Mike Parker: Before we promote ‘social justice,’ shouldn’t we know what it is?
I was watching an NFL football game one recent evening, and one of the sports figures came on during a commercial to promote “social justice.” Social justice sounds like a laudable term, but just what does it mean?
The United Nations says, “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth.”
The National Association of Social Workers contends, “Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. Social workers aim to open the doors of access and opportunity for everyone, particularly those in greatest need.”
The Center for Economic and Social Justice gives this definition: “Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.”
Regardless of the formal definition proffered, social justice is summed up in these three points: 1) equal rights; 2) equal opportunity; and 3) equal treatment. To each of these points we could add “under the law” within our constitutional form of government.
The Declaration of Independence contended that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” – among these: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Equal opportunity under the law means each person should be able to move upward in economic prosperity and society as far as their talents, abilities, training, and experience will take them.
Equal treatment under the law means every person should be treated fairly and equitably. When anyone enters a courtroom or has any interaction with a government official, then that person should find a level playing field within the court system and society at large.
These elements are the ideal toward which we should constantly strive. Each one represents a cornerstone of true liberty.
But an important word in the definitions commonly used for social justice is “distribution.” Can we realistically expect equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal treatment to be distributed? What is the meaning of this word? Even more importantly, who determines how “distribution” takes place?
When we couple “distribution” with “fruits of economic growth,” we move toward a conundrum. Who will determine how economic fruits are distributed?
Listen to what Joe R. Feagin wrote in his Feb. 2001 article “Social Justice and Sociology: Agendas for the Twenty-first Century” that appeared in the American Sociological Review:
“As I see it, social justice requires resource equity, fairness, and respect for diversity, as well as the eradication of existing forms of social oppression. Social justice entails a redistribution of resources from those who have unjustly gained them to those who justly deserve them, and it also means creating and ensuring the processes of truly democratic participation in decision-making. … It seems clear that only a decisive redistribution of resources and decision making power can ensure social justice and authentic democracy.”
The heart of the so-called “social justice” movement is the eradication of capitalism because, as Feagin points out in his article, capitalism exploits and marginalizes working families, imposes huge environmental costs, and reinforces other injustice and inequality.
In my view, Feagin and other social justice advocates are arguing for an economic system based on “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” a slogan developed by Étienne Cabet, Louis Blanc, and Karl Marx.
If by social justice you mean each citizen has a birthright of equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal treatment under the law, then we are on the same page. But if by social justice you mean massive redistribution of economic resources based on the idea of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” then I cannot support the destruction of the free market system that has made the United States one of the most prosperous countries of the world.
To those who advocate the latter view, let me remind you of an adage:
“Be careful what you wish for – you may just get it.”
Mike Parker is a columnist for Neuse News. You can reach him at mparker16@gmail.com.
