Schoeck_2010_EnvyATheoryOfSocialBehaviour.pdf

332 THE EMINENT IN THE SOCIETY OF EQUALS
representative of the people, by drawing attention to the ever-rising cost
of re-election. The end justifies the means-which here signifies money.
There can be little objection to this, perhaps, in so far as politicians
would condone the same 'ethics' in other professions. For underlying it is
the general problem of disparate needs in a society where there is
division of labour. If a socialist politician, committed, by definition, to a
society of equals (or rather: of those 'made equal' by him), manages to
justify his own special financial position because of the exceptional
demands made by his calling and his opportunities, and because he is so
indispensable to the common weal, then other professions are entitled to
similar increases. The thirty-year-old, gifted, energetic manager who
would like to achieve independence can rightly argue that, because of the
progressive income tax during his time as an employee, he is unable to
save enough to become an employer at an early age and thus to make that
contribution in the sphere of industrial organization, innovation, etc.,
which he feels that he alone is competent to make.
The ideal of even an approximately egalitarian society is incompatible
with a cultural ethos which leaves it to the individual to determine, and to
proclaim aloud, the extent of his contribution to the common weal. But it
is this liberty above all that socialist writers hold so dear.
Simone de Beauvoir and Sartre
Like Beatrice Webb, Simone de Beauvoir in her autobiographical writings
comes to the problem of the socialist intellectual who sees himself
raised, solely by his literary success, far above the world of his fellows.
In 1945, after years of privation, the writer was faced with this
problem when her friend, Jean-Paul Sartre, with whom she pooled her
resources, achieved world-wide success. When she realized that from
then on Sartre would always have a great deal of money she was
horrified, and thought it their duty to spend it on deserving causes. But
how? Neither she nor Sartre felt comfortable about the idea of turning
themselves into a philanthropic institution. She tried to spend as little on
herself as possible, but ended up by buying an expensive suit for her
lecture tour in the United States. In tears, she told Sartre: 'It's the first
concession. ' Her friends made fun of her. Simone de Beauvoir, however,
'persisted in imagining . . . there could be a way out of participating in