When there is equality, it doesn't mean that we're all the same in size, intelligence, race, feelings, beliefs, passions, whatever. Thank goodness we're each unique. Now, social constructionism teaches that there are so many factors in our world telling us who we are and what we ought to be that we're mostly a bundle of received message. Like we should be skinny, sexy, beautiful, accepting, caring, . . ., and eager to shop. Most of all shopping to keep the world going. Isn't that a weird idea? think about it. Well, maybe we do take in all these messages, and perhaps in that din it's hard to find the original self, whatever, or whoever that is. Oddly enough, that reminds me of how difficult for the colonized people of the world to go back and find their authentic selves without the contamination of the colonized self. Have we all been colonized by commodification and technology. Can we even find and hold on to reality? (Borgman, Holding On to Reality.)

Ah, but that's next week's topic. For this week, let's just look at the mess we get into when we start to consider equality. There can be no equality when the infrastructure or community guarantees privileges to some over others. This occurs in skin color, within and beyond race, in economic resources, in the environment within which we each function (like a poor versus a richer neighborhood), in the language we speak, the accent we use, in the status resources we receive, both ascribed and achieved (status expectations may interfere in interpretation of what we do).

Equality is complex. That's primarily want you to think about this week. It will help as that word comes up over and over again in community-building. If you're a corrections officer, your idea will be privileged by who you are, if you offer it in a community meeting. If you're a homeless person, your idea may not be listened to with the same good faith, for status expectations will color the interpretation of what you say.

Now that we have tackled the complexity of equality, let's consider authority. Where does authority come from. You guessed it. From status expectations interpreted over time in the dominant discourse. The Bible is an authority for Christians. The Old Testament is an authority for Jews. The Koran is an authority for Muslims. And so on. Each religious group has its authorities. Those authorities come from time-honored traditions within each given faith. Each faith has many interpretations of their Holy Book. Sometimes those interpretations conflict, sometimes not. The Ha'adith are an example of interpretations in the Islamic Faith. The Talmud is an example of interpretations in Judaism. And the different Christian sects and their interpretations represent the differing interpretations of Christianity.

In each of these and other religions there is a hierarchy of authority. And that is one of the chief characteristics of authority. It is not democratic, with each having equal say as to what should be done or believed. It is hierarchical. There is one clear answer to any question - the one given by the person or Book or tradition at the head of the hierarchy.

Within the hierarchical organization, either religious or coroporate, equality is not considered. Questions are not open to general discussion and alternative considerations. Power is generally sovereign power, meaning power that follows the rights to decision-making that attend the title and/or position held in the hierararchy. Positions lower in the hierarchy are expected to conform to the decisions made at the higher levels of the organization or group.

In this sense Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions are hierarchical. That hierarchy denies equality in some of its meanings. So now equality must become even more complex in our thinking. There is natural equality. There is nation-state equality. There is religious equality. There is cultural equality. There is racial and ethnic equality. And that's just off the top of my head. Think about it. But how do we manage all this inequality when we are a nation that stands for liberty and freedom for the individual?

I'm going to offer one plausible approach to considering this problem: Public space, or what we call "naked space", in which each of us rspects one another and the naked space community in which we can disagree and talk about our differences in our desire to build a community space in which we talk and consider the things that matter most in how we choose to live.

Now for the image I chose to represent this difficult and messy topic: The fish/bomb. First of all the fish is a Christian symbol, so it brings in the concept of religion as an icon of Christianity. Second, the fish I chose could be mistaken for a bomb. And particularly that shape of bomb, at least in my head, is an icon for the bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagsaki, symbols of the unleashing of the ultimate violence on humans by humans. So I chose to use a symbol that could be read in more than one way, just as equality and authority can be read in more than one way.

The icon of the fish represents for me love and peace and caring for one another; the icon of the bomb represents for me pure violence that man turns agains man. (man in generic sense) There is great tension between these two interpretations of this one iconic shape. And there are no simple or immediate solutions as to how we can resolve that tension.

In a week or so, I'm going to summarize some of Seyla Benhabib's writing (Situating Oneself) on "public space," but for now, just trust me, lots of philosophers and political scientists and sociologists and others are giving this a lot of thought. President Bush is the only one I know of who thinks he knows the answers. (Well, I mean if you don't cont Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, which I don't.) Most of us are struggling like mad for deeper understanding. Prof. Benhabib, of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, speaks of the importance of public space, a space, not necessarily really public, it might be in somebody's church or mosque or club or home. But public in the sense that there one is freein that space to ponder, to puzzle, to express, to talk about all one's quandaries about how on earth we can live in peace together with all our differences. She means more than just figuring out a fair and just way to distribute limited resources. She means how do we disagree about really fundamental things like the God we believe in or don't believe in, when that matters a lot in how we relate to each other.

Prof. Benhabib speaks of several versions of public space, that we will consider, but mostly, I'd like you to think on this: lots of versions of public space say that the space needs to allow people to say whatever they need to say to make their claims and needs to allow them to argue and try to persuade one another. That's called "agonistic" public space, and it leads to lots of affect and sometimes even chaos. Hannah Arendt, the philosopher believed in that kind of public space. But Prof. Benhabib reminds us that few of us on the fast track (whether we chose the fast track or not) have the time to just come together to talk over things that matter. Only those who don't have to work and raise families and engage in some sort of social life have the leisure for that. So public space, at least the agonistic kind, can be elitist. And elitism doesn't represent equality.

Prof. Benhabib also speaks of the liberal version of public space, in which all are free to bring up their claims. She mentions Ackerman's caution that in order for such a public space to work, we must agree not to mention things like religion that we fundamentally disagree on. It leads to chaos. Duh! Didn't all our mothers warn us of that? But, as Prof. Benhabib points out, it also leads to our not talking at all about the things that matter most to us. Whoops! Foiled again!

Concepts: