 <ICLE-PO-POZ-0002.1> 
We live at the end of the twentieth century. We witness extraordinary progress in science, medicine, and technology. We pride ourselves on becoming more and more civilized and sophisticated. We tend to have more refined tastes in art, literature, music, and architecture. We boast of being able to cooperate, to solve political problems peacefully, by means of discussion and negotiation. We believe in democracy, in what the French Revolution brought to the world. Equality, freedom, and brotherhood are our principles and the bases of our lives. We are enlightened . "All men are created equal", we claim. But are we completely honest? Is there not a little hypocrisy? Do we really mean that all people are equal when we say this or do we add in an undertone, as if repeating after George Orwell, that some are "more equal" than others? Should we not scrutinize our society in search for inequality?
What George Orwell meant when he wrote "All men are equal: but some are more equal than others" was probably that theoretically everyone should enjoy the same rights and have equal duties. Yet, the other side of the coin is that there are people who are privileged, whose status is higher than that of the rest. It seems that the word "equal", ironically, came to mean "having rights" here. If everybody has rights there are some who have even more rights. This kind of attitude was what Orwell tried to ridicule .
Certainly, one could argue that the above statement by Orwell refers to the situation described in his novel and does not reflect the state of affairs in the modern real-life world. It is not difficult, though, to verify the truthfulness of this statement. Let us look at the first part of it. Are all people equal? Well, yes. The constitutions of most civilized countries secure for their citizens equality, democracy, and numerous rights. Among the most fundamental ones are the right to live, the right to work, the right to profess a religion, and the right to express opinions. The whole body of society is entitled to exercise these rights. This is how the idea of equality is realized .
There are, however, people who have an advantage because of their social, professional, or financial status. They are members of elites, superior on account of their power, talent, and privileges. People who are in authority, who are rolling in money, even those who belong to mafias have better opportunities and very often do not hesitate to benefit from it, even illegally. They are in position to break the law and to hush it up. The rank and file citizens cannot elude justice and very often they have to carry the burden of punishment while their bosses shuffle off the responsibility. But the superiority of elites do not have to consist in vice. For example, they have better education opportunities. Money talks, so the well-off can afford studies. Consequently, those who are better educated have better perspectives and more advantageous job opportunities. The affiliation to an elite proves to be very helpful in climbing up the career ladder. Moreover, the interweaving relations between "the more equal" make them mutually dependent which creates stronger bond between them and alienates them further from the rest of the society .
There is still another aspect of inequality. Not only are there people who enjoy more liberty than others, but there are also these who are refused even the basic rights, who are ignored by the law, who seem to be "less equal" than the society as a whole. The criteria for such discrimination may be various: race, nationality, religion, and so on . "The less equal" are usually members of all kinds of minorities like homosexuals, the disabled, the left-handed, or the fat, but not necessarily as women are hardly a minority. They all form a kind of underclass which is deprived of certain rights. Obviously, not all of the discriminated are refused the same privileges. Certainly, it is difficult for the disabled to get good education, the blacks cannot count on finding a prestigious job, women are less paid, even if they are as well-qualified as men, and homosexuals meet with social disapproval and are often forced to live beyond the pale. Problems with buying fitting clothes or scissors that would be comfortable to use seem trivial to us; they are, however, reasons for complaints of the fat or the left-handed. Undoubtedly, "the less equal" exist .
These are clear examples of inequality. It is, however, so widespread that very often it is not considered something evil or uncommon. People got used to politicians breaking the law, to the rich evading paying taxes, as well as to the masculinization of high positions, to the absence of the disabled at universities, and to social ostracism of lesbians. Another thing is that probably every society has its elites and its underclass, that they are nothing out of ordinary. Perhaps we should accept the fact that there is injustice, consent to every community being divided into exclusive and impregnable castes. Perhaps we should agree on highly hierarchical societies existing under the banner of democracy and equality. Perhaps, as somebody once said, "democratic equality is the most efficacious instrument of spiritual selection". The alternative to such an attitude is Orwell's ridicule. We have to make a choice .
