Reclaiming "Social Justice"
When conservatives hear "social justice," we tend to see a vague fascist vibe. The idea of arbitrary, discretionary, populist-based distribution schemes being "justice" seems absurd.
What if we took the phrase from the liberals? Instead of material wealth, what if we emphasized social capital? For example, we could call attention to the black elites' abundance of power, money, and privilege, leaving poor blacks to rot in poverty traps while blindly following leaders that exploit them.
Here are some ideas for a conservative social-capital vision of social justice (these could be framed either as ideals or "rights"):
- Freedom from populism, which redistributes social capital from poor to rich/elites.
- Opportunity for social capital formation:
- civic institutions (such as religion)
- the complex network of expectations upper-class people use to succeed.
- an ethic of self-reliance
- economic independence.
- Social capital education:
- Why clubs, hobbies, and religion make communities wealthier and happier.
- Classes in citizenship and other civic topics like how to help your kids get through school.
- Education (and even propaganda) on why marriage is vital to both successful families and stable communities.
- Freedom from the exploitation and dependency of identity politics.
I don't know if this is a viable idea, but I think Americans are sick of liberals who destroy social capital (and the communities that rely on it), then exacerbate the situation by treating people like children and giving them handouts. The great liberal experiment of the miserable populist underclass needs to end.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
Very well said, Joseph. We need an offense, and must stop playing defense all the time.
May '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
Even though I take it you are of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, I'd wager that you don't believe that religion per se "makes communities wealthier and happier." Otherwise, you'd be arguing that Islam does just that.
Oct '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
Well, supposedly Islam did just that one or two hundred years ago, before the rise of the Islamists. But certainly today, few sects of Islam are conducive to community building (the few that remain being prime targets for Islamists).
But yes, I am thinking of the Judeo-Christian umbrella.
Oct '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
I used to be more reluctant to suggest religion in this way (I've always viewed religion as a private thing). My hobby of studying poverty changed that; after lots of research, I came up with a design for a civic institution almost identical to a church.
It seemed silly; here I was, trying to think up a secularist civic institution tailored for poor people, and the best I could come up with was a sort-of non-religious church--which clearly wouldn't work. Eventually, I figured, why reinvent the wheel?
Church is the first experience with civic society many people have, especially in less-prosperous communities. It is fundamentally a civic institution; and thus far, there are no secularist alternatives (there are for the middle class, but not for the lower). My hobby has made me appreciate the important role religion plays in communitity building, and as far as I can tell, no one's been able to duplicate the role it plays in poor communities (e.g. fostering social capital, community cohesion, and family values) in a secularist institution successfully.
Edited on May 19, 2011 at 9:59pmRe: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
I've been thinking a lot about this idea for a number of months now, Joseph. So when I saw in my church bulletin, the following announcement for an event, I registered right away:
I think that social justice should be redefined to mean human flourishing. What do humans need to flourish? A few obvious things are a strong sense of purpose, stable families, some type of work skills, and the knowledge and tools necessary to save money and build credit. Identity politics have no role to play here, and only act as more obstacles that our poor and downtrodden must work to overcome.
Nov '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
I *love* the idea of taking language back, of reclaiming the narrative. (Can we start with the word "liberal"?) Like most phrases that statists co-opt, "social justice," as defined by the Left, is anything but.
I think you're onto something. It starts with words. The language of all of this is much more important than we sometimes realize.
Aug '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I've been thinking a lot about this idea for a number of months now, Joseph. So when I saw in my church bulletin, the following announcement for an event, I registered right away:
When Helping Hurts is the title of a Tim Keller book, I think. I'd be interested if that was the text they are basing their program on.
As far as redefining the term social justice, I like Diane's definition of human flourishing. Of all the aspects of a flourishing life, how many are truly the product of things that cannot be bought? Aside from wine, good cigars and richly marbled steaks, most attributes of the good life are free or inexpensive: time spent with friends, rich conversation, classic books, jazz records, faith, children (well maybe not children - don't cost much to beget them - just the birthin' and raisin'.)
Oct '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
I agree, human flourishing is an excellent way to describe it. However, some statist countries co-opt that phrase, too (for example, European countries with 35-hour workweek claim it contributes to "human flourishing". . .cold comfort, I'm sure, to the millions of their citizens excluded from the legal employment sector by such rigid labor market regulations).
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
I would argue that there is no such thing as social justice. Justice is what we owe individuals, and it consists in respecting their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which generally means their acquisition of property). We may do other things -- build roads, allocate spectrum, establish public schools, and the like -- that are in the public interest, but that is because these efforts facilitate the pursuit of happiness. The term social justice is arises from a view that justice is owed groups, not individuals. Its pursuit is inconsistent with liberty.
Oct '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
Professor Rahe, that's true, but the whole point is to take the term for our own, in a more individualistic way. If we allow the Left to sell it's own brand of social justice, they will continue the cycle of poverty and social destruction, extending it to every social group they can get their hands on. They will destroy the poor.
Mar '11
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
I forget who it was who first said: "Time was when a liberal was a person who was generous with his own money." but he got it right. It's ironic that a humorless bunch should be the source of so many jokes in the form of euphemism. My all time favorite is, of course, "choice".
Remember Hillary saying she preferred to be called a progressive rather than a liberal; when both of these labels have been turned into pejoratives by the people who appropriated them.
"Social justice" is now a euphemism for socialism, or communism, or collectivism, or statism.
I don't think we can stop them from littering the language with weasel words but we can enjoy the joke and learn to pick up on them as soon as they appear and know we are hearing a lie. Just like we know anything preceded by the phrase "Let me be perfectly clear" is a lie.
Nov '10
Re: Reclaiming "Social Justice"
Joseph, I would say that Catholic Social Teaching (properly understood) is already very close to what you are suggesting.
And Professor Rahe, it is my understanding that the term "social justice" does not necessarily mean so much that justice is owed to groups as opposed to individuals. In its best sense, it means a society, including its culture, institutions, etc., that respects principles of justice.