Equality, Equivalence, Equanimity
What, then, are the farther reaches of equality? How can the overall “cymatics of equality” progress? What would a “deeper resonance” be like? The general idea would be that deeper equality is not only an issue of distribution, but also—and perhaps ultimately—a question of transformations of the eye of the beholder. Inequality is always caused by an act of measurement, by a beholder who judges the beheld as inferior, be it our “self” or one another. The deepest forms of equality must resonate not only in social structures, but also in the hearts and minds of all participant-observers.
There’s a clear link to ideas of quantum physics, entanglement and enactment here: The “object” of inequality is non-local and interdependent with the observer. But let’s not delve deeper into it at this point. It suffices to mention that the observer herself must be part of the equation of any deeper and more radical equality.
Instead, I would like to propose a simple stage model to address this issue. Not that the farther stages of equality are anywhere within reach in the present world, but just to understand where we might be heading long-term, inshallah .
Equality , stage one, is the struggle to make people more equal , to even out the real, visceral differences between us: the rich and the poor, the privileged and the underprivileged, the powerful and the disempowered, the enfranchised and the disenfranchised, the respected and the despised.
The six dimensions of equality all play into this struggle. There is an almost infinite amount of work to be done as obviously unjust inequalities saturate every aspect of our lives. The greatest inequality is of course the global divide between rich and poor—and thus, this must be our first and foremost focus.
In practical terms, we are so far from any form of global equality that we must also strive towards more local forms of equality; relative equality within the borders of countries. This is in order to curb the destructive effects of inequality upon each society so that these may develop in stable manners that serve the emergence of a transnational, global order which is fairer and more adaptive than our current morass of global governance (or lack thereof).
We need to let some societies—nations, city hubs and local communities—become nodes in the network that is the intermeshed transnational, metamodern , world order. Of course, this cannot happen unless people in these societies develop postmodern and metamodern values, and that can only happen if there isn’t rampant inequality across all six dimensions.
Equality means making people more equal—in a sense, more alike. This is the classical understanding of equality within socialism and all modern ideologies. It is the kind of underlying assumption that still drives almost all the research into inequality—and all the practical policies towards the same end.
Equivalence goes deeper than that. It is the struggle for people to truly feel as equals, that we are of equal value or worth. After all, the very notion of equality is ridden with paradoxes. Ultimately, we cannot be equal since we are not alike. In fact, we are so very different from one another that even a theoretical state of “perfect equality of opportunity”, a perfect meritocracy, (and the even yet more impossible “equality of information”) would serve to highlight our differences and legitimize our inequalities.
Is there a way out of this paradox? There might be. What if equality could run so deeply that we genuinely feel as equals, in the sense that we are all world citizens and sentient beings? This is equivalence , the genuine sense of equal worth . Such an embodied sense would protect us not only from many exploitations and injustices, but also from many venues of self-blame and inferiority.
Such equivalence has already, to a certain extent, become reality through one of the great modern projects: liberal democracy, in which we are equal before the law, cast equally valid votes and so forth. Equivalence is also, in extension, the utopian or spiritual goal of socialism.
Modernity holds that people are endowed with sacred and inviolable, natural rights—unfortunately yet to be extended to other animals—and as such endowed with some kind of basic dignity. [70] We are “all humans”, “all individual citizens of the state”, “all workers of the people’s republic”, and so forth.
But in reality, the disempowered, disenfranchised, disdained and emotionally impoverished find little solace in this “formal” or legal idea of equivalence. It goes some way to make us feel like equals, but in practice, we hardly feel like dignified equals of one another.
If there could be a deeper form of equivalence, one that is felt and embodied by many more of us, this would work against the paradoxes of equality. If we genuinely felt the equal value of ourselves and others, many of the corrosive effects of inequality would certainly be mitigated. We could accept our differences and still feel as dignified equals.
Can we awaken in ourselves and one another a profound sense of dignity inherent to every human? This must be a goal that lies beyond formal, legal and material equality. Hence, equivalence is a higher stage than simple equality.
Equanimity goes deeper still. It is the spiritual and psychological struggle to give up our deeply seated tendency to judge and evaluate ourselves and others in the first place. You could say it’s about transcending “the spectrum of judgment” (the scale of negative emotions) altogether, or to become less enthralled by the need to possess a comparatively positive self-image—an ego.
I snatched the term from Buddhist teachings in which “equanimity” is practiced as a mental stance of accepting our mental and bodily states as well as our life situations and ongoing events. As such it is linked to higher subjective and spiritual inner states and can only be achieved in a society in which the average inner state is much higher and the social logics of everyday life are governed as little as possible by the underlying negative emotions of the spectrum of judgment.
