Dennis Pachernegg
Sep 2, 2018 · 1 min read

I would argue instead that the structural inequalities (…) Their insidious nature makes them hard to detect and correct.

The diagnosis that inequality is “structural” doesn’t, in and of itself, tell you anything of value.

It doesn’t tell you which particular structures are responsible, neither what their relative importance is for the observed outcome, nor does it give you any obvious starting point for fixing them.

And unless you have successfully fixed one structure, it isn’t even clear that they can be fixed.

But there is another issue, that is far more grave:

“Inequalities are structural” amounts to a tautological statement, insofar as it can’t be proven or disproven. And any theory that isn’t falsifiable is, strictly speaking, not even scientific.

Take the theory of gravity: It predicts that every vase falls to the center of the earth, if kicked off a table. Would you see the vase fly away, you’d know that the theory was wrong.

Now apply that to the hypothesis that “inequalities are structural”. What real-world observations prove it true? And what observations would prove it false?

If you can’t think of any observations that would prove it wrong, how would you test your hypothesis? And if you can’t test it, how would you know it’s true in the first place?

In my estimation, this talk about “structures” doesn’t get one anywhere. It appears like a dead end, that contemporaty social policy has maneuvered itself into.

    Dennis Pachernegg

    Written by

    Berlin-based brand strategist and copywriter. Into blockchain, complexity and integral stuff.