When we say that people are equal, what do we mean?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”  

So states the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (US 1776), the founding document of the United States of America. Similar declarations of the rights and equality of humankind were made across Europe in the eighteenth century, inspired by Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. As the statement above suggests, these philosophers maintained that all humans were born equal in dignity; that is, that they came into this world with natural rights to the same opportunities and chances to make the most of their talents. These concepts of equality are the bedrock of democracy; the soundness of republics depend on the idea that each citizen should have a voice and an opportunity to exercise it.

The idea of political equality as a birthright is undoubtedly noble in principle. But what does it look like in practice? And what needs to happen so that every human is guaranteed real equality? Is true equality even possible? The two and a half centuries since the penning of the Declaration of Independence have shown that the meaning of equality in practice is a far trickier and more complex question, and one that remains unresolved in 2022. 

To investigate the meaning of equality, this essay first provides some brief history on the Enlightenment origins of the idea of equality as a birthright, in contrast to Communist ideas of equality. It then delves into the complex history of failures and successes in putting ideas of equality into practice, concluding that the mitigation of inequalities in institutions and systems is what we really should mean when we say that people are equal. It’s not enough to proclaim equality in principle; it requires a constant, steady attention to the details and practices of inequalities.

The Origins of “Equality”

The idea that people should be considered equal didn’t exist until the eighteenth century (Peters). Before that, in the West and the East, hierarchical and organic views of the world dominated. Society was stratified according to the division of labor, which was in turn linked to individual differences in ability. As Nicholas Capaldi points out, the individual person was only considered insofar as their role in the social order: “individuals were fulfilled when they performed their relevant proper function in maintaining the city’s freedom”(2). Even for those thinkers like Aristotle who discussed equality talked about it as like treatment of similar persons, e.g. wealthy Athenian-born citizens. 

The concept of human equality first took root in the eighteenth-century ideas of European and British Enlightenment philosophers, who wrestled with questions of the government’s role in human affairs. One heavily influential idea at the time of the American and French independence was Locke’s “law of nature,” the idea that the natural condition of humankind is characterized by freedom and equality. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke maintains that God the creator did not grant superiority to any individuals: “In races of mankind and families of the world, there remains not to one above another”(7, qtd in Broers). As this suggests, Locke’s conception of equality drew heavily from a Christian perspective, wherein all human beings are considered morally equal in the eyes of God. Rights to happiness, liberty, and property were absolute, derived from an individual’s relationship to God. Locke held to a Protestant framework, characterized by more individualistic, merit-based views; there was equality before the law, but differentiation based on individual achievement--i.e., a meritocracy.

Of course, the main competitor to Enlightenment concepts of equality like that of Locke came from Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto (1848), an understanding of equality that eventually took hold most firmly in eastern Europe, China, and North Korea. Under Communism, equality did not mean equally protected rights under the law. Rather, it meant having equal access to the means of production. The main inequality that Communism identified was that between the bourgeoisie class, which owned the means of production, and the proletariat class, which exchanged labor for wages. 

As Capaldi points out, definitions of equality (and all definitions) are not simply descriptive concepts, but normative or prescriptive ones. That is, they prescribe how we should think about equality rather than simply describing what equality is. To clarify further, the moment anything is defined (“X means this”), an attitude and program of action is automatically set in motion. This program can clearly be seen in the competing definitions of equality set out by Communism and Enlightenment philosophers. 

For instance, when equality is defined as having identical access to means of production (as in Communism), then one program suggested is the abolition of private property, which eliminates differentiated classes of people. Lenin wrote,

The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth. (“A Liberal Professor”)

As justification for Communist definitions of equality, Lenin pointed to the hypocrisy of the U.S., which proclaimed equality of all its citizens under the law (according to Enlightenment principles of equality), but in which only some (the bourgeoisie) had access to the means of production. However, the Communist attempt to impose equality via the concentration of government power has largely proved a failure on a massive scale, resulting in mass murder, severe oppression, and widespread poverty (Somin). 

Likewise, when human equality means something that should be legally protected (the view of Locke and other Enlightenment philosophers), it sets into motion a program of action involving legislation and public policy. With laws promoting human equality as impetus, over the long haul this definition has meant a continual re-examination of legally governed institutions and systems for inequalities. While the ground is constantly shifting as external circumstances change, countries governed by Locke’s law have witnessed steadily improving equality among citizens. However, given certain loopholes in the Enlightenment definition of equality, the law-driven program has taken centuries to enact. 

Loopholes to Equality

Given that in the Enlightenment definition, equality was protected by law, in theory one might expect that all humans were treated equally and given the same opportunities. However, one glance at the long history of slavery in Europe and the U.S. and the suppression of women, immigrants, and other groups, makes it obvious that the practice of equality came much slower than the definition. 

The Protestant ideals of meritocratic equality created a loophole for genuine equality of all individuals before the law. For centuries, the idea that some people work harder or are better by virtue of talents given them by God and therefore deserve more provided justification for certain citizens to be uplifted, and others to be denigrated and given less. In the West, these groups included women and people of color, including slaves and inhabitants of colonized countries.

To justify what now seems like obvious promotion of inequality, oppressors used wide-ranging notions of merit to keep certain groups of people from equal participation in the economic and political sphere. For instance, eighteenth century physicians and anatomists argued that since women had keener nerves than men, they were more sensitive and likely to be adversely affected by their surroundings. The nineteenth century saw a flourishing of pseudosciences like phrenology, which used the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits, to uphold white supremacy and delegitimize claims for equality by nonwhite groups. Likewise, statistical data was manipulated and weaponized against people of color to make racist claims that they were genetically unfit, a different species from whites, innately criminal, and more (“Scientific Racism”).

