Social inequality is a central topic in sociology, which is why it comes up often on this blog. See, for instance, my reviews of Egalitarian Capitalism and The Spirit Level which directly deal with this topic. Sociology tends to focus not just on the descriptive side of inequalities (how extensive inequality is in a given society) but also focuses on impact (the mostly negative impact inequalities have on societies on multiple levels) and possible remedies (both books address that).
What is essential is that sociological research shows how much social inequalities are a product of social structures and processes and not individual innate abilities or failures. As always, structural issues require structural solutions. This is what Filip Spagnoli addresses in this recent blog post:
There is no real way around these things. Reducing inequalities involve redistribution. At the same time, since a lot of wealth is inherited and not earned, it is completely logical to tax it for redistributive purposes as such inheritance goes against meritocratic mechanisms. However, income inequalities are only one form of inequality.
Broadening the discussion, Philip Golub and Noelle Burgi, in the Social Europe Journal, think it is time to rebuild the social contract that was shattered by 20 or so years of neoliberal dominance, politically, economically and ideologically. And doing what Spagnoli suggests above implies the following:
Note that the authors speak of equality of outcomes, as opposed to equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity (the Kenworthy view, if I may be so bold) is the soft version of egalitarianism, the one acceptable to American liberals. The idea is to remove obstacles to let everyone compete “fairly”, give everybody a fair chance. This is what non-discrimination policies are about. For instance, the Civil Rights struggle was about equality of opportunity. But, of course, this tends to minimize structural forces and opens to the door to neo-racist interpretations: if, even with civil rights, African Americans do not reach equality with whites, then it definitely means that are inferior.
Equality of outcomes (the Wilkinson approach) is much more radical. It is not “making everybody the same”. Equality is not the same as sameness and uniformity. What it means is to remove mechanisms of structural inequality and discrimination. This is much more controversial. Think affirmative action. Equality of outcomes means much more proactive policies to achieve equality at the end point (income, education, etc.) rather than at the starting point (equality of opportunity).
It is a testimonial to the success of neoliberal ideology that only equality of opportunity is allowed in polite conversations especially in the US.
A tall order but a necessary starting point that is a prerequisite to what Spagnoli suggests.
This does not mean that the neoliberal order is not suffering from its own crisis of legitimation, especially after the financial collapse and the exposition of the sociopathy of the financial class and its grip on the political class. But at this point, neoliberal power is micropower embedded in a multiplicity of institutions and organizations (including the media, for instance) which makes it harder to uproot or to simply challenge.