My novel is 1984 by George Orwell.

My essential question is how can society maintain perfect equality without sacrificing individuality?

The setting of my novel is in a utopia, an ideal society where everyone is in a sense perfectly equal. They all wear the same clothes, have the same jobs, and have loyalty to the same power. I was curious not only as to if this is possible in modern society, but also if it was achievable without sacrificing the individuality of all humans. In our modern society, we all think differently and have our own opinions. These might seem like opposites to most, but they are in fact very different.

The source that I used is an article in the Chicago Journal: "Individuality, Equality, and Creative Democracy—the Task Before Us" by Jim Garrison. In the article, Garrison discusses the idea that equality is the antithesis, or opposite, of sameness, at least in the sense of "moral equality". Moral equality celebrates unique, single-use, qualitative individuality. When we interpret equality in terms of quantitative sameness, it destroys moral equality.

Garrison also argues that to those who value individualism and its principles, standardization of human nature threatens the idea of a vibrant democracy. It presents ideas of sameness that degrade ideas of equality and individuality. He argues that perhaps the greatest barrier to reconceiving democracy is the assumption that it was perfect from the start.

For Garrison, equality and sameness are not equal. He emphasizes uniqueness and difference, and believes in the praising of individuality and self-expression. This leads me to think that Garrison is communicating that the way to perfect equality with individuality is to stop thinking of equality as sameness, as it is expressed in 1984. The utopian ideal is near impossible, but a combination of individuality and equality is not.