Matthew MacManus's The Political Right and Equality: Turning Back the Tide of Egalitarian Modernity
Egalitarianism is a philosophical belief that all people are equal and should be treated equally, especially in social, political, and economic matters
The political right has opposed egalitarianism and what this means for modern society. MacManus argues that right-wing movements, particularly in recent years, are actively pushing back against the tide of egalitarian values that have shaped modern democratic societies. Here are some detailed notes on key themes and arguments from the work:
1. Historical Context and Evolution of Egalitarianism
MacManus begins by tracing the history of egalitarianism, explaining how Enlightenment ideals, revolutions, and democratic movements promoted concepts of equality.
Egalitarianism, once controversial, became mainstream with movements for civil rights, gender equality, and economic justice, challenging long-standing hierarchical structures.
The political right historically viewed these movements as threats to tradition, social order, and what they see as “natural” hierarchies (like patriarchy or capitalism).
2. Right-Wing Critique of Egalitarianism
MacManus highlights that the political right’s critique of egalitarianism is rooted in a belief that hierarchies are natural or inevitable.
Right-wing thinkers argue that egalitarian policies disrupt social cohesion and undermine individual responsibility by promoting “unearned” privileges or leveling differences.
This critique often frames egalitarianism as a form of “resentment politics,” where attempts at equality are seen as motivated by envy rather than justice.
3. Economic Inequality and Market Ideology
Economic arguments against egalitarianism are a key theme. The right advocates for market freedom and individual achievement, opposing welfare programs and progressive taxation as harmful to economic growth.
MacManus explores how this anti-egalitarian stance supports economic policies that favor wealth accumulation among elites, contributing to growing income inequality.
The political right contends that wealth inequality reflects merit and that interference in the market distorts incentives and rewards mediocrity.
4. Cultural and Identity-Based Inequalities
MacManus discusses how the right-wing’s push against egalitarianism extends beyond economics to issues of culture and identity.
Right-wing movements resist gender equality and LGBTQ rights, often framing these as attacks on traditional values or family structures.
Anti-egalitarian rhetoric also targets racial and ethnic equality initiatives, claiming they promote “reverse discrimination” and threaten national identity.
The right portrays movements for identity-based equality as divisive, arguing that they prioritize group rights over individual rights and lead to a “victimhood culture.”
5. Populism and Anti-Modernist Sentiments
A significant part of MacManus’s analysis focuses on populism, particularly how right-wing populist movements oppose cosmopolitan and progressive values.
Right-wing populists position themselves as defenders of “ordinary people” against “elitist” institutions that promote globalist and egalitarian agendas.
This populist backlash is often anti-modernist, rejecting secular and rationalist values associated with modernity, and instead appealing to nationalism, traditionalism, and religious values.
6. Impact of Anti-Egalitarian Policies on Democracy
MacManus argues that the political right’s resistance to equality poses a threat to democratic norms and institutions.
Anti-egalitarian policies, by fostering inequality, create social divisions and weaken trust in democratic systems.
He suggests that by dismantling egalitarian reforms, the political right undermines social mobility and reproduces class and identity-based hierarchies, potentially leading to authoritarianism.
7. Countering Right-Wing Anti-Egalitarianism
MacManus calls for renewed commitment to egalitarian principles, suggesting that left-wing movements need to address the socio-economic grievances that fuel right-wing populism.
He argues that promoting economic justice, inclusivity, and democratic participation can counterbalance right-wing rhetoric and policies.
The book highlights the need to educate citizens about the benefits of egalitarian policies and build coalitions that transcend traditional identity and ideological lines to defend democratic values.
Conclusion
The Political Right and Equality: Turning Back the Tide of Egalitarian Modernity provides a critical examination of how and why the political right opposes egalitarianism. By exploring the implications of anti-egalitarian policies on both economic and social fronts, MacManus argues that this opposition threatens democratic institutions and social cohesion. The book underscores the importance of defending and advancing egalitarian principles in the face of rising right-wing populism and anti-modernist sentiment.
from notebook and the actual text-
The source is an excerpt from The Political Right and Equality by Matthew MacManus, which explores the relationship between Aristotelian philosophy and conservative thought. MacManus argues that conservative ideas often draw upon a hierarchical view of society derived from Aristotle’s concept of an "organic whole" where each individual and social entity has a specific purpose and place within a natural order. He criticizes this view as ultimately unjust and elitist, while acknowledging its enduring influence on conservative ideology and its appeal to those seeking to maintain power structures. MacManus also explores the role of Christian scholasticism in further bolstering this perspective, arguing that it strengthens Aristotelian essentialism through its focus on God's deliberate creation of a fixed, hierarchical universe.
