Since men and women have interacted with others, the individuals involved in the interaction have had to evaluate the “fairness” of the interaction. This is the root of the most basic principle of social cohesion that binds society – reciprocation.[1] A society that is comprised of individuals who feel they are dealt with fairly is a strong, tight society. It is a “just” society. Aristotle described this “common sense of justice” as an essential building block of civil society.
But there is also a dark side to reciprocation. A society with individuals who don’t feel that they have been treated fairly weakens social bonds. Instead of affinity toward one another, there is resentment. A society will collapse if the resentment grows beyond an unknowable point. Whether actual fairness can be reestablished is not as important as whether the growth of perceived unfairness can be abated. Such emotional crusades take on a life of their own and will not stop until there is total social collapse.
There are many concepts associated with progressivism. Perhaps none are more central to its cause than the notion of “social” justice. But, what is “social justice?” The San Diego Foundation posed this question on their website.[2] Just as with the definition of “justice” itself, there is no universal definition. Investopedia points out that the term was originally a religious concept and is perhaps better known as “distributive justice.”[3] The Corporate Financial Institute (CFI) goes on to explain that the term has morphed to emphasize “human rights and improving the lives of disadvantaged and marginalized groups that have historically faced discrimination in society.“[4]
An undeniable distinction between the concepts of justice and social justice is that the former relates to the treatment of an individual. Justice for an individual means that person has received his due.[5] This is not to say that the concept of justice does not apply to a situation with multiple people and a potential complex situation. The important point is that the focus of evaluating whether an outcome is just or not is based upon the individual(s) involved.
Social justice is entirely based upon a collective. More specifically, a division within society. Whereas an undivided society can focus on justice, one that focuses on social justice by definition is divided. Once a society abandons justice in favor of social justice, it becomes fractured and less stable.
The most fundamental social division is “rich” and “poor.” A just society will not consider one’s membership in either group when meting out justice. On the other hand, a “socially just” society will unequally apply punishment based upon that status. This can cut either way, but the modern concept would never contemplate preference to the rich as anything but an abomination. Yet historically, the rich and powerful got the benefit of uneven justice.
On the surface, and reflected by the media and governmental policies, it appears that the balance of power has shifted to the poor. This would be the expected outcome of a “democracy” – because the number of the poor would be the basis of power. Today’s reality is more complex than this simple model. The divisions are not just rich and poor; they include every possible minority group that can be created by modern woke theory. In addition, the rich have bought into the notion of social justice – or at least give lip service to it. The resulting dynamic is that the power of the rich and numbers of the aggregated minorities are allied against a stupefied middle class that wonders what they did to be the target of so much hatred.
The original intent of the South American Jesuits who came up with the religious notion of “social justice” was to help the destitute, but it was a misnomer. Instead of challenging the concept of justice in those societies, it was really a push to have those societies live up to their social contract with the people. In today’s America, the term is used to foster and reinforce grudges and spread division. It is used to support the classic Marxist model of oppressor and oppressed groups. The dark side of reciprocation threatens the cohesion of society at its foundation.
Social Justice has morphed into nothing more than Grudge Justice.
[1] Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Pearson Education, 2009.
[2] “What Is Social Justice?” San Diego Foundation, April 11, 2022. https://www.sdfoundation.org/news-events/sdf-news/what-is-social-justice/.
[3] Mollenkamp, Daniel Thomas. “Social Justice Definition.” Investopedia. Investopedia, July 8, 2022. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-justice.asp.
[4] Trinidad, Celso. “Social Justice.” Corporate Finance Institute, May 8, 2022. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/social-justice/.
[5] Cna. “Individual Justice.” Catholic News Agency. Accessed July 26, 2022. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55555/individual-justice.
