tinker (write, paint, invent, frolic, laugh, love) under the radar.
Today we can dress better and have more girlfriends than our boss—and no one cares; not even the boss.
And why?
Because he’s our boss.
If he were our equal, then the two of us would be rivals. And then it could get nasty fast, as the ‘girlfriend count’ would become a matter of high importance. And the company would suffer, because equality would foster a rivalry that petty office hierarchy prevents.
We often notice, to our chagrin, how quickly marriages fall apart—witness the divorce rate among modern Westerners who freely and voluntarily partner with rationally and carefully chosen equals.
Not that unequal relationships survive, either—but why do equal matches fall apart just as often?
Because of the equality.
Of course it’s not equality itself that’s to blame, but equality is inevitably something else: a rivalry.
And here’s the dilemma.
Equality, that modern ideal, runs smack up against something natural and ancient and pernicious.
Nobody wants to be equal to somebody else.
And we often talk about “equal opportunity:” summed up by: ‘we know everyone is not going to be equal, but at least give everyone an equal chance to succeed.’
But this distinction is empty, since equal opportunity is a bigger illusion than mere equality; the millions of ways to be unequal are rolled into so-called “opportunities” in such a way that the whole noble “equal opportunity” ideal is never, and will never be true. There is no blank tablet, no starting from scratch; the race never begins at the beginning.
Equality and equal opportunity are merely the formulations of polite words.
The truth is, in the reality of our hearts, equality, when it does happen to exist, or is perceived to exist, is a license to fight.
“Let’s settle this now, and determine who is better at this and that, and who will make the decisions on this and that!”
Calculation (which can detect equality) is tied up with war.
The very idea of equality is like blood in the water to the sharks of real life.
As soon as calculation is able to discover equality, equality is doomed.
It is doomed to be torn apart in a fight, and equality cannot survive love, either, especially when love bends to contracts and agreements and calculations.
And the truth of love is the truth of rivalry: behind every lover stands a multitude of rivals.
Equality is not even a dream.
It’s a lie.
