FOR CLEARANCE PURPOSE - Certain colors other than black or grey has been used to

make navigation through long notes easy. They don’t represent any important points or
headings, so normal printing won’t alter anything. Imp headings, points etc are written in
black only so don’t worry. You can ignore the colored lines.

Andre Bateille - Natural Inquality & other essays

Ch 1 - pg 7-32

Main Themes

 The idea of ‘natural inequality’ vis-à-vis ‘social inequality’.

 Ambiguity between ‘natural differences’&‘natural inequality’.
 Social Construction of [natural & social] inequalities - Process of transformation of natural
differences into natural inequalities.
 Close correspondence between natural & social inequalities.
 Natural Inequality - A Fiction.
 Role of Fiction as an explanation, justification & response to the social inequalities, hierarchy,
ranking & stratification.

Ch Pointers

Inequality among men-Natural & Social Inequality

 Inequality among men – 2 types – one which can be easily (though often difficult) shown,
proved & understood like that of social, economic, political inequalities etc. another is ‘natural
inequality’ which is far more complex & very difficult to show & prove.
 Bateille here focuses on this notion of natural inequality, its sources & role in soc.
 Acc to him, natural inequalities are not naturally given but instead are socially, culturally &
historically constructed. The natural differences when are carefully & consciously selected,
marked out & evaluated by human beings, turn into inequalities.
 Slowly such natural inequalities start corresponding with social inequalities.
 For instance, natural differences underlying men & women are mostly taken as natural
inequalities between the 2 sexes, that ultimately get reflected in the social norms, privileges, role
allocations etc. In terms of physical strength, due to dominance of certain hormones & basic
bodily structure, men are generally (though not always) stronger than women. This natural
difference is one among many, but like many others, is carefully selected & turned into
inequality in terms of nature. And since they are unequal in nature, socially too men are seen as
superior than women, who are categorized as inferior sex & therefore must be protected by men.
 This also reflects domestic role allocation, where men are seen as provider & decision maker of
household while women as nourisher, feeder & caretaker of the household, husband & children.
(This eg is given by me, for understanding purpose only)

Competition & Inequality of Rewards

 In competitive societies, natural inequalities are seen as durable as they are believed to exist in
the nature of things itself. i.e. out there/ naturally given, not created.
 The beliefs about natural inequality come to co-exist with the idealization of equality.
 For instance, to ensure equality of opportunity, idea of free & fair competition becomes
necessary where those who win receive the right & just reward.

Individualism & Equality

 Since Tocqueville’s time, close relation was marked between Individualism & Equality. He
believed that it is very difficult to remove inequalities of nature completely that ultimately limits
the total realization of equality.
 To ensure equality therefore, is to encourage individualism, which when combined with high
value of achievement, creates & legitimizes the idea of competition & structure of unequal
rewards.

Idea of Giftedness & Social inequality

 In accessing natural inequalities, the idea of ‘gift/giftedness’ is a common notion where certain
qualities of men are chosen & seen as endowed or naturally gifted over others. Based on this,
comparisons are made between those who are naturally gifted & those who are not, those who
are naturally superior & those who are not, etc.
 Such perceptions seep into the social behaviors & cultural norms of people that ultimately lead to
social inequality in soc.
 Best eg of it is India’s prevailing caste system, where people are divided & ranked into 4 main
Varna (including the untouchables, falling outside the 4 Varna), where the hierarchy is seen as
naturally given (the four main gunas or qualities, belying people of each caste that ultimately
determine their caste positions). Such a system therefore is seen as representing not inequalities
but division of labor based on natural scheme of things.

Debates on Natural & Social Inequality

 There is an ambiguity underlying the distinction between the 2 types of inequalities, becoz of the
general tendency of conceptualizing man’s nature independently of his culture & society.
Though many did see the inter-relation btw 2.
 Rousseau - Acc to him, there lies a distinction between ‘natural inequalities among men’ &
‘inequalities in their conditions of existence’. Every kind of inequality (even natural) is socially
& culturally constructed by men themselves.
- He recognizes that not every human being is equal as there are pre-existing differences in age,
health, bodily strength, qualities of mind & soul etc. These natural differences among men are
turned into inequalities through social & cultural processes of selection & evaluation, as well as
are increased by the inequality of social institutions.
- Natural inequality therefore may exist both in the state of nature & state of society. Former as
mentioned are the physical differences between men, while in the latter it may exist only as a
specific creation of society or becoz of magnification, recognition & transformation of pre-
existing natural inequalities by society.
 Locke - He emphasizes that all men are equal in a state of nature & there must be equality of
men by nature. But for certain cases like subordination of wife to her husband, slaves to their
master, there is a foundation of it in nature itself.
- By ‘equality by nature’, he means that every man has equal right to his natural freedom without
subjection to the arbitrary will or authority of any other man. But beyond this, nature
acknowledges all kinds of distinctions like age, virtue, intelligence etc that gives precedence of
someone over others.
 Notion of Division of Labor (DOL) based on natural inequalities/differences - It is an inevitable
aspect of every human society, as it provides justification & explanation to the arrangement of
individuals into ranks or strata in an organized whole. DOL therefore, entails inequalities of
power, status & other privileges among the differentiated parts & positions.
- Even though humans are not naturally unequal, such a division provides the explanation that
every human possess different qualities & some are gifted than others making them more
superior. Thus, DOL& state of nature is antithetical to each other.
 Mahatma Gandhi - He was a supporter of DOL in society, as it is seen as based on natural order
of things & as helping in maintenance of societal order. Thus, he supported the caste system
based on this.
 Durkheim - He supported DOL too & did recognize that it often leads to inequalities in soc. But
acc to him, such inequalities created by free competition would be fair & just. In fact, his idea of
just society is one where the social inequalities exactly express natural inequalities.
 Kingsly Davis & Wilbert Moore - gave the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification &
asserted that rewards must be allotted to individuals on basis of natural qualities & contributions
made to soc. Though later their theory was criticized on several grounds.
 Sir Francis Galton- saw natural inequalities as bedrock of all other inequalities. Acc to him, there
is a close relationship between biological heredity & social achievement, as natural inequalities
resulted in unequal success in examinations which ultimately led to unequal placements of
people in society.
 T.H.Huxley - He too saw close correspondence between natural & social inequalities.
Inequalities which fuelled the engines of society were a part of quiet & peaceful order of nature.

[Pg 26-29 half has been skipped. Not imp. It just talks about co-relation between Intelligence/IQ
& occupational prestige & rewards. Basically shows how natural qualities of ind.s (that
 differentiates & ranks them among each other) determines social inequalities. Gives detailed
explanation of this co-relation.]

Conclusion
 What Beteille here noted was the significance of natural variations/differences among
individuals.
 These variations become [natural & social] inequalities when consciously & carefully marked
out by humans.
 Beteille calls natural inequalities as ‘fiction’, as no one is unequal in the state of nature but are
just different.
 Such a fiction however is used as an explanation & justification to hide the truth about social
inequalities & hierarchies created by humans themselves.
 In modern societies, therefore, there is a continuous tension between values of equality &
inequality, as on one hand there is a strong tendency to uphold & consider the values/principles
of equality that considers equal opportunities, rewards, human worth etc; while on the other
hand, pre-occupation with ranking & organizing inds acc to natural qualities, talents, aptitudes
etc & justifying the logic of free & fair competition, merit, differential rewards etc.
 All these issues become more complex, becoz of the confusion & ambiguity in understanding &
differentiating natural ‘differences’ & ‘inequalities’, & in relating ‘social’ & ‘natural’
inequalities.