Equanimity doesn’t mean that we give up discernment; we still need to evaluate the behaviors, ideas and efforts of one another. It just means there is a fundamental sense of “okay-ness”, of acceptance —that our differences and inequalities no longer remain such a big deal.
And it certainly doesn’t mean that we no longer care about inequalities and injustices—which Buddhism is often accused of by the Left.
In practice, true equanimity would only be conceivable in a state of profound material, emotional, social and existential abundance. So it’s not really a conceivable goal for society anytime soon. It would be a society in which we obviously are not equals, but where that still—and strangely—is okay; where everyone “is okay”, where people are not only tolerated but accepted .
Acceptance, in this sense, is the negative side of love. When we love someone fully, it is not only that we cherish their strengths and potentials, but that we accept their weaknesses and struggles. Such love can be found in some of the best families and long-lasting marriages.
Dare we ask of ourselves, for the future of humanity, to aspire for such an acceptance of all creatures under the sun? Here we return to the core of Christianity and other world religions. In a state of genuine non-hierarchical non-judgment, our inequalities can be treated more productively as differences —and nothing more.
Of course, equanimity of this kind would mean the end of that paradoxical phantom still haunting us: envy. When we no longer judge ourselves, we are no longer obsessed with the strengths and weaknesses of one another. And what lies beyond a life of fear, guilt, shame and Sklavenmoral ; beyond hatred, judgment, disdain and envy?
There it is again, waiting for us, the crazy Nietzschean moustache: the Übermensch , the attractor point that draws us beyond the category of humanity and its limitations.
Perhaps, in the future, we can stumble upon it. Inshallah . And, as with freedom, we can begin to see that the higher goal of societal development is not so much to achieve “perfect equality”, but rat
her to render the very struggle for equality obsolete .
Equality, equivalence and equanimity—there is the progression, from leveling the unfair differences between us, to adopting a more profound sense of value for all, to letting go of our strange human obsession with impossible comparisons, ultimately rendering equality itself obsolete .
But if the latter two are so distant, are they not merely a distraction from humanity’s struggle for a more realistic equality? They can be. Why, then, have I presented them here?
Because they can still show up momentarily , in limited settings, for shorter periods of time, in small incubators within our personal relationships and some of the metamodern internet tribes out there. They might not stabilize or spread, but only flicker past us during our lives. But as such they can remind us of the deeper meaning of equality, and thus subtly steer the development of the world-system.
In such settings, where equanimity reigns, creativity must be held higher than equality. The longing for equality must not get in the way of creative processes that can help us achieve human flourishing in the first place. We must become lovers of the will to power—the power of ourselves and one another to create and to transcend.
Spirituality as a Class Magnifier
No discussion about inequality is complete without a consideration of “class”. For brevity, however, I will not delve deeply into the question, but I should mention that distinctions of class are significantly transformed in postindustrial societies—as well as across the global world-system—and that this has repercussions not only for the struggle for deeper equality, but also for the development of the world-system as a whole.
The main issue is that the classical delineations of class, as one’s relation to financial capital under the industrial mode of production, no longer act as a satisfying way to understand the stratifications of our current society. Rather, we should understand class as a complex amalgamate of different forms of capital: financial, cultural, social, emotional, physiological (including sexual) and informational. More on this new landscape of class in this endnote. [71]
To this sketchy picture I would like to add one important detail: the interactions of “class” with spirituality and self-improvement.
There has been great confusion, especially among observers on the political Left and other progressives, as to which role spirituality and related forms of self-improvement play in postindustrial society.
The most common understanding is perhaps still that spirituality, especially of the New Age kind, is a dangerous distraction from “real” societal issues and social engagement—and that self-improvement courses offer an “individualization” of societal ills and injustices. Such practices are often seen as allies to neo-liberal capitalism as “the individual” only has herself to blame and her own mind to work on: “don’t protest, just go home and meditate”. I should especially address the issue as my own work—which focuses much on the inner development of the population—can be subject to similar reactions.
I would suggest another understanding of the relation between spirituality and class, one that will need to remain on the hypothetical level until we can study it with relevant data: namely that spirituality and self-improvement are in effect magnifying glasses of class distinctions .
Here’s what I mean. If you are already in a position of financial security, good access to information and cultural sensitivity to frauds and trends, you can partake in high quality meditation courses and self-development programs that are scientifically supported and help you learn new things about yourself. This will generally improve your life quality further and make you more socially, emotionally and economically proficient.
But if you are on the opposite end of this class spectrum—and you have little money, little access to good information, little ability to critically evaluate wild claims and promises, and generally find yourself in a more desperate situation (in a “scarcity mindset”)—you are likely to be sold ineffective magic gems, expensive diet supplements, fortune teller services, astrological consulting and all manner of harmful bogus ideas (like “The Secret”, the idea that you can “materialize” wealth by thinking of money, through “quantum mechanics”). All of this makes you waste valuable time, money, attention and resources on stuff that further impoverishes your life. Your spiritual beliefs simply make you vulnerable to crude exploitation.
