What is Social Justice?
January 11, 2016 10:54 AM Subscribe
What is Social Justice? How would you give a brief explanation to a conservative?
I've had several conversations lately with various conservative folks, and they've seemed genuinely confused about what Social Justice is.* They're flummoxed by the breadth of "causes" and "agendas" that fall under the umbrella of "Social Justice", and they can't find a unifying conception that allows them to make sense of the Divide. Have any of y'all had success explaining this to people?
These are not folks that I'm trying to "convert" or whatever. The question that I'm trying to answer gets posed to me most often as:
"Person 1 does thing X, Person 2 does thing Y, yet they both say their working for 'Social Justice'? X and Y are different things, so what is Social Justice?"
*I know, I know. Saying "I don't recognize this thing, therefore it's nonsense" is a rhetorical position, and certainly some of the conservatives I have talked to are faking their ignorance. I am assuming that there are good faith questions, and those are the ones I'm trying to learn how to answer.
I've had several conversations lately with various conservative folks, and they've seemed genuinely confused about what Social Justice is.* They're flummoxed by the breadth of "causes" and "agendas" that fall under the umbrella of "Social Justice", and they can't find a unifying conception that allows them to make sense of the Divide. Have any of y'all had success explaining this to people?
These are not folks that I'm trying to "convert" or whatever. The question that I'm trying to answer gets posed to me most often as:
"Person 1 does thing X, Person 2 does thing Y, yet they both say their working for 'Social Justice'? X and Y are different things, so what is Social Justice?"
*I know, I know. Saying "I don't recognize this thing, therefore it's nonsense" is a rhetorical position, and certainly some of the conservatives I have talked to are faking their ignorance. I am assuming that there are good faith questions, and those are the ones I'm trying to learn how to answer.
Best answer: My elevator pitch to skeptics goes like this: "Social justice is the idea that society shouldn't screw people over for things they didn't choose."
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:05 AM on January 11, 2016 [37 favorites]
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:05 AM on January 11, 2016 [37 favorites]
Social justice is about creating a society where everybody gets a fair shot. Different groups work on different hindrances--but ultimately, it's about giving people an equal chance.
I think it is important to emphasize this is a fair shot or a fair chance, because a lot of conservatives get hung up on the idea that people working for social justice want to take things away from people who work hard and give it to people who are lazy. Which is a ridiculous misinterpretation.
posted by Anonymous at 11:09 AM on January 11, 2016
I think it is important to emphasize this is a fair shot or a fair chance, because a lot of conservatives get hung up on the idea that people working for social justice want to take things away from people who work hard and give it to people who are lazy. Which is a ridiculous misinterpretation.
posted by Anonymous at 11:09 AM on January 11, 2016
Fighting against systemic oppression.
(or dismantling the kyriarchy, but I imagine that's too jargon-y for most conservatives)
posted by melissasaurus at 11:10 AM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
(or dismantling the kyriarchy, but I imagine that's too jargon-y for most conservatives)
posted by melissasaurus at 11:10 AM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Short version: equal rights and decent treatment for everyone.
posted by puddledork at 11:12 AM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by puddledork at 11:12 AM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I work for a 501(c)(3) and our mission statement is, in part, "achieving fundamental systemic reform through promotion of policies rooted in social justice and government effectiveness". We define social justice as "the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities through access to courts, social resources, health and welfare resources and education".
"Social justice" aims to create a just society, particularly through ensuring that necessary or beneficial institutions are equally accessible to those with the least advantages.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:14 AM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Social justice" aims to create a just society, particularly through ensuring that necessary or beneficial institutions are equally accessible to those with the least advantages.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:14 AM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Rhetorically, it seems like a way to bridge the divide between the concepts of "civil and political rights" (e.g., freedom of speech, anti-direct discrimination) and "social and economic rights" (e.g., minimum wage, health care, discriminatory impact). These were sometimes seen in opposition to each other, with the US championing civil and political rights; and socialist countries prioritizing social and economic rights. It used to be that the term "human rights" was used to collapse the categories in international law, but now it seems like "social justice" might be the umbrella concept.
posted by yarly at 11:23 AM on January 11, 2016
posted by yarly at 11:23 AM on January 11, 2016
I should add that in my answer "welfare" does not mean "financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need." it means "well-being; health, happiness and good fortune"
posted by crush-onastick at 11:27 AM on January 11, 2016
posted by crush-onastick at 11:27 AM on January 11, 2016
Social justice = Fixing "I got mine; now you get yours."
