The notion that large, general, quite hard to define terms such as “history” or “ideology” matter more than personality, proximity, and access in the development and shape of individual lives in liberal, democratic Western countries is something I find dubious. But Continental philosophers of recent centuries past, led by Hegel, have quite a lot of insight into why history will never quite be killed off, clearing the way for no legitimate alternatives except capitalist democracy or a collectivistic utopia. Interestingly, Lenin – a homicidal fanatic who had no qualms about clearing away human bodies for abstract vision – had a clear headed, realistic view of the formation of community: “who, whom?”
Ethnic and gender inequality (defined as statistical group difference) is a dangerous topic to discuss – dangerous to careers (see Summers, Larry), dangerous to the maintenance of status, dangerous to the continuation of games of moral superiority in polite society. But it is vitally important to think about, especially as we learn much more about genes. Biology will never go away, and I bet it will slap around our good and decent thoughts quite a lot in the coming decades. Group difference is interesting and important. I am very far from an expert, but we must begin to think about it, and we must set aside definitions of racism and sexism so devolved as to have lost any significant meaning.
As globalization advances, we see how pervasive ethnic inequality is across the world. How does culture impact inequality? IQ and other measurements of human capital and cognitive ability? Geography? Let’s begin to consider it seriously. It is exceedingly difficult to create wealth, and people (generally tribal, I think, for quite understandable reasons, beginning with safety) seek ways to keep it out of the hands of strangers and into the hands of descendents. Some groups – Jews, Chinese, Lebanese Christians to take three examples – seem to have quite a talent for it, even when uneasily existing as a tiny immigrant minority, sometimes quite fiercely persecuted (Europe, Indonesia and the Philippines, and the Middle East respectively). Here, Amy Chua has created the useful term “market-dominated minorities.” Why then is there such economic inequality between hereditary groups? This is a question with many potentially fascinating and complex answers.
The U.S., thankfully, has equal protection under the law, however imperfect. Wealth creators do not have to depend upon extended families for safety and the enforcement of contracts. Many countries, sadly, need insular clan and tribe trust. Absent ties of blood or marriage, who will protect them? Globalization explodes these often quite ancient, possibly intractable issues. What if the poorer majorities become poorer by market liberalization and the “market-dominated minorities” are significantly richer, even as the economies grow and prosperity spreads? What if there is little that can be done about this because of culture, custom, and yes, even biology? The U.S. can have capitalism and democracy because there seem to be a large number of market-orientated people. Yet the opposite examples are formidable: Venezuela and Indonesia to take two. There, democratically elected governments took action, complete with human rights violations, against successful market minorities. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say those who replaced the minorities are inept compared to their predecessors. Property rights and democracy are laudable goals, yet perhaps they do not always mix nearly as well as we think.
How should Catholics tackle these huge, messy issues? Beyond loving your neighbor as yourself and the Lord God with all your heart, I have no idea.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In