Walzer’s Explanation on Complex Equality and The Necessity for Blocked Exchanges
Eccentric communitarian, Michael Walzer, is recognized for his significant contribution to the field of political philosophy by virtue of his theory on complex equality, where he outlines the elimination of domination as a potential path forward to achieving general equality between individuals and between institutions of power (Walzer, xii). Though abstract in nature, the proposed principles put forth in Walzer’s Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality provide a novel way to reconsider distributive justice, the concept of the right distribution of social goods in a societal setting. Viewing traditional equality as “ripe for betrayal,” Walzer details how certain individuals may in fact abuse their position(s) of power for their relative gain, resulting in intentional inequality between different stakeholders (Walzer, xiii). For example, the division of sought-after positions between themselves (Walzer, xiii). Unfortunately, this can occur within the fields of business, healthcare, and even education. Indeed, wealth can be used as an instrument of change, for better or worse. Hence, the theory of complex equality sets forth a strategy to prevent such an outcome. Therefore, to thwart such a consequence, complex equality blocks a constituent’s ability to abuse their relative position in one sphere such as business, to create a systematic competitive advantage in another, such as politics, at the cost of external parties.
The Notion of Complex Equality
Although the concept of equality may imply the equal distribution of social goods within a particular society, the initial and final division of items may be different. People may decide to invest, save, or spend, resulting in a unique and unequal distribution depending upon the choice. The process can result in the creation of a monopoly, which has a large market position relative to its competitors. For example, a successful businesswoman may generate not only wealth for herself but also establish an enduring empire. So, let’s assume that her company possesses a variety of interests across industries such as real estate, consumer products, and energy, making her firm a dominant conglomerate in the sphere of business. While contemporary egalitarians and prominent philosophers of numerous eras would criticize the accumulation of such wealth within the specified sphere due to the emergence of monopoly power, Walzer is not as disturbed by the power that would accrue to organizations or people throughout the process (Walzer, 17). What Walzer is actually concerned about is the abuse of such dominance in a different domain such as education (Walzer, 17). The author views traditional equality, defined as the equal distribution of social goods in this case, as a “radically simplified distributive system” and admits that monopolies are here to stay within individual spheres. Thus, he proposes complex equality as an alternative solution to think about distributive justice (Walzer, 17).
Walzer highlights how the theme of dominance is pervasive across numerous economics systems, ranging from capitalism to socialism (Walzer, xiii). While particular inequalities within a sphere are inevitable, such as the existence of a monopoly, the diffusion of such power into another domain is classified as dominance. As Walzer states, “the aim of political egalitarianism… is not a hope for the elimination of differences; we don’t all have to be the same or have the same amounts of the same things. Men and women are one another’s equals when no one possesses or controls the means of domination” (Walzer, xiii). Simply put, each sphere of social life, whether it is entrepreneurial opportunities, education, or even medical access, possesses a distinct level of autonomy that should not be interfered with by an external party (Walzer, 19). For instance, the successful businesswomen would be restricted from using her wealth to illegally purchase government contracts that would advance her business interests. Nevertheless, doing so would result in a downward spiral into the realms of tyranny. To describe the fundamental scope of tyranny, Walzer showcases the term as defined by Pascal in one of his Pensées — “Tyranny is to desire power over the whole world and outside its own sphere…tyranny is the wish to obtain by one means that can only be had by another” (Walzer, 18). Therefore, complex equality is the exact opposite of tyranny.
If the successful businesswomen described previously intentionally decides to use her wealth, created within the business sphere, to gain access to political power in another sphere, then this would be classified as tyranny. In essence, this is where Walzer draws a stark distinction between being a monopoly and abusing one’s relative power to generate an unfair competitive advantage in a completely separate sphere, a situation in which an organization capitalizes on its dominance. Ultimately, an open-ended distributive principle is formed — “no social good x should be distributed to men and women who possess some other good y merely because they possess y without regard to the meaning of x” (Walzer, 20). Walzer’s principles for complex equality can be described as the following:
P1: Complex equality requires the distribution of social goods in accordance to their respective spheres of life.
P2: Monopolies can and will inevitably be created within local spheres of life by singular or multiple parties.
C1: Therefore, equality and monopolistic power can co-exist within the same domain.
P3: Entities that spill over into other spheres of life to gain unfair advantages are tyrannical in nature.
C2: Thus, monopolies that bring about tyranny disrupt distributive justice and thereby, complex equality.
