ABSTRACT
There is, of course, no ready agreement as to the nature of inequality. Some see inequality primarily as a function of power and wealth. Thus inequality is looked at as a product of social and economic institutions. To change towards a society that is more equal between men and women, between ethnic groups and between classes requires a change in the political and economic structure of society. For others inequality is at root a feature of culture, and manifest in the values systems and symbols of sexism, racism and ageism, and such that some sections of society are subject to invidious evaluation and negative stereotyping. What is required for a more equal society is seen from this point of view as the re-education of dominant groups, a re-evaluation of disadvantaged groups and a cultural reassertion by those who have been labelled as unequal. Naturally writers have tried to understand inequality within a framework that can contain both social-structural and cultural perspectives but, in practice, most have given one priority over the other. Weber’s distinction between class and status reflects the cultural/structural opposition: social status derives from social honour-the esteem and evaluation society places on a social position; whereas class is the product of the market position which sets of actors occupy. The decline in the critical impact of Marxism has much to do with its relegation of issues of race and gender to the lesser category of status distinctions while class issues are given analytical priority. Some argue that power structures are so strong and/or cultural images so dominant that only radical separation can provide a route to greater equality. Ethnic or racial groups must break away and form their own nations and have their own territory; women must distance themselves from men and create their own institutions and culture; class can only be overcome in new separate communitarian societies, as in the Kibbutz, New Lanarkshire or Walden. I make this point to emphasize that theory is not a purely abstract activity; it is a guide to action. Without a theory of inequality it is not possible to think what, if anything,
to do about it. The most helpful approach to these issues is to stick closely to the specifics of people’s experience and not over-reify abstract dichotomies such as culture/social structure or cling on to them too tenaciously when their analytical usefulness is past. “We might also take seriously Dewey’s suggestion that the way to reenchant the world, to bring back what religion gave our forefathers, is to stick to the concrete.” (Rorty 1994:170) It is not in the abstract that inequality and old age need to be re-evaluated, we are most likely to learn most from the practical reasoning of those struggling directly with these problems. I will deal with the issues of gender, race and class (in that order), not with a comprehensive survey but selecting those ideas most pertinent to inequality and old age.
