Much to think about here, and on the surface, I partly agree with Trilling and partly disagree. It is one thing to acknowledge differences, and some differences, I think, should result in different treatment. To use your example of a less intelligent person and education. Obviously I do not think that education should be geared to the least able to learn, for that is truly to deprive the rest of an education. However, I think that 'least capable' person deserves to be encouraged and given the most challenging education that is within his ability.
But where I have the real problem is with differences that are superficial. For example, my friend Rob is an African-American, 6'6″ male, while I am a Caucasian, 5'6″ female. His skin is very dark, while mine is pale with a hint of olive. His heritage, his ancestry, are different from my own … his ancestors came here from Africa, mine from Wales and Spain. And he is a man, while I am a woman. But what does any of that matter? Should he be treated differently, have different opportunities that I? Should we receive different pay, different treatment by law enforcement? And my answer to all of the above is no, at least not based on the differences I mention. And yet, the reality is that he has been stopped by police 6-7 times in the last two years, while I have not been stopped even once. And I could go on, but you see where I'm going.
It seems a slippery slope, and unfortunately too many, while acknowledging said differences, believe it is okay to treat those two people differently, and that is what I cannot abide. So yes, there is much to think about here … I'm not sure the human race will ever hit on quite the right answer, but that should not stop us from trying.
Step up any time! But note that trilling acknowledges the exceptions ("exclusion and economic hardship"). I gather he would acknowledge your point, as do I. He is stressing the need to make distinctions (as you have done in your comment). He does not rule out preferential treatment or condone discrimination. Nor do I.
Thank you, Hugh! There is a fine line somewhere, but we humans keep missing it. I suppose it has to do with the fact that we are all human, a combination of good and not-so-good. Self-interest is always part of our makeup. It's when self-interest becomes all-consuming and turns into greed that we run into trouble. Seems to be enough of that to go around these days. But it is quite interesting that Trilling saw this long ago, for I tended to think of it as a recent development in the last decade or so.
Thought provoking as always. And too slippery a slope for me to begin to add my two-penn'orth.
Slippert slopes can be fun at times. Thanks for your comment!
By shunning labels, we can free others to listen to what we are saying. We can also do them the same favor. Yet, to reclaim our democracy, we need to open the elections to independents. They should not have to join a party or petition to run.
The problem is, as you know, most of us don't "shun" labels. We depend on them. It saves us the energy of having to think!