Does Difference Entail Inequality?

A case study

Can two (or more) things differ while still being equal? This question came up in one of my classes in the following form: Is it possible for two partners to divide household chores evenly without assigning each partner 50% of the work for each chore? In other words, if each partner is tasked with a unique list of chores, can the total amount of chores be equally distributed between the non-overlapping chore lists?

In addressing this problem, we must first establish what "equal" even means. Equal how? Perhaps time is the relevant index. If each partner completes his or her list of chores within the same amount of time, then we can say the chores were distributed equally and differently. But, as anyone who has ever worked hourly knows, time often fails to track work quantity because it decouples from work intensity. What if one partner works harder and with greater focus than the other when doing her chores? This suggests the necessity of considering multiple dimensions of potential inequality simultaneously. Perhaps if we could calculate the average rate of work intensity for the time each partner took to complete his or her list of chores, we could determine the equality of the chore distribution.

This meritocratic, effort-based approach sounds easy enough in the abstract, but the task of constructing the relevant metric immediately confronts us with another problem. Can we productively measure work intensity without first measuring pre-existing differences in physical ability? (Of course, distributing chores on the basis of physical ability without considering individual talents or skills will probably reduce the efficiency of the overall chore system. If one partner is skilled at a task, she will likely perform the task in less time. However, the question is not "What is the most efficient way for partners to distribute chores?" but "Is it possible for different chores to be evenly distributed between partners?") If one partner is stronger than the other, she will likely exert relatively less physical effort while performing a physically laborious task. Work intensity is therefore a function of ability. The abilities pertinent to specific chores vary. Some require strength, others precision. Some require considerable mental energy while others are physically exhausting. For the sake of argument, let's say we could accomplish the difficult task of identifying and measuring the physical abilities relevant to the multiple overlapping dimensions of inequality. Given any chore and person, we could generate a physical ability controlled work intensity score. We magically create a Physical Ability Controlled Work Intensity Score Calculator (PACWISC) for this very purpose. The PACWISC examines each partner's current condition - are they sick? pregnant? injured? - in order to compute the relative intensity metrics. It also can somehow look into the future in order to consider time-based ability limitations unamenable to measurement in the present. If someone is going to be mentally drained, food poisoned, especially sore, etc. at the time they will complete the chore, the PACWISC will know and account for the contingency.

Imagine sitting down with the people in your household and divvying up chores using the PACWISC. The device scans everyone and produces chore-specific scores for each person. You then go about assigning chores such that everyone's total work intensity score is identical. Does this method of assigning different chores to different people distribute the work equally? Before long, I suggest we would run into some issues. The PACWISC only measures output. It doesn't consider what people bring to the table, just how they portion out what is on the table. The reasons people's abilities are what they are at any given moment intuitively matter. If your partner's ability adjusted work intensity score is impacted by his falling ill with the flu, that's justifiable; but if his score is influenced by his constantly getting high or poor sleeping habits or obsessive video gaming or the like, that raises concerns about the distribution scheme's equality. The PACWISC fails to analyze the effort you are expending controlling your urges and developing beneficial habits. It does not investigate the abilities people could have if they consistently made better choices. Controlling for individual potential is therefore another step in the equal distribution process.

For individual potential to be controlled algorithmically, it must be measured. But how? Historically, and to some extent today, determinations about individual potential have been wrought with classism, racism, sexism, and other prejudices. Under prejudiced conditions, individual potential is thought to derive from group-categorical based considerations. The prejudiced logic goes something like "Well, (insert group-category) are (insert deficiency), so they can't ever really be (insert name for people who specialize in a certain task)." However, even under unprejudiced conditions, obvious facts about individual potentiality can be deduced through reference to group categories. Prejudice is the quality we ascribe to deductions about individual capacities on the basis of group identities that we deem inaccurate. If such deductions are true, they are only "prejudiced" in (what we believe to be) a morally neutral, factual sense. For instance, the statement "mute people cannot ever be singers" is plainly true and therefore not problematically prejudiced. Debates about individual potentialities involve disputes about group-categorical potentialities. Debaters on all sides argue simultaneously for their position on the limitations of being qua (insert category) and domain-specific definitions of equality. For example, can biological males be women? Your view on this matter of identity determines your belief about the equality of high school track competitions in which contestants are sorted on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex. In order to measure individual potential and add it to our PACWISC, we must first go about establishing the limitations of being imposed by membership within certain group-categories. Many, if not all, of these limitations are derived a priori. You cannot empirically support the statement "biological men cannot be women" any more than its inverse; it is a moral proposition which can only be debated on philosophical grounds.

So. Is it possible for two partners to divide household chores evenly without assigning each partner 50% of the work for each chore? Perhaps. It depends on your beliefs about the limitations of being imposed on each partner by his or her membership in group categories, your identification and measurement of relevant physical abilities, and your conceptualization of the various pertinent fields of inequality. The complexities of this particular formulation of the general "Does difference entail inequality?" question highlight how any answer is contingent upon foundational assumptions about what it means to exist.