Egalitarian Theory: Structural Inequality

When dealing with the issue of inequality and injustice in today’s society, there are numerous ways one can identify and tackle these concepts. Many philosophers ponder over which frameworks and means of categorization could and should be used when thinking about the topic of inequality. Commonly, current discourse is concerned with answering the question of what should be distributed equally when in reality, there are a number of questions that are important to consider when thinking about the aims of egalitarian theory. Rather than lingering on the question of ‘equality of what’, Iris Marion Young turns to a different issue and contemplates who should be analyzed when navigating the issue of injustice. What unit of analysis should be used?

Young argues that it is only through this focus on the group, rather than the individual, that we can identify these structural inequalities. In turn, these structural inequalities can restrict the of opportunities of some and reinforce unequal relations among individuals. Essentially, structural inequalities, or “set[s] of reproduced social processes that reinforce one another to enable or constrain individual actions in many ways” can only be examined after using to group categories to identify inequalities (Young 2001, pg 4). There are two examples of structural inequality that Young provides in her essay: women’s oppression and racial segregation. For one, women’s oppression has its basis in a gender division of labor in the family. The structure at play is gender roles and they operate in ways that disadvantage females. This can be seen through the lack of compensation women receive for raising children, despite this being seen as a demand of women in society. This lack of compensation negatively impacts career possibilities and renders them reliant on men. Young also explains the idea of structural inequality through the concept of racial segregation in relation to discriminatory housing policies based on race. These discriminatory policies oftentimes force people of color into underprivileged neighborhoods, which tend to lack properly funded education systems. This leads to

One such philosopher that prefers an individualist approach is Ronald Dworkin. According to Dworkin’s theory, equality should be a concern of individual right, and not one based on group. Dworkin believes that emphasizing groups in turn disregards the “many differences in the tastes, choices, and goals of individuals” (Young 2001, pg 5). In other words, a group approach will ignore the attributes that distinguish individuals and these attributes are essential when making claims of inequality. Essentially, Dworkin is concerned about the suppression of individual variation within groups. Young also points to philosopher Larry Temkin’s counterarguments. Temkin believes that focusing on the group in turn leads to a lack of concern over how individuals survive. Temkin disagrees with having the moral concern lie with the group rather than with specific individuals. Lastly, Young mentions Douglas Rae, who thinks “group-conscious assessments of inequality wrongly collapse individual circumstance to a group average” (Young 2001, pg 5). One needs to take into account individual differences and individual variations. Comparing groups could dangerously create a portrayal of unity within groups, when that is not always the way individuals of a group identify. This can