Democratic Egalitarianism And Individualism In America's Society

The Hypocrisy of Egalitarianism and Individualism in America’s Society
Gregory Faircloth
Norfolk State University - Social Welfare Policy and Services
Abstract
Democratic egalitarianism and individualism and how hypocritical society is in regards to the two are the subject matter of this essay. Various notable philosophers and authors have dissected these terms and their meanings relative to human life and society many times in the past. It is obvious to most how democratic egalitarianism and individualism can contradictory in many ways. The complexity of the two is not readily abundant due to examining the values of an American society. In society, these values do not hold up to the true meanings of democratic egalitarianism and individualism.
The approach to how these differ from its definition is taken from that of a social worker. Upon entering grade school in America, one of the first history lessons taught is the creation of the American Constitution and its Bill of Rights. This “set in stone” document would have one to think that every man, woman, and child are created equal, as far as rights and status. In some way, these rights have become values of the American people, but these values are not practiced as intended. This type of hypocrisy is not too complex to approach from a sociological point of view because it is more blatant than realized.
Egalitarianism is hypocrisy in itself.
By definition, egalitarianism is all citizens are created equal, no one is above the next citizen, and all privileges are the same. The contrast in this is something that is seen on a daily basis. We are all put into social and economic classes. This structure separates citizens based on income and resources. The wealthy are upper class with better opportunities and resources, middle class citizens have standards based off of what has been disposed of from the upper, and lower class basically are left with the lesser of the two, income and resources. This unprecedented structure sets an “I’m better than you.” tone from the top to the bottom. The more resources that are available to a person, the more powerful they can become, which then gives them a bump up in their social class and possibly on to the next phase in the
structure.
Egalitarianism pans out to different aspects of society.
Democratic egalitarianism is one subject that may be a bit more complex to dissect and justify than the others. It reserves the goal of the justice of the distribution of economic goods and burdens to ascertain and secure the essential social relations entailed by connection in a democratic public. It also pertains to hierarchical and oppressive matters. Although democratic egalitarianism relates to equality, some who believe in the practice turn natural arbitrary aspects into disadvantages that may cripple others. This naturally generates into the lowers of the totem pole to have very little say in any instances of decision making.
Individualism, where any citizen of American can achieve any level of success based on their personal motivation and attempt, is comparatively the same as egalitarianism. According to this practice, one is expected to be reliant on one’s self and responsible for one’s own life. As mentioned previously, a person can only be as reliant as the resources available. Every American is entitled to what the next may have, but difficulty may arise if they aren’t socially inclined to what is needed to succeed in society. This is where lower class, or middle even, can become victims of
circumstances.
…the individual has an existence only as a producer of exchange value, hence that the whole negation of his natural existence is already implied; that he is therefore entirely determined by society; that this further presupposes a division of labour etc., in which the individual is already posited in relations other than that of mere exchanger, etc. That therefore this presupposition by no means arises either out of the individual’s will or out of the immediate nature of the individual, but that it is, rather, historical, and posits the individual as already determined by society. (Karl Marx via Springborg, 1984, p. 537)
Democratic egalitarianism and individualism are very much related in having features of hypocritical anomalies. Subsequently, our natural rights subject us to equality. The jobs and goals of social workers as sociological enhancers are to help those who may view this as a handicap. In lieu of becoming apart of these hypocrisies, aiding them in achieving their own successes should be ultimate in social work.
References
Day, P. and Schiele, J. (2012). A New History of Social Welfare.
Maffesoli, M. (1996). The Decline of Individualism in a Mass Society. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=36elPGofHRUC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=individualism&ots=hV-2MFQcC8&sig=2TZmJv0h5oMhy7xn4hpurQtLFGw#v=onepage&q=individualism&f=false.
Saynal, S. (2012, July). The Defense of Democratic Egalitarianism. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1475588/A_Defence_of_Democratic_Egalitarianism.
Springborg, P. (1984) Karl Marx on Democracy, Participation, Voting, and Equality, Political Theory, Vol. 12, No. 4. Pages 537-556.
Winn, J. (2014, February 16) Marx on Individualism, Equality, and Democracy.
Retrieved from http://josswinn.org/2014/02/marx-on-individualism-equality-and-democracy/.