Fairness is a constituent part of being human, and, contrary to basic intuition, this characteristic is not contradicted by that small percentage of the population that owns a great percentage of the capital.
The quality of fairness has been observed in our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. Thus, there is the possibility that this characteristic was present in the ancestor that we both share, or it may be a quality that co-evolved after we separated. Either way, it is not a characteristic that is solely human, but I am unable to say how many other species share this characteristic.
Fairness, as it is generally understood, results in some level of egalitarianism. But that is obviously not the current state of affairs, so how is this possible? How do these facts not contradict each other? Well, I think that that small percentage of the population who own such a large percentage of the wealth still believe in fairness, though not in the same terms that those of us at the bottom might understand this notion to operate under.
It will probably seem obvious once I state it, but I think that those with the most wealth rationalize (using this word very carefully) their situation by understanding their status to be one they have been accorded due to hard work. Thus, their belief that anyone can also reach their status with the same level of hard work allows them to continue to believe in fairness, since it is only “fair” that those who do the most work have the most wealth.
So, it appears that there are two competing orders of “fairness” — one that upholds meritocratic fairness and another that upholds equitable fairness, a “fair” distribution of wealth. I also think that this division correlates with the standard divisions between liberalism and conservativism, and Democrats and Republicans, all in accordance with the differences observed and understood by attribution theory.
The question that this generates, of course, is whether we can really say that a notion of fairness exists in humans, since it exists in multiple forms. This also possibly highlights the way in which biology is shaped by culture.
I think your analyses is a bit narrow. Just because people with wealth and privilege deem themselves to believe in Fairness, doesn’t mean that they are or that they practice it. Have you ever read bell hook’s Where We Stand: Class Matters? Being egalitarian and working for the betterment of all humanity takes WORK. Not just belief, or talkspeak. Alas, the idea of Hardwork is bullsht anyway. Everyone was helped along in some kind of way and didn’t end up where they were simply because of “hard work.” That is what I call a white male/republican phrase. BS.
Unfortunately, I don’t think you understood what I was saying. Basically, I was pointing out that “fairness” is a social construction. So, while we all have a drive for fairness, the particular form of “fairness” this takes is not always that fair. I’m well aware of the general inefficacy of “working hard,” at least as far as rising up the class ladder is concerned.
In some ways this is analogous to the many forms that sexuality can take. Most of us have a sex drive of some sort (there is a growing movement of asexuals), but there is a wide spectrum of things that “get us off.” Just the same, we all have a “fairness drive,” but, as with sexuality, this too can take various forms. I guess that makes Republicans and conservatives queer.
I don’t know about that. I am not sure about a fairness drive either. Some people don’t think that fair is legitimate. Interesting…I didn’t know asexuals were growing in numbers.