Introduction to International Politics

Final draft of first essay

October 8, 2014

The Problem of Equality

Todorov’s concept of the double movement claims that human behavior towards the

other will fall into two categories: man will either perceive difference as inferiority or he will

neglect to recognize difference whatsoever. Todorov claims that the latter, while less blatant, is

even more dangerous and can be considered a form of assimilation. In Todorov’s Conquest of

America, Las Casas demonstrates this attitude towards the other during his interaction with the

Indians, ignoring difference by projecting his own values onto them and declaring them equals.

Kant displays a similar blindness to difference when he describes a path to perpetual peace

between states. Both men practice a form of universalism based on the erasure of diversity and

alternatives. Through this conflation of conformity and equality, Las Casas and Kant fail to make

space for difference, and they serve as cautionary examples of Todorov’s double movement.

This paper will compare their stances towards the other in order to examine the ramifications of

equality rooted in assimilation.

Las Casas and Kant share a similar belief of the universality of religion. As a Dominican

friar, Las Casas comes to the Americas with the goal of conversion instead of the amassment of

wealth or power. He believes Christianity as the only true religion and that it will prevail over all

of the other false beliefs, stating “[Christianity] is granted to different peoples as the universal

way to salvation, so that they may leave behind their various sects” (T, 163). Las Casas negates

the validity of any religious difference, arguing that contrasting beliefs are an illusion that will

eventually fade once people come to their senses. Kant makes a similar assertion in his

discussion of religious difference in a footnote of A Perpetual Peace. He believes that the

coexistence of distinct faiths is a ridiculous notion, claiming “there can only be one religion

1
which is valid for all men at all times,” (PP, 114). He acknowledges other religious texts and

historical narratives, but maintains that these are merely the same religion in disguise, depending

upon time and place. Las Casas and Kant’s complete dismissal of religious diversity and their

resolute faith in the universality of their beliefs betrays an assimilationist attitude towards the

other.

Both Las Casas and Kant exploit the notion of equality to confirm the universality of

their stances and to argue against existing differences. At first impression, Las Casas may seem

progressive; he holds the belief of equality between ourselves and others, in this case the

Spaniards and the Indians. In fact, Las Casas claims that the Indians’ most characteristic feature

is their resemblance to Christians. He maintains that any surface differences pail in comparison

to the similarities, “their rights and customs differ, but they all have in common the traits of

simplicity, peacefulness, gentleness…” (163). He goes one step further, arguing that the

Spaniards once possessed wayward traits much like those of the Indians, but overcame them

through Christianity. Las Casas has hidden motives; he must imply “an essential non-difference

on the part of man,” in order to confirm the universalism of Christianity.

Kant’s idea of the equality between states also serves to undermine existing differences

for the sake of a false universalism. He begins with the assumption that there is no hierarchy

between states – they are equals and act on a level-playing field. Furthermore, any linguistic and

cultural differences between these equal states will eventually fade, “As culture grows and men

gradually move towards greater agreement over their principles, [these differences] lead to

mutual understanding and peace.” This notion of agreement over principles is based on the idea

that similarity always trumps difference, an assumption that Las Casas shares. Therefore, both

Las Casas and Kant view difference as an easily-solved problem and assume that an its erasure is

2
the natural, teleological course of events. In both cases, however, the “equality” achieved

through the absence of alternatives is merely a cover for conformity. Las Casas and Kant only

accept the other when they believe his “other-ness” can be overcome.

In recognizing difference strictly when it fits into their preexisting plans, Las Casas and

Kant employ what Todorov describes as a finalist perspective. Todorov defines this attitude as

“finding confirmations of a truth known in advance” (19), a strategy that places all the power in

the hands of its user and none in the hands of the other. Kant and Las Casas both fabricate

delusional confirmations of their respective “truths” and refuse to acknowledge the reality of

difference. Las Casas argues that despite the fact that the Indians are non-believers, they have

the capacity to become Christians, and they will. Similarly, Kant believes that despite the

inherent differences among states, they have the capacity to reach a condition of peace. Las

Casas and Kant declare this capacity as a marker of equality. However, these claims rely on the

collapse of all difference into a manageable field of overarching similarity. In other words, Las

Casas and Kant’s concepts of “universality” are really based on assessments made using an

inaccurate, finalist perspective.

Las Casas and Kant’s definitiveness about their views also displays a finalist slant; the

two see their plans as the only possibilities. In declaring not only that all nations can adopt

Christianity, but that they are fated to do so, Las Casas takes what Todorov describes as a “step

separating potentiality from action” (163). He asserts that the Indians have no choice in the

matter, with time they will conform to Christian ideals and culture. Kant takes a similar step in

describing perpetual peace as the natural human condition, stating that “the mechanical process

of nature visibly exhibits the purposive plan of producing concord among men” (PP, 108).

However, this natural “process” must be instituted by the adoption of republican constitutions,

3
by each state. A federation will secure freedom among these republican states using coercive

power if necessary. When Kant describes how this system will pervade to achieve perpetual

peace, he gestures to a necessary conformity, “These will join up with the first one… and the

whole will gradually spread further and further by a series of alliances of this kind” (PP, 104).

Kant expects one ideology to spread and does not consider the existence of alternatives. Both Las

Casas and Kant refuse to believe in outcomes that may contradict their stances, assimilating all

notions of the future into one, universal progression.

Todorov includes Las Casas in The Conquest of America as the most direct example of

the assimilationist component of his double movement. He claims that the tendency to rule out

difference in favor of a false equality is just as problematic as the hierarchical model of the

inferiority of the other. It leads to a perception that is even more inaccurate than believing the

other is lesser. Furthermore, he states that the “prejudice of equality is still greater, for it consists

in identifying the other purely and simply with one’s own ideal” (154). Here, Todorov clearly

denounces any claim that Las Casas represents progress in interaction with the other, dismissing

the notion that it is a more “modern” stance. However, Todorov claims that assimilation is

modern in that it has pervaded European international relations since the period of conquest. As a

German philosopher from the eighteenth century, Kant squarely fits into this timeline. He

presents a more nuanced case of assimilation. Although he does resist the formation of a world

state, his system of separate nations is based on a false equality that undermines existing

differences and exaggerates universality. His theories rely on the other’s conformity to the

dominant system, and thus clearly fall into the assimilationist component of the double

movement.

4
 Todorov claims that in order to develop real relationships with the other, society must

transcend both ends of the double movement: “We aspire to reap the benefits of the egalitarian

model and the hierarchic model; we aspire to rediscover the meaning of the social without losing

the quality of the individual” (249). In other words, if Las Casas and Kant actually allowed for a

coexistence of difference, their uses of equality would hold more validity and could function as

positive examples of progress. Instead, they serve as models of a shallow similarity based on

conformity. Las Casas and Kant’s failure to recognize the implications of universalism act as

warnings to a modern world entrenched in dialogue based on a fundamental idea of equality.