NationStates Jolt Archive

So the question is ...

Can we have expertise and/or authority without inequity? Discuss.

I would be arguing that that expertise and authority creates an injustice and unfairness in the way that those people with those positions are held higher in value than those without. For example, a mother, important in terms of maintaining the family, yet not valued in the same respect as a doctor which is most often displayed through the fact that the latter is a paid position and also has the authority to prescribe, diagnose (basically decide one's life or death), determine what is to be deviant of the norm, etc.


Things to consider:
- Foucault's ideology of power and knowledge. Those who have knowledge - (expertise) have power to prescribe social norms, deviations, what is right, what is wrong, what is "truth". These thinkers would thus be creating inequality (Lombroso and his idea that criminals are evolutionary throwbacks).

- The Professor/student relationship: The former, a paid position, with expertise, the ability to voice one's opinion as truth, to teach, to spread their knowledge as such. The student, paying to be there, listening to "truth", allowed to question but must provide similar regurgitation on exams to get the marks. The prof at the front of the class room (positioning of the expert).

- Socialism - an attempt at eliminating such inequities --> failure due to mankind's greed

- hierarchies created by expertise


(As you can tell, this is for an essay i'm writing :) I need some input here)

As far as I'm concerned, there will always be inequity in the world - it's best that the inequity best works itself out, rather than being forced away by some group

thanks super power, but that is far from the expertise component of the question.

Of course you would have inequity. So? Inequity is not always bad. You have do define what is measured to determine equity. There is inequity in weight, lifespan and hair. There is inequity in shoesize and intelligence. None of these are bad. Inequity of freedom would be bad.

There is no reason why a person with more experience or skill should not receive a greater role or reward than someone who does not. In fact, the argumen could be made that a failure to do so would be an inequity. Think of it as a farmer planting an appletree seed every day. After fifty years he would have planted many trees. A person who is only twenty who did the same thing would have fewer trees. Would there be inequity? Of course not. If the younger person's ability to pursue this goal were infringed by the older then there would there be inequity. Therefore, if the older person's ability to continue their goal were infringed it too would be an inequiy.

Only when freedom is infringed in my example is ther ineqity. Experience and seniority are not the same as inequity. The premise is flawed.

Idealistically you could. Different skills, talents, knowledge, expertise etc etc would all be valued and people's differences would be embraced.

Realistically... no. People will always want power over others. People will always have skills that are appreciated more than others. People will always create inequitys in society.

since youre writing a paper...

i think you should consider the concept of conflict of interest

every person no matter how egalitarian, naturally thinks that their own point of view and their own interests come first. even when they dont realize it

so a doctor naturally assumes that he is more important than the mother. the mother naturally assumes she is more important than the doctor.

if i own a business, i naturally assume that ..... taxes, zoning. labor laws, safety laws, etc should be seen from a business point of view.


its not, for example, that dick cheney is BAD for favoring haliburton or the interests of the oil business, its just where he comes from that informs his point of view

so that anytime you have a heirarchy, the guys at the top are going to tend to favor themselves and their own points of view over those of other people that they dont know or understand.

thus authority and expertise are always going to be a problem. it can perhaps be mitigated but by whom? anyone making those kinds of rules have their own conflicts of interests.