Navigating the Political Right: From Aristotle to Modernity
Study Guide
Key Terms
Egalitarian Modernity: A period marked by the rise of egalitarian ideologies and the dismantling of traditional hierarchies.
Ressentiment: A deep-seated resentment and sense of injustice felt by those who perceive themselves to have been wronged or dispossessed.
Manorial Vision: A hierarchical societal structure reminiscent of feudalism, with distinct social classes and an emphasis on order and tradition.
Essentialism: The philosophical view that every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function.
Telos: The inherent purpose or goal of a thing, as understood in Aristotelian philosophy.
Eudaimonic Flourishing: A state of human well-being and fulfillment achieved through living a virtuous life, central to Aristotle's ethics.
Virtues: Qualities or traits considered morally good and conducive to living a good life, as defined by Aristotle.
Aristocracy: A form of government in which power is held by a small group of elite individuals, often based on birth, wealth, or education.
Democracy: A system of government where supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of representation.
Polity: A mixed form of government combining elements of democracy and aristocracy, often considered by Aristotle as the most stable and just.
Scholasticism: A medieval school of philosophy that sought to reconcile Christian theology with classical philosophy, particularly the works of Aristotle.
Natural Law: A system of moral principles believed to be inherent in nature and discoverable through human reason.
Short-Answer Quiz
Explain how egalitarian modernity poses an existential threat to the worldview of the political right.
How does Aristotle's concept of teleology inform his understanding of social and political order?
What is the relationship between virtue, character, and eudaimonic flourishing in Aristotle’s ethical framework?
Describe Aristotle's critique of democracy, highlighting the potential dangers he associates with it.
According to Aristotle, what factors determine an individual's claim to political power?
Explain the ambiguity in Aristotle’s writing regarding the roles of nature and choice in the development of virtue and character.
What are the three good constitutions outlined by Aristotle, and how do they differ in terms of who rules?
How does Aristotle justify the claim that certain individuals or classes are naturally suited to rule?
What is the “swinish multitude,” and why does McManus use this term?
How does Scholasticism build upon Aristotle’s philosophy and inform the political right's understanding of social order?
Answer Key
Egalitarian modernity threatens the right’s worldview by challenging the legitimacy of traditional hierarchies and suggesting that social inequalities are not divinely ordained but rather the result of injustice.
Aristotle believed that every entity, including individuals and societies, has an inherent purpose or telos. This teleological understanding underpins his view of a hierarchical social order, where individuals and classes are naturally disposed to certain roles and functions.
In Aristotle's view, living a virtuous life involves cultivating morally good qualities (virtues) that shape one's character and lead to eudaimonic flourishing, a state of human well-being and fulfillment.
Aristotle critiques democracy for its potential to devolve into mob rule, where the pursuit of equality undermines excellence and the common good. He argues that democracy often leads to the tyranny of the majority, where the rights of minorities are trampled upon.
For Aristotle, an individual's claim to political power is determined by their capacity for reason, virtue, and education. Those who possess these qualities to a greater degree are considered more fit to rule and guide the state towards the common good.
Aristotle acknowledges that both nature (inherent abilities) and choice (deliberate actions) play a role in shaping virtue and character. However, his writings exhibit ambiguity on the relative weight of each factor, particularly regarding the capacity for rational deliberation among different groups in society.
The three good constitutions according to Aristotle are monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and polity (rule by the many). Each differs in terms of who rules, with monarchy led by a single virtuous ruler, aristocracy governed by a select group of the most capable, and polity involving a broader, but qualified, citizenry.
Aristotle argues that certain individuals or classes are naturally suited to rule because they possess greater capacity for reason, virtue, and education. He often associates these qualities with wealth and nobility, suggesting that a hierarchical social order reflects a natural order of things.
The "swinish multitude" is a derogatory term used to refer to the common people, implying that they are driven by base desires and lack the capacity for reason and self-governance. McManus uses this term to highlight the elitist and dismissive attitude often found in right-wing thought.
Scholasticism, which sought to integrate Christian theology with Aristotle's philosophy, provided a theological basis for the political right’s view of social order. By linking Aristotle’s concept of a hierarchical natural order with divine will, Scholasticism reinforces the notion that traditional hierarchies are divinely ordained and therefore immutable.
11-7
“But of course in the Politics Aristotle famously suggests that most people, including slaves, children, and women, naturally lack the capacity for rational deliberation. This would seem to preclude their ever being fully18 virtuous and thus capable of achieving full eudaimonic flourishing.”
“Aristotle then goes on to argue that by behaving virtuously at many given moments over time, we develop the habit of doing so and consequently transform our character for the better. This is a lifelong project which doesn’t end until death.”