Hello,
I have to do an essay and I would appreciate if you could tell me if the the sentences are grammatically correct. 
The topic is: The British
poet and essayist Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) once wrote:
“As to the
duty of pursuing equality, there is no such consent among us. Indeed, the
consent is the other way, the consent is against equality. Equality before the
law we all take as a matter of course; that is not the equality which we mean
when we talk of equality. When we talk of equality, we understand social
equality; and for equality in this Frenchified sense of the term almost
everybody in England
has a hard word”.
Discuss
this opinion in intercultural terms and illustrate your view with concrete
examples :
There is a tension in Western society between
people who think that everyone should have legal equality and people who think
that we have to make people equal in every way. Most English people share the
first view whereas most of the French share the second one.
First, English people are more
comfortable with social inequality. This
difference can find it origin in both their main religions. Most British are Protestants
and there is a low power distance between God and themselves. They talk
directly with God and know that they have been chosen. Therefore, the concept
of inequality is accepted by the majority. On the
contrary, most French are Catholics and their relationship with God pass by the
Church. The French belief is that “every man is equal in front of God”. So,
they have applied that ideal in society and as a result, social equality has
become a strong French value.
Then, British people consider equality as
equality before the law. We can discuss this point considering equality inside education
and work. In England, it is
enough to provide equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law to
people, and to protect everyone's rights. Through
work and education, it results as the right for anyone to apply for some
studies or some jobs. The selection doesn’t depend on origins, race, gender or the
belonging to a particular group. It is forbidden by the law. In France, it's
the government's job to make sure that everyone is equal; that no one is richer
or poorer than anyone else, that no one has more success than anyone else. For
instance, when a chief executive wants to fire an employee because of his incompetence,
he has to pass by a lot of arguments cause of the French legislation laws.
Actually, the most productive or skilled employees are not recruited for that
reason. Another example
can be illustrated by some schools with problems called the ZEP. There are
numerous pupils who are not interested in study and who are nothing but trouble
for the other. Thus, serious pupils can miss great opportunity to pursue in
Higher Schools.
So, several
attempts to achieve social equality can end up punishing society's most
productive people. In my opinion, most British think that social equality is
impossible to achieve, because people have different gifts and abilities, and
some have more motivation than others.
Another aspect concerns attitudes towards money
which shows that social inequality doesn’t mind British people. Indeed, people
talk freely about money, and it represents a sign of merit. Those who have a
lot of money have more merit than the other. In France, the
money subject is taboo during conversation and several taxes exist in order to
generate social equality. It provides a social security that French prefer
because of their uncertainty avoidance attitude. The French government follows
this trend and makes egalitarian laws like welfare or the redistribution of
incomes.
To conclude, most British have a very different
point of view of equality than the French. They consider that equality before
the law is sufficient and doesn’t believe in the benefits of social equality
unlike the French.
Thank you very much
Sincerely,