RAYMOND ARON
33
greatest equality compatible with the preservation of freedom . However
brilliant these speculations may be, they neither suppress the obviousness of
certain judgements on particular cases, nor the uncertainty about society as a
whole.
Outside a society that is egalitarian in every respect, which is impossi–
ble in the absence of total despotism, the distribution of social goods follows no
simple principle. Negative judgements are easier to make than positive ones.
The advantages, monetary and otherwise, enjoyed by certain groups, pro–
fessions, or individuals, are neither justified in themselves nor in comparison
with those of other groups, professions, or individuals.
It
is easier to condemn
an unjust situation than to define the notion ofjustice that should govern soci–
ety as a whole. For every profession, in the abstract, one should take into
account the cost of training, the painfulness of the work, the contribution to
the common good, its effectiveness, without considering the moral value of
each individual. On the basis of these considerations no one, not even the
most sophisticated computational analyst, could give a categorical answer.
The distribution of individuals in jobs is largely a matter of chance. The one
who has not succeeded can blame fate and avoid his own responsibilities.
Everyone who wrote about politics out of a concern for truth was in
some sense a demystifier.
In
an age dominated by the ideas of liberty and
equality, sociologists belong more than ever to the school of suspicion . Thy do
not take at face value the language that social actors use about themselves.
The boldest or most pessimistic, no longer possessing an image or a hope of
the good society, consider their own with merciless severity. The very soci–
ety that proclaims equality of opportunity transmits, from generation
to
gen–
eration, its structure, its classes, its hierarchy; the members of these classes
change over time, but familial continuity wins out. By means of their diplo–
mas, the heirs add an extra component in their legitimacy.
Sociologists have formed diverse images of our liberal societies on the
basis of the same facts.
It
is not surprising that the children offavored fami–
lies have more chance of succeeding than the child of an industrial or agricul–
tural worker. The more the educational system puts all students together in
the same schools, hence in apparent conditions of equality, the more equality
ofopportunity appears out of reach. The illusions of the single school have
vanished; but should we be indignant because opportunities are unequal, or
congratulate ourselves because there are opportunities for many, if not for
all?
Liberal society, like every society, "socializes" the young, inculcates in
them certain values, a sense of good and evil.
In
this sense, those who have
power, who lord it over others, also impose their symbols. Is it scandalous
that the moral authority of the laws of the state strengthens, by legitimating