So you have a scale of class —understood in its widest sense—that is magnified by the growth of spiritual practices and self-improvement in society. Far from all people have a rich spiritual life, but in the minority who does adopt spiritual worldviews, class differences are increased.
At the top of this scale you find what I call integralists (after the followers of Ken Wilber’s elaborate “integral spirituality”). These folks are the relatively privileged ones who adopt difficult and esoteric teachings and subtle body practices, and drill them arduously for years—and who manage to keep a scientific worldview (uhm, relatively ) intact in the process. Their thinking and life experience are enriched and they develop greater existential depth and higher subjective states, even to the point where they themselves can sell these services at favorable prices. They are enriched across the scale.
The middle segment we can call the yoga bourgeoisie . These might dabble in a little astrology and quick-fix “life-changing” courses and eat some silly supplements, but by and large they are still energized by their spiritual practices and are comfortable enough economically to do so with good conscience. They might believe in a little magic here and there, but they generally understand that they should keep such discussions to themselves and don’t spoil their professional lives in the process.
And then, on the low end of the scale, we have what I call the astrology precariat . [72] Here the magic beliefs of desperate people result in a heightened vulnerability, which leads to a cruel commercialization of the human soul.
In a capitalist society, made hyper-commercialized with the advent of the internet, disempowered people are made to believe in the worst imaginable nonsense, and there really is no end to the venues of exploitation: conspiracy theories, aliens, ghosts, past lives, “healing”, alternatives to vaccine, Scientology, divination—the list goes on, and there is no end to the supply side and the inhuman cynicism with which it is tooted, packaged and sold to those weathered faces lined in pain.
But the hopes and aspirations of the astrology precariat are betrayed as no quick-fixes materialize beyond some initial placebo. And then you just spent the last year paying healers to help you when what you really needed was to get your life and finances more organized. And you end up even more desperate and gullible. People in the astrology precariat very often suffer from severe mental illness and distress—and often end up in psychiatric care (psychiatrists can attest to the prevalence of people with borderline syndrome who have been exploited by quacks and con artists).
It is tempting, from a classical Left perspective, to think spirituality and self-improvement are simply nonsense and offer no path towards deeper equality. Yet I would hold that they, in fact, are keys to transforming society, even beyond equality, taking us closer to equivalence and equanimity. However, I would be wary of any attempt to center the transformation of society on spirituality and self-improvement alone . This would only lead to an exacerbation of inequality in its most profound and venomous sense.
Spirituality and inner self-improvement are heavy drugs; they are indeed a double-edged sword. Today, they have become a magnifying glass for inequality and class stratification; tomorrow, inshallah , they can become universal tools of empowerment, emancipation and universal solidarity.
Would it be so strange if, at the enigmatically silent depths of our human (or posthuman) hearts and minds, we will find deeper equality?
Chapter 8:
THE EVOLUTION OF NORMS
Confused? Perturbed? Wondering where all of this is going? That’s okay, I understand it’s a lot to unpack, but please keep up the good work and don’t feel shy to read some of the previous chapters in this book or its prequel if certain things remain unclear. I can assure you it’ll be worth it.
Thus far I have presented the anatomies of order (the state), freedom and equality over an axis of development, showing that the order progresses towards an increasing intimacy of control, that freedom progresses through “emotional regimes”, and that equality, through its six dimensions, progresses towards the deeper principles of equivalence and equanimity.
In Book One I also introduced the idea that humans and their societies evolve through a set of “effective value memes”, from traditional to modern to postmodern to metamodern—this is briefly discussed in Appendix B of this volume. Now I will tie these things together.
But to do that, I need to introduce one more fundamental concept. Until this point, I have left one system of societal progression out of the picture—the development of norms , i.e. of the simple rules that guide everyday behavior by means of social rewards and penalties.
This is, luckily, a much easier concept to understand. Norms regulate what is normal behavior, and thus which behaviors are repeated as habits. To have a fuller picture of societal development, this part must also be addressed and related to the other ones (order, freedom, equality and value meme). Let us now introduce the idea of a system of norms , and then put it together with the other systems.
Cultural Penalties and Rewards
Norms are simple rules, injunctions, ideals and taboos that steer our behavior in everyday life, all attached with weighted penalties and rewards. Just as there are economic incentives for us to do certain things (like getting a job), so there is any number of cultural incentives for us to act in certain ways, present ourselves in certain ways, or to avoid certain behaviors, ideas or values.
Nordic Ideology Page 20