The Sphere of Money & Its Influence
If we are to determine the power that money holds and the items it can buy or the people it may influence, we must derive a consensus on the sphere of its operation. Even though there exist a wide spectrum of opinions on the role of money, let’s focus on two: a naïve perspective and an objective viewpoint. Describing the naïve standpoint, Marx vividly presents money as the “universal pander, the root of all evil, and the source of all good” (Walzer, 95). The naïve opinion factually describes the nature of money and in general, the consequences of its use on the welfare of society. To supplement the statement, Marx illustrates an example of a widow who now has transformational power after inheriting her husband’s massive fortune (Walzer, 96). In essence, she can do with the money as she pleases. The outcome could be positive or negative for society. If someone else found themselves in a similar position, with sudden access to a large pool of money, they too would wield a similar level of power (Walzer, 96). The more conventional outlook is regarding money as an instrument of universal exchange that can be used to purchase social goods of perceivable value (Walzer, 96). However, Walzer is quick to point out that there are certain goods that cannot be priced (Walzer, 96).
For instance, a good may be extremely precious to one individual based on its intrinsic value making it difficult for a free market to attach a price, such as a childhood toy given by a loving but deceased parent (Walzer, 96). Furthermore, there are a myriad of items that money cannot buy due the underlying category or social meaning of the good itself. In today’s contemporary world, it is illegal to participate in slavery and restrict basic welfare rights such as police protection (Walzer, 101). Hence, Walzer introduces the simple idea of blocked exchanges, which set limits on the dominance of wealth. While in most contexts, wealth can be used to purchase items of desire, there exists a comprehensive and broad list of categories that money should not be able to influence, such as the aforementioned domains.
A classic example where a blocked exchange would play a critical role is in the defence of human liberty or sale of humans. Arthur Okun, a well-known 20th century economist, viewed such transactions borne out of desperation and thereby, these exchanges should be prohibited at all costs (Walzer, 100). In other words, no intervention would disrupt the principles laid out by complex equality because wealth is being used inappropriately to alter the state of another sphere. Nonetheless, Walzer realizes that asymmetrical information exists and authorities responsible for monitoring such exchanges may have shortcomings. Black markets, in particular, are environments where men and women will engage in illicit activities sneakily and then proceed to lie to authorities about their activities (Walzer, 103).
Justified Usage of Money
It is evident what money’s purpose is and where its boundaries exist. However, what is the proper usage of money? According to Walzer, it is “the range of goods that have probably always been marketable… all those objects, products, services…that individual men and women find useful or pleasing” (Walzer, 104). Also, this would include commodities and products that are considered to be luxurious, in addition to being classified as everyday staple items. Moreover, the proper functionality of money is visible in a market setting where “it does its work and is open to all comers” (Walzer, 104). Nevertheless, radical extensions can be drawn too. Sociologist, Lee Rainwater, perpetuates the idea of money being a means to purchase membership in industrial society (Walzer, 105). In principle, the purchase of such commodities can lead to integration within certain divisions of society, which fundamentally weaves the fabric of our social identities.
Walzer dives deeper with Rainwater’s explanation — “unless we can spend money and deploy goods at levels beyond what is required for subsistence, we suffer… a status starvation, a sociological disinheritance” (Walzer, 105). A prime example would be the daily advertisements that we as humans are exposed to. Not only do the carefully crafted narratives suggest being associated with a particular brand or group of persons but demonstrates how the market can also alienate beings within their own respective spheres. So, to avoid detachment, Walzer’s proposed blocked exchanges are a step forward to alleviate the consequences of such a problem. To reiterate, Walzer disregards the differences within a sphere, as those are bound to occur, but wants to make sure that the use of money is harmless. As the free market can be a competitive environment, “blocking wrongful exchanges and controlling the sheer weight of money itself, we have no reason to worry about the answers the market provides” (Walzer, 107). Hence, unequal distribution is unimportant as long as it does not throw the principles of complex equality into utter disarray.
Conclusion
Contrary to preeminent political philosophers and as a result of his communitarian background, Walzer identifies the concept of domination being more alarming than the conventional power of monopolies. In fact, the author believes that such authority will continue to exist on a microscopic level within distinct spheres such as access to medical care and entrepreneurial opportunities (Walzer, 19). However, by introducing the open-ended distributive principle through the system of complex equality, Walzer provides the foundations of a societal path that would refrain bad actors from influencing spheres that should remain mutually exclusive. This is especially true when it comes to abuse of wealth for personal intentions. Even though grey areas exist due to global dynamism, as pointed out by Walzer, the soundness of the famous theory comes from its ability to understand what money should and should not be used for.
Works Cited
Walzer, Michael. Spheres of Justice: a Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Basic Books, 2010.
