March 03, 2007
"Social Justice:" A definition...
One hears the buzzwords "Social Justice" very frequently these days. But I've never heard the term defined. I suspect—Oh dear, how can I be so cynical—I suspect that this is intentional. That if we knew what was really meant....we would not be too happy.
Charlene heard something on the radio that I think may shed a bit of light. Someone she was listening to on KSFO quoted from a "progressive teacher" magazine. The subject was using Legos to build a town, as part of some sort of curriculum. For the very young, I would assume. And the comment in the magazine was, that this was a great tool for teaching "social justice." Because all the houses could be the same size, and they could all be communally owned!
What an exciting new idea...
Posted by John Weidner at March 3, 2007 05:10 PMYeah, one wonders if these folks have pondered the development of Social Justice theory, starting with Aquinas and working their way forward...have they read their Kant and Locke and Rawls? Because Social Justice is not some amorphous blob of leftist thought - it's a rigorous philosophical concept that means something.
It's interesting that I didn't even think of the philosophical concept, which I'm at least dimly aware of. It's just way too obvious that we are seeing a deceptious code word for concepts that must be pushed stealthily.
Same as, when you hear "Progressive," you nowadays don't even think of the political movement of a century ago. Or when you hear the word "diversity," you know it means racial quotas, and know that certain races are "diverse," and that others aren't...
Posted by: John Weidner at March 4, 2007 10:06 AMThere's a long history of social justice as a teaching of the Church - probably 200 years or so that it's been discussed as such, if I remember classes from 15 years ago correctly...and JP II has put out some pretty extensive and comprehensive teachings on it. It's definitely an area where I jump completely off the bus with the Church, but that's not because they're ambiguous in what they teach - it's just because I think what they teach is both foolish and harmful to people...but yeah, I suspect the current blast of "social justice" concerns is riding more on the good name of a well-developed line of thought, rather than representing such a line itself...
...sorry, should have proofed before I posted...I wanted to add in that indeed, this seems like it's folks wrapping their own preferred outcomes up in language that they haven't thought about, but that appears to lend their arguments the weight of Rawls and John Paul II and a host of serious thinkers - and thus are degrading the term into a code word for socialism and anti-capitalism...
Social Justice can be pretty anti-capitalist - but it's not about forcing kids to believe that everyone needs an identical house in their legoland...gah.
Hey, why isn't it "social justice" that those who contribute more of what society values (more jobs, better products, more comfort, convenience, abundance, a better value in any needed item in the marketplace) receive the greater reward (more money, bigger house, faster car, etc.)?
Oh. that would be Capitalism.
How can it be considered "socially just" that someone who contributes nothing to society or the needs of people should receive the same compensation for that contribution that someone who studies hard, works harder and longer, and tries to improve his own lot as well as the lot of those around him/her?
Why should all houses be the same size, all cars be the same color, all products be the lowest quality that the state-owned industry can get away with, and be in constant shortage?
Oh. that would be Socialism.
Posted by: doug in colorado at March 5, 2007 10:47 AM
