Do we want to break cage of inequality at all?

When we talk about inequality in Bangladesh, we usually mean differences in income, opportunity, or social status. But the deepest and most silent form of inequality lies hidden in our thoughts, culture, and day to day behaviour, and that can be called inherent or psychological inequality.

A written examination for job candidates had been held. Only five out of nearly 100 candidates were called for the interview, one of whom was a woman. She topped the written test and was the most qualified academically.

All but me were woman on the interview board, and almost all of them had been mentored by the late Kamla Bhasin, the subcontinent’s renowned gender expert. To my surprise, I noticed that the woman candidate was being asked questions that none of the four male candidates had faced.

Instead of asking questions to assess the female candidate’s professional competence, the board members were competing to ask about her family responsibilities. She was questioned about her marriage plans, whether she intended to have a child during her first year of marriage, and even about her parents living in a district town—would they want to come and live with her in Dhaka? If her future husband had a transferable job, would she be able to handle the hassle of this position? Such incidents are not rare—they happen repeatedly.

No matter how many training workshops we attend on gender sensitivity or non-discrimination against women, the deep-seated remnants of inequality ingrained in our minds are not easily straightened out. This process of socialisation continues to nurture the seedlings of inequality that grows in our minds and temperaments. As a result, that tree grows fast.

This poisonous tree is so ‘fertile’ that it embeds inequality into our thoughts, attitudes, and the very fabric of our culture. As a result, we often act discriminatorily without even realising it what psychologists call unconscious bias. It is from this very bias that a woman candidate faces uncomfortable questions during an interview.

Anyone who commutes in the bus from Farmgate and moves around the city will notice how the tone and behaviour of the driver’s assistant change just by seeing a student’s school uniform. There is a visible difference in how students from highly reputed schools are treated compared to those from less prestigious institutions.

At our school too, I had seen that after the Eid holidays, many students would come wearing their Eid clothes instead of the school uniform. That day, there would always be a faint mark of unconscious bias on the teachers’ faces. Somehow, our subconscious mind had learned that men would be the heads of families, and women’s roles were limited.

The tendency to consider people of different religions, ethnicities, or professions as inferior or second-class also stems from unconscious bias. It manifests in many ways: refusing to rent out or sell apartments to religious minorities, avoiding greetings or interactions with them, and more.

In our folk tales, fables, sayings, and verses – everywhere, discrimination has either been acknowledged or efforts have been made to promote and perpetuate it. Phrases like, “What honour-dignity does a poor person can have?” reflect a deep-rooted subconscious discriminatory mind-sets.

Our proverbs and folklore also stand in favour of inequality. Here are some examples:

People say “Women possess less intelligence” to portray women as naturally weak and incapable. Even though a daughter is affectionately called Lokkhi (the goddess of fortune), the underlying thought of denying her rights persists in the saying, “A daughter belongs to another family.” She is presented not as a family asset but as a burden. The expression “A woman’s place is in the kitchen” reflects the social mind-sets on confining women to domestic roles.

To deny poor people their dignity, people say, “What honour-dignity does a poor person can have?” To justify the divide between rich and poor as destiny, people say, “Everyone’s fate is preordained.” And to push the poor into despair, another cruel phrase is used: “Even pigs can’t survive in a poor man’s house.”

Phrases like “village boy” or “field girl,” are used to look down upon agricultural workers. Discriminatory slurs such as “son of a sweeper” or “cobbler” are used against marginalised castes or low-income labourers. The social attitude toward working-class people is revealed in sayings like “What respect do labourers deserve?”

Young people are often excluded from decision-making with remarks like “They’re just knee-high kids; what do they know?” On the other hand, authoritarian attitudes are justified through ideas like “You must not question your elders, even if they’re wrong.”

In many tales, the rich prince or princess is portrayed as intelligent, beautiful, and capable, while poor characters are helpless and dependent. The story of a “poor boy marrying a princess” usually occurs through magic or luck, not through merit or ability.

Growing up in such social conditioning, we unconsciously begin to consider others as ‘less capable,’ ‘less important’ or ‘lower classes. For instance, when someone speaks in local dialect, many assume that person is ‘uneducated’ or ‘less intelligent.’ Judging people by skin colour, dress, or profession—these too are signs of psychological inequality.

Psychological inequality functions in several ways within society. It undermines the confidence of marginalised groups and weakens the empathy of the privileged. People begin to think, “This is normal,” or “This is God’s will.” They accept inequality, and in doing so, their sense of justice becomes distorted. People stop being aware of their rights. As a result, exploitation continues. Justice and equality remain ‘theoretical,’ never practiced in reality. Empathy and human connection weaken—people stop understanding each other’s pain.

Can the ‘oppressed’ themselves ever become ‘oppressors’? The answer is yes – they often do. According to the theory of Pierre Bourdieu, power, prestige, and symbolic capital are reproduced generation after generation. A person who once faced inequality, upon coming to power, often uses the same structures to preserve their new status.

Sometimes, those who have been victim of inequality carry within them deep-seated ‘inferiority’ or ‘wounds of humiliation.’ Once in power, they unconsciously adopt a retaliatory mind-set: “When I was at the bottom, no one cared for me—now I will show them what power means.”

This is called psychological compensation or internalised oppression. That means long-term suppression and devaluation become so deep-seated in one’s psyche that one unconsciously reproduces the same oppressive system. In a state or society built on inequality, the power structure itself is designed to sustain inequality. So, when someone from a marginalised group rises to power, they often become part of that system. The system teaches them, ‘You can only survive if you follow the rules.’

Thus, even if individuals change, inequality persists if the structure remains intact. The real question is not “How can I break this cage?” but this is not the actual question at all. The main question is whether we truly want to break the cage of inequality. If we genuinely desire it, there is no shortage of ways and means.

#Gowhar Nayeem Wara is a writer and researcher.