Recognizing the fundamental unfairness of that position, and working to rectify it.
posted by BostonTerrier at 11:30 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Recognizing the fundamental unfairness of that position, and working to rectify it.
posted by BostonTerrier at 11:30 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
In almost every other context, "justice" has connotations of punishment and retribution. I gather from the above answers that that might not be the case for "social justice". This is probably an important point to clarify if your listener is as ignorant as me.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 11:34 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by paper chromatographologist at 11:34 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The United Nations recently described social justice generally as, "the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth", with some qualifiers. This discussion occurs on page 7 of the linked PDF.
posted by Tanizaki at 11:36 AM on January 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Tanizaki at 11:36 AM on January 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Scott Greenfield writes about this from a somewhat conservative point of view on his blog Simple Justice. His comments illustrate some of the issues pretty clearly. He clearly fights for social justice by calling out representatives and agencies of the criminal justice system for bad policies and bad behaviors of various kinds. On the other hand, many of the "causes" and "agendas" are a problem for him, mostly when they are ill-defined, and conflict with established legal rights, e.g. the First Amendment.
IMHO, there is a big problem with trusting that your cause is just if your motives are pure. 'Taint always so.
posted by SemiSalt at 11:38 AM on January 11, 2016
IMHO, there is a big problem with trusting that your cause is just if your motives are pure. 'Taint always so.
posted by SemiSalt at 11:38 AM on January 11, 2016
Adding to what Bwithh said, Catholics are actually theologically required to care for the poor as a precondition for salvation. The catechism directly states this in so many words (and much more eloquently than I will):
(Emphasis my own)
That's not really going to help define what you're asking for, but it's a point of common understanding for some conservatives, and it's a pretty good statement of what justice means outside of a legal context.
posted by deathpanels at 12:08 PM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Emphasis my own)
When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.
...those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church...
[Love for the poor] extends not only to material poverty but also to the many forms of cultural and religious povertySource
That's not really going to help define what you're asking for, but it's a point of common understanding for some conservatives, and it's a pretty good statement of what justice means outside of a legal context.
posted by deathpanels at 12:08 PM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Best answer: On the talking-to-conservatives question, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that it's not just them having trouble identifying the substantive political commitments associated with the term; there are also plenty of liberals and leftists who think it's an almost contentless euphemism. That a term is being used for convenience in Internet-based informal arguments (and nonprofit mission statements, etc) doesn't entail that it's grounded in a well-thought-out political theory. It might just be an umbrella term used by a coalition for a bunch of issues and groups that are substantially different in character, ranging from (say) identity-politics-neoliberal to social-democratic to socialist. Sometimes it's hard to see the internal differences between groups and people if they all disagree with you, and IME conservatives will often see "the left" or "liberals" as far more unified than they really are, which might be the source of this kind of puzzlement.
(E.g.: does "social justice" mean advocating for gay people and women to serve equally in the military, or should an anti-war commitment take precedence over that? There are many, and very substantial, differences on questions like this entirely between different "social justice" people and groups; in contexts where the former sounds like the obvious only possible "social justice" answer, that's a strong indicator that it's being used as a rough-and-ready synonym for "identity politics," as it sometimes is. Questions of poverty/the welfare state/wealth distribution as well as intervention and war will often be the clearest wedge issues.)