Even as obvious instances of inequality continued to persist, however, Locke’s legal definition of equality continued to work in the background, and many used his ideas to advocate for the equality of repressed groups. In her proto-feminist 1792 essay Vindication of the Rights of Women, for instance, Mary Wollstonecraft responded to assertions that only men are destined to live on a public stage, and that therefore only they should receive a public education; women should receive only domestic educations that would be suited to a more private, secluded life. Wollstonecraft (and others) argued that both men and women are equal in the eyes of God, and are both subject to the same moral law. She argued that only because of their lack of rational education did women appear to be more sensitive and unfit for participation in the public sphere. Women, she held, should be afforded equal opportunities in rational education. Wollstonecraft paved the way for the mid-nineteenth-century suffragette movement, which argued for women’s right to vote. Likewise, mid-nineteenth-century civil rights expansions outlawed slavery in the U.S., guaranteed equal rights for all and citizenship for black people, and prevented race from being used as a means of disenfranchisement.

Rethinking Legal Equality

On the surface, this governmental reaffirmation of equality would appear to be the end of the struggle. However, as we know, technical equality before the law doesn’t necessarily mean true equality. Equality is best seen by looking for inequalities: the thousands of different instances where some individuals or groups receive preferential treatment. Inequality is built into all structures and institutions, and to weed it out sometimes requires the upheaval or even the eradication of these structures. 

Accordingly, in subsequent civil rights movements across the world, “equality” has taken on a different tenor. No longer considered to be “natural law,” the struggle for equality has focused on disparities, discrimination, and unfair treatment by those traditionally denied equality, including women, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, and LGBTQIA+ people. As equality for various groups became enshrined in law, it has become clearer that applying the law to create equality (or reduce inequality) means rethinking institutions from the bottom up. 

For instance, in the U.S., Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity in any education program that receives financial assistance from the government. The application of Title IX began with creating gender equality in U.S. high school and college sports: to continue to receive federal funding, schools must pass one of three tests measuring gender equality. Later, in the Obama administration, Title IX was expanded to curtail sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools, requiring another rethinking of how institutions do their work in order to promote equality.

Similarly, the American Disability Act (ADA) protected the rights of people with disabilities: “the right to equal opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and equitable participation in every aspect of American life.” Importantly, the ADA meant that the physical environment must be changed so that people with disabilities could participate equally to those who were able-bodied. The ADA instilled the principle of “universal design,” meaning that the design of all elements of the physical environment, including products, tools, websites, communications technologies, transportation, and buildings are all designed to improve accessibility and address the needs of people with disabilities so they have a chance to participate equally in everyday life. 

In both instances, Title IX and the ADA, we see Enlightenment definitions of equality (which maintain that all people are equal before the law) put into practice. The practice of equality comes to mean that the systems and institutions in which we all work should be legally bound to ensure opportunities that allow all to participate, regardless of vagaries of birth like physical and mental capabilities, race, gender, sexual orientation, and more. The grounds of equity shift; an institution isn’t “fixed” once and for all to be equal, but must be continually monitored as circumstances change and more inequalities are revealed. 

Ongoing Struggles for Equality

Climate justice is proving to be the next frontier in the struggle for equality as defined by the Enlightenment philosophers. Climate change challenges some of the very tenets of equality before the law because it goes beyond individual government borders. By uncontrollable factors like place of birth, many individuals live in places that are likely to become inhabitable. But they have no claim to equal opportunities in areas where they are not citizens. The worsening refugee crises as governments fight over resources like oil, water, and habitable living space are likely to worsen as the planet heats up and triggers scenarios that have been previously unknown to civilization. Inequality will undoubtedly arise as a result of these changing circumstances, and the question of how to mitigate these inequalities will likely present a thorny challenge to governments who uphold Enlightenment concepts of equality. 

The coming crisis in equality reminds us that while equality is not about creating equal conditions for everyone, it is about recognizing that everyone is equal in dignity. Defining people as equal means taking actions to remove systematic obstacles that prevent them from living dignified lives.

Works Cited

Broers, Adalei. “John Locke on Equality, Toleration, and the Atheist Exception.” Inquiries Journal vol. 1, no. 12, 2009, inquiriesjournal.com/articles/75/2/john-locke-on-equality-toleration-and-the-atheist-exception.

Capaldi, Nicholas. “The Meaning of Equality.” Hoover Institution, pp. 1-33, hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817928626_1.pdf

Equality and Human Rights Commission. “What is the Equality Act?” 28 Apr. 2022, equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act-2010/what-equality-act. 

Lenin, V.I. “A Liberal Professor on Equality.” Put Pravdy, no. 33, 1914. Marxists Internet Archive marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm.

“Scientific Racism.” Harvard Library, library.harvard.edu/confronting-anti-black-racism/scientific-racism.

Somin, Ilya. “Lessons from a Century of Communism.” The Washington Post,  7 Nov. 2017, washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/. 

Peters, Michael A. “Why Equality Matters.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 13 Sept. 2011, Wiley Online Library, doi-org.uidaho.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00806.x.

Office for Civil Rights (OCR). “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.” HHS.gov, 27 Oct. 2021, hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/title-ix-education-amendments/index.html.

“Universal Design and Accessibility.” Section 508, Mar. 2022, section508.gov/develop/universal-design/.