No, I wasn't referring to favouritism. I'm talking about situations where parents fit all children into one box and expect them to think, behave, and act alike. They even, sometimes, expect them to produce similar results, esp by comparing their academic records. The focus always seems to make the other kids copy the idealistic one, who in turn gets presurrized into being a 'good' example. Unfortunately, there's no one shoe that fits all. What worked for the bright child may not work for the others. I've seen this happen way too many times around me, with different families, in different societies. It is a very subtle thing which doesn't necessarily happen in the face of a real crisis, say, a child with genuinely special needs. But when all children are physically and mentally deemed equal, the same treatment/expectations are sought out, irrespective of their EQ or talent.
I think on the Government level the problem is even greater when they try to carry a once-successful strategy across regions without really considering the unique traits of it's people. It is why most plans fail in the first place, for example, the one/two-children policy in India.
Besides, it's not the intent that we're questioning, it's the method, the execution. A classic example are the social benefits doled out by Governments in 'developed' countries. Though originally intended to establish economic equality, social benefits have over time created more beneficiaries than enabling the existing ones to acheive economic independence. I really think very general policies like that are always going to be misused/abused and cause more anger and grief, both to those who pay and to those who receive, unless they are systematically individualized.
As against all this, the judicial systems, which bear more responsibility to treat everyone equally, are able to do a job of it, by and large, because they don't work on the basis of generalized laws/practices alone. Justice is meted out on a case-to-case basis, after due consideration/hearing of all parties concerned, and with considerable leeway for humanitarian/socio-economic appeals. That is something to think about. I can't help but thing that Equality is a highly abused term in modern contexts.
I think on the Government level the problem is even greater when they try to carry a once-successful strategy across regions without really considering the unique traits of it's people. It is why most plans fail in the first place, for example, the one/two-children policy in India.
Besides, it's not the intent that we're questioning, it's the method, the execution. A classic example are the social benefits doled out by Governments in 'developed' countries. Though originally intended to establish economic equality, social benefits have over time created more beneficiaries than enabling the existing ones to acheive economic independence. I really think very general policies like that are always going to be misused/abused and cause more anger and grief, both to those who pay and to those who receive, unless they are systematically individualized.
As against all this, the judicial systems, which bear more responsibility to treat everyone equally, are able to do a job of it, by and large, because they don't work on the basis of generalized laws/practices alone. Justice is meted out on a case-to-case basis, after due consideration/hearing of all parties concerned, and with considerable leeway for humanitarian/socio-economic appeals. That is something to think about. I can't help but thing that Equality is a highly abused term in modern contexts.
Reply
Leave a comment