But if you want an argumentative approach that does treat the term as meaningful (beyond "sometimes it's a synonym for identity politics and other times it's not"), then yeah, it's something close to what people here have already suggested: the idea that achieving a genuine liberal democracy (i.e. the kind of "liberalism" that most self-identified "conservatives" believe in, though they may not know that's the word for it) requires that reparative work be done to fix existing social power imbalances.
posted by RogerB at 12:56 PM on January 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
(E.g.: does "social justice" mean advocating for gay people and women to serve equally in the military, or should an anti-war commitment take precedence over that? There are many, and very substantial, differences on questions like this entirely between different "social justice" people and groups; in contexts where the former sounds like the obvious only possible "social justice" answer, that's a strong indicator that it's being used as a rough-and-ready synonym for "identity politics," as it sometimes is. Questions of poverty/the welfare state/wealth distribution as well as intervention and war will often be the clearest wedge issues.)
But if you want an argumentative approach that does treat the term as meaningful (beyond "sometimes it's a synonym for identity politics and other times it's not"), then yeah, it's something close to what people here have already suggested: the idea that achieving a genuine liberal democracy (i.e. the kind of "liberalism" that most self-identified "conservatives" believe in, though they may not know that's the word for it) requires that reparative work be done to fix existing social power imbalances.
posted by RogerB at 12:56 PM on January 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I agree with RogerB. The fact that people people who claim the mantle of social justice disagree with each other is not an argument against (or for) any of those positions. You can point out that this isn't unique to people on the left. People on the right both claim to be working for a "secure" country but disagree whether that security would be best achieved by granting our government greater abilities to monitor and protect against terrorists or by ensuring individuals more of a right to be free of government surveillance.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:35 PM on January 11, 2016
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:35 PM on January 11, 2016
Conservatives should not be uniquely confused by social justice. This concept is neither new nor left-wing, and it is not remotely radical. It was and is still a fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Vatican is really clear on this.
So to paraphrase at least one working definition: social justice is the pursuit of equal dignity for all humans through the reduction of excessive social and economic inequalities.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:55 PM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
So to paraphrase at least one working definition: social justice is the pursuit of equal dignity for all humans through the reduction of excessive social and economic inequalities.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:55 PM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
This image has helped me get this point across.
posted by Nerro at 3:57 PM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Nerro at 3:57 PM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
As DarlingBri points out, "Social Justice" means different things to different people.
You can give a sketch definition of what "social justice" means in 2016 discourse, but at some point I think you're going to have to separate outcomes and methods. (For instance, there are a lot of fundamental doctrines of the Catholic church—doctrines that actually fit into Catholic conceptions of social justice—that are anathema to many people who use social justice to mean other things. If you talk to a Catholic about the outcome "equal dignity for all humans"—and you're talking to a Catholic who cares about what the catechism says—you're going to get to the part that is very clear on 'all humans' including the unborn and those who would request euthanasia. [And while there are SJ-identified Catholics who would like to see that changed, there are also SJ-identified Catholics who see opposing abortion as part of that mission.])
Another example: My parents are very doctrinaire pro-business Republicans, but if you ask them whether they agree with the "[aim] to create a just society, particularly through ensuring that necessary or beneficial institutions are equally accessible to those with the least advantages," especially in those words, they will tell you that is exactly why they're Republicans. Both of them grew up lower middle class and believe, as sincerely as anyone believes anything, that the government butting out helped them get where they are, and that if they'd had access to more benefits they wouldn't have worked as hard. I think they're wrong, but I don't think they're lying about what they believe.
Many conservatives do not have the same priors as you do in ways that will make explaining a vague concept using vague, outcome-oriented ideas impossible. You might get to "Hey, you and I are really just working for the same goals!" that way, but I'm not sure how helpful that would be to you. (Imagine a Catholic explaining Catholic social justice to you—respect for the least of these, special preference for the poor, stewardship of the environment, all these things you both agree are good—and waiting the whole time for the actual mechanics of those beliefs, which include compulsory opposition to abortion and euthanasia, to drop. Many conservatives, especially the social conservatives who have an inkling of what the movement is, are just going to be waiting for you to get from the parts that sound good to the dismantling of free speech or free exercise of religion, or whatever they got from the stories they've heard second-hand.)
posted by Polycarp at 5:23 PM on January 11, 2016
You can give a sketch definition of what "social justice" means in 2016 discourse, but at some point I think you're going to have to separate outcomes and methods. (For instance, there are a lot of fundamental doctrines of the Catholic church—doctrines that actually fit into Catholic conceptions of social justice—that are anathema to many people who use social justice to mean other things. If you talk to a Catholic about the outcome "equal dignity for all humans"—and you're talking to a Catholic who cares about what the catechism says—you're going to get to the part that is very clear on 'all humans' including the unborn and those who would request euthanasia. [And while there are SJ-identified Catholics who would like to see that changed, there are also SJ-identified Catholics who see opposing abortion as part of that mission.])
Another example: My parents are very doctrinaire pro-business Republicans, but if you ask them whether they agree with the "[aim] to create a just society, particularly through ensuring that necessary or beneficial institutions are equally accessible to those with the least advantages," especially in those words, they will tell you that is exactly why they're Republicans. Both of them grew up lower middle class and believe, as sincerely as anyone believes anything, that the government butting out helped them get where they are, and that if they'd had access to more benefits they wouldn't have worked as hard. I think they're wrong, but I don't think they're lying about what they believe.
Many conservatives do not have the same priors as you do in ways that will make explaining a vague concept using vague, outcome-oriented ideas impossible. You might get to "Hey, you and I are really just working for the same goals!" that way, but I'm not sure how helpful that would be to you. (Imagine a Catholic explaining Catholic social justice to you—respect for the least of these, special preference for the poor, stewardship of the environment, all these things you both agree are good—and waiting the whole time for the actual mechanics of those beliefs, which include compulsory opposition to abortion and euthanasia, to drop. Many conservatives, especially the social conservatives who have an inkling of what the movement is, are just going to be waiting for you to get from the parts that sound good to the dismantling of free speech or free exercise of religion, or whatever they got from the stories they've heard second-hand.)
posted by Polycarp at 5:23 PM on January 11, 2016
I'm surprised no one has mentioned John Rawls and his book A Theory of Justice.
His basic idea is that you decide principals of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you don't know who you will be, who your parents will be, what country you will live in, how much wealth your family will have, how smart or beautiful or charismatic you will be. From that position you decide what is fair, what is just, and how the world should be set up.
People who work for social justice are trying to make the world be that way. They are trying to make it fair for people who aren't as smart, aren't as well connected, don't have as much upper body strength or the right skin color, weren't born in the United States or Western Europe, while also still being fair for people who were born with some or all of those qualities.
There are lots of different ways to work for social justice because there is so much injustice in the world. We are really falling short.
posted by alms at 5:39 PM on January 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
His basic idea is that you decide principals of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you don't know who you will be, who your parents will be, what country you will live in, how much wealth your family will have, how smart or beautiful or charismatic you will be. From that position you decide what is fair, what is just, and how the world should be set up.
People who work for social justice are trying to make the world be that way. They are trying to make it fair for people who aren't as smart, aren't as well connected, don't have as much upper body strength or the right skin color, weren't born in the United States or Western Europe, while also still being fair for people who were born with some or all of those qualities.
There are lots of different ways to work for social justice because there is so much injustice in the world. We are really falling short.
posted by alms at 5:39 PM on January 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
It has to start with recognition that the way thing are is unjust. If people don't believe that, they won't be sympathetic to social justice concerns or agendas. At all.
Sometimes that means realizing that the way things are is a choice and that things don't have to be this way--things can be better.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:40 PM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sometimes that means realizing that the way things are is a choice and that things don't have to be this way--things can be better.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:40 PM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The most powerful definition of social justice that I've found in terms of brevity is one used by Tavis Smiley and others:
that "justice is what love looks like in public" and that "love means that everybody is equally worthy just because"
posted by giizhik at 5:06 AM on January 13, 2016
that "justice is what love looks like in public" and that "love means that everybody is equally worthy just because"
posted by giizhik at 5:06 AM on January 13, 2016
« Older Upcoming folksy concerts in Paris | Does Sons of Anarchy rebound after Season 3? (No... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by anonymisc at 11:04 AM on January 11, 2016 [2 favorites]