Is Math the Cause of Inequality?
By Suzanne Weston
Math, according to Aristotle, is the science of quantity. It begins with counting, distinguishing one from many. Math is also a way to describe the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation, using equations. While we expect that math is exact, the reality is that equations are approximations of our perception and therefore, may reflect our internal biases. By assigning values, we create inequalities, with one group having a greater value than another which and this concept is foundational for competition. Math defines the world in relatable terms but how we use this information matters. Could it be that math is an instigator behind inequality?
Which comes first, the concept of greater and less than, or the ability to express it as a concept? It seems that the concept of inequity fuels the need to have more. Mathematicians used expressions/equations to describe this state of excess (greater than) as well as using addition to keep records. Record keeping can be traced to 3000 BC, when it was used for commerce and taxes. It motivates people to acquire more than they need and to complete to get more than others. Math was and still is the language for measuring inequality.
Math gives us the tools to create segmentation, dividing the population into “haves” and “have nots”. But, math sees this division as a statement, rather than a judgement. For example, if people have blue beads while others have green beads, we can separate them into groups based on commonality, and the two sets are different but equal. It becomes problematic when humans add attributes to these observations, classifying things as better or worse (blue beads are better than green beads), or thinking that having more beads is better.
Humans take a simple inequality and create a competition.
We measure our success in comparison to others. When someone wins, someone else must loose. This view is based on the idea that there is a fixed quantity to be shared combined with a fear that there is not enough to go around. However, this interpretation is wrong. It ignores the value that is created through collaboration, innovation, and the ability to stretch limited resources. This is where existing simple mathematical equations fall short (1 + 1 = 2) to get their ‘fair’ share, people place their needs above others.
Shifting perception from being self-centered to being inclusive would require incentivizing sharing, equality, and cooperation. Imagine if instead of prioritizing winning, we focused on ties? People would need to have a compelling reason to change behaviors that require shifting our values and our calculations. Envy and greed can distort reality, forcing a struggle for dominance and supporting the perception that one person is better than another.
Math ignores the power of inclusion and diversity to generate more value than homogeneous teams, increasing the amount we share. Mathematicians lead us to believe equations represent the world and with absolute certainty tell us that the whole is the sum of its parts. But what if by adding inclusion we can increase value? Prioritizing inclusion requires re-calibration. To create inclusion we need to disincentivize greed, denounce persecution, and rethink ambition. Inclusion shares opportunities, erases stereotypes, reduces bias, to find shared values.
Re-frame your measures to embrace differences, support others.
- Instead of trying to get ahead, prioritize getting along.
- Create equations which measure the value of inclusion.
- Find outcomes where everyone wins.
- Reward collaboration and build community.
Mathematics provides the language to define our world. We need to focus on equations that drive community, collaboration, and value creation.
