Egalitarian is one of those words I know very well,
yet never seem to hear. It names the doctrine or person who promotes equality, a keyword in the economic
climate of today. I hear about equality, inequality, and the need for equality
all the time, Occupy Wall Street being a particularly poignant example, yet I
do not recall hearing anyone describe themselves or their views as egalitarian.
I can only conjecture as to why, by looking at the history of the word. Egalitarian comes from the Latin aequalis,
for equal. At first egalitarian was actually equalitarian,
which made much more sense. The first recorded use of equalitarian
happened 3 September, 1799[1],
by Robert Southey. Southey spoke of a conversation about equalitarian doctrine
in the gospel. There is no direct reference to the situation in France or the
French revolution, but given his interest in the topic – he had helped write The
Fall of Robespierre after all – I find it difficult to believe that the
French Revolution did not come up in some form or another. The last recorded
usage of equalitarian was in 1837 in the Blackwell Magazine. There is a
nearly fifty year gap before the concept was referenced again; by now the word had
adopted French qualities and become egalitarian, in 1885[2],
in E. C. G. Murray’s Under the Lens: Social Photographs. It was a
commentary on the socio-political scene in Britain of the time. There was no
mention of the French, and thus why equalitarian had become francized cannot be
found in the book. However, in France there was a heated struggle between
monarchists and republicans of the French government, and though E.C.G. Murray
does not refer to the French many others did - “In warlike but egalitarian
France,”[3]
“The
violent egalitarian mood which had now for a year and more driven the military
fury of the Republic,”[4] to
name a couple such instances. If the connections between egalitarian and the political climate are true, then during the
inception of both equalitarian and egalitarian the concept and application
of egalitarianism in politics were
being pushed to the forefront of debate. These were times when people were
discussing egalitarianism itself and
egalitarian policy, and being egalitarian
was something relatively new and special. There was a need to identify who or
what was egalitarian and not. Now that
need has largely disappeared as egalitarianism
has become somewhat of a standard value. Whenever I hear someone talk about
income gaps and inequalities (whether they be TED talks or protesters in the
streets) their message is not ‘this is why we should believe in equality’ but
‘there is inequality, and here is how to fix it’. The general focus now is
pointing out inequalities, and waiting for people to be compelled to make it
equal. Equality is used to refer to
the end goal; egalitarian is instead
a brand. It was used to help form the identity and ideals of equality-minded
people in politically tumultuous times. Now that the identity is fully formed
and accepted, the need for the word egalitarian
has seemingly faded.
References
“egalitarian, adj. and n.”
The Oxford English Dictionary.
2nd
ed. 1989. OED Online.
Oxford University
Press. 14 November 2012 <http://dictionary.oed.com/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment