JULIET M ITCH ELL
391
ly and differently can of them. The socialist and communist perspec–
tive suggests that "equality" in capitalist society is based on class
inequality ; in a classless society there will still be differences or
inequalities , inequalities between individuals, strengths or handicaps
of various kinds. There will be differences between men and women ,
differences among women and among men; a truly just society based
on collective ownership and equal distribution would take these
inequalities into account and give more to those who needed more and
ask for more from those who could give more . This would be a true
recognition of the individual in the qualities that are essential to his
humanity.
When the liberal concept of equality-the ideal of a revolutionary
bourgeoisie-has to oppose not conservatism , as it did in Mill 's case ,
but a system of thinking such as that of socialism which looks to a new
future , then its own radicalism is weakened and that is what has been
happening in a somewhat sporadic fashion since the last part of the last
century.
A crisis in the history of the concept of equality can , I think , be
marked by one book that epitomizes the problem : the publication of
the HalleyStewart lectures that the socialist historian R. H . Tawney gave
in 1929. The book , entitled
Equality ,
is a most moving document–
a humanitarian plea for equality as , quite simply, a correct , indeed
the
correct principle of civilization . The framework within which Tawney
argues for equality is that ofmoral and ethical philosophy; the terms in
which he assesses the progress of equality are those of poverty and
disparity of opportunity particularly in education . There is no under–
lying analysis of a class-antagonistic society and even in the lengthy
epilogue written in 1950 the racial minorities in Britain are not
mentioned , the position ofwomen is not hinted at. Yet Tawney's own
recommendations transcend the limitations of his belief in equality :
he must argue for redistribution of wealth and for more collective
provision of social services . His argument follows the liberal tradition
but starts to look beyond it and sees that the freedom of privilege must
be controlled ; freedom in a class society is freedom for one class to
exploit another .
It was not malicious oversight that made Tawney fail to see
women as a deprived group-when he was writing women were simply
not seen as a group at all. Ten years before he wrote and roughly fifteen
