You might be familiar with this image, which is a diagrammatic explanation of equality.* You might even have instinctually understood it. The funny thing about equality though, is that we all think we know what someone is talking about when they talk about it, but it’s actually a complex concept with a number of perspectives that many people have never really thought about.
Before taking a subject on international human rights law and women as part of my Masters, I didn’t realise there were different types of equality, and wouldn’t have described myself as a radical feminist. In fact, I wouldn’t really have described myself as much of a feminist at all.
Equality is all well and good, but haven't we achieved it? We have all these laws which say that men and women need to be treated equally, and you can't discriminate against someone because of their gender, sex or marital status. What more is there?
Well, it turns out, a lot. You see, there's a difference between equality and equity, and my mind was blown when this was pointed out to me. To me, equality was equal treatment and it never entered my mind that the structures of society might be an equation.
I was so fascinated by this idea that I wrote a paper on it. Looking back on that paper today, I realise it barely scratches the surface, but I think it's a topic worth returning to because of just how many people out there believe that to achieve equality all you have to do is treat people equally.
So what is Equality?
Equality as a concept involves competing social values spanning the political spectrum from the individualism and freedom of traditional liberalism, to the interventionist welfare and solidarity values fundamental to social democrats. Depending on which end of the spectrum you sit, equality will look different to you. Traditional liberalism says that equality de jure (formal equality) - consistent treatment of individuals regardless of any subjective difference - is equality. If you're a social democrat, you'll tend to believe that true equality can only be achieved by breaking down or dismantling structures which entrench inequality - which is known as de facto or substantive equality.
Formal Equality
In my experience, formal equality is the type of equality most critics of feminism believe in. It’s the ‘everyone should be treated equally’ form of equality where people (men and women) argue that feminism is pointless because nowadays, women are treated equally. As Phoebe in Friends once said ‘We can drive, we can vote – what more do we want?’ It appears in arguments such as women-only spaces are discrimination against men, and men should be allowed similar spaces if there is to be true equality.
It is a valid perspective, but it's not the whole story. In order to understand why, lets talk about what formal equality actually is, and what it aims to do.
Theoretically, formal equality uses an abstract individual (usually from the dominant paradigm) as a starting point, and insists that group-based characteristics (such as gender) are not relevant. The group-based characteristics are replaced with merit based criteria for equality. Formal equality does not recognise that in some contexts group-based characteristics are not only relevant, but important. In formal equality, characteristics of the dominant group are ‘the norm’ and conformity to the norm is the price for equal treatment.
Basically, formal equality upholds men as the ‘norm’ against which the treatment of women should be measured. It seeks to address inequality by making rules about what happens if a disadvantaged person is not treated equally.
The problem with formal equality is that laws which appear neutral on their face actually reproduce inherent discrimination of certain groups of individuals. Laws have been created by and exist in entrenched ideologies (eg. patriarchal structures such as parliament and the legal system) that further engender (no pun intended) the disparity between groups. By assuming that these underlying ideologies are neutral, formal equality fails because no counter-ideology is provided and it does not take into account the fact that people do not approach the law (or society generally) on an equal footing or level playing field.
It's not intentional, it's just what happens when you take the most privileged version of a human being and require everyone else to compete based on merit.
Formal equality served as a starting point for women to achieve equality in a variety of social spheres. When it became clear that the treatment of women did not match the treatment given to an ‘abstract individual’ (ie. a man), discrimination became real and needed to be addressed. The problem is, when dominant groups are confronted with laws mandating they accommodate groups they previously dominated, the perhaps instinctive response is to evade the laws by creating systems where formal equality obscures the effect of the disadvantage whilst at the same time legitimising the historic and existing contexts of inequality.
Wow, so theoretical, right? A concrete example of this are workplace promotions – where rules around the selection of the successful candidate are based on formal equality. Promotion in the workplace is merit based. Any person, regardless of gender, is eligible for promotion where they are the most skilled, experienced and suited for the role. On its face, this is not discriminatory. In reality, women (particularly mothers) are less likely to be successful due to having taken time off due to pregnancy/maternity leave, working part-time on return to work or otherwise requiring flexible arrangements to look after children. These factors mean that a woman cannot gain the same level of skill or experience as a man employed in the same role at the same time unless she chooses not to have children, or gives over their care to someone else full time. This is compounded by the fact that women are predominantly still expected to be primary care-givers.
Critics will decry this example as advocating for promoting people willy-nilly, regardless of merit, arguing that in order for this to be addressed undeserving women would have to be promoted over better qualified men.
If formal equality was the only option, this might be the case. The fact that formal equality does not address the existing allocation of resources and power, and instead assumes equality in bargaining ability between men and women is the issue here. Formal equality seeks to ‘even the playing field’ to the level of men, without taking into consideration any of the specific needs or requirements of women. In the example of workplace promotion (and most areas of gender-based discrimination), improvement cannot be accomplished solely by relying on formal equality. Rather, the achievement of true equality is a complex and progressive process which requires consultation with the women directly affected.
Substantive Equality
Substantive equality calls for recognition of the inequality rooted in political, social and economic divisions between men and women (or other groups) and dramatic change to address the inequality. It is a form of equality not popular with those within the dominant paradigm as it requires them to relinquish their position, privilege and power with no guarantee that they will be given similar roles in the restructure.
Substantive equality takes into account the complexity of inequality, its systematic nature and the way it is entrenched in social values and behaviours, mostly without the knowledge of the dominant group (although, the cynic in me has to wonder whether this is in fact the case).
Substantive equality has four major aims:
- Breaking the cycle of disadvantage associated with ‘othering’ of certain groups;
- Redressing stigma, stereotyping, humiliation and violence by promoting respect for the equal dignity and worth of all;
- Positive affirmation and celebration of identity;
- Facilitation of full participation in society.
The focus of substantive equality is on the disadvantage, not characteristics of a group. This means that the discussion about discrimination is often moved towards anti-poverty, welfare or social inclusion policies which seek to address systematic inequality. As a result, substantive equality is challenging to implement, entering as it does into the fraught territory of policy and law (both areas predominantly staffed by men with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo).
Substantive equality takes into account the disadvantage experienced by a group because of shared characteristics, and attempts to address the imbalance along these lines. Recognising that formal equality obstructs progress towards true equality, substantive equality permits classifications along race, gender or other lines in order to achieve greater equality across the board.
One of the most important (if not the most important), insights of substantive equality is the knowledge that societal discrimination extends beyond individual acts of prejudice. Where formal equality assumes that there is a status quo until it is broken by the actions of an actor, substantive equality works on the basis that there is no status quo and that certain groups of people (in this case, women), start from a position of disadvantage by virtue of the historical subjugation and de-valuing of their contribution to society.
Substantive equality acknowledges that the patriarchy is entrenched in most, if not all, facets of society. Because of this, it is impossible for women and men to start on an equal footing – the fact that today’s society has been built on the favourable treatment of men means that its underpinnings are biased towards men – whether intentionally or not. As a result, in order to achieve equality requires us (being women and men committed to equality for all) to ‘destroy the joint’ or ‘smash the patriarchy’ in order to create true equality.
What does this mean?
I'm guessing it's pretty clear that I’m firmly in the camp of substantive equality. Personally, I don’t see how you could see the contrasting historical value placed on men and women and the patriarchal underpinnings of modern society and then not want to change things from the ground up rather than put a band-aid over them. But like I said – substantive equality is a much harder job, not only in the restructure of society, but also in convincing those with the power to give it up.
A practical solution to gender inequality requires approaches from both formal and substantive equality. Making and upholding anti-discrimination laws – an example of formal equality – is important action which must continue. This kind of action shows the commitment of governments to equality for women and begins the cultural change of valuing women’s difference and role in society.
However, this approach does not take into account the inequality entrenched in the patriarchal society in which virtually all women live. So, substantive equality must also play a role in advancing women’s rights. In particular, achieving equality for women will require the underlying causes of inequality to be addressed. The difference between men and women must be recognised, acknowledged and acted upon.
The difficulty is, this approach draws criticism from those for who formal equality is the only equality and who cannot fathom the radical idea of a society not built on the patriarchy. Those people will continue to argue that women are ‘overcompensated’ for the difference and that true equality means everyone being treated the same, regardless of difference.
It’s important to add that (obviously) this discussion is gendered in the extreme and doesn’t take into account those who don’t identify with any particular gender. My personal hope is that by revolutionising the way we look at the binary cis-genders in the context of equality, we will be able to have a much more subtle and nuanced conversation which benefits people who are transgender, intersex or genderqueer.
And why stop at gender equality? Around the world, we see formal equality failing numerous minority groups, and the members of those groups rising up for substantive change to the system.
For someone like me, the incremental changes that try to address the substantive issues in the system are like a snail in an Olympic 100 metre sprint. Sometimes it feels like we might as well be standing still.
But change is coming, and we can all be part of it by better understanding the structures that maintain the status quo.
*I could only trace it back to 9gag, if you have the original source, I'd love to link it.