CCBC-Net Archives
Defining Social Justice
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_ttmd.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:31:03 -0500
Lyn,
I am not dismissing anything, just seeking clarity. Are we talking about generic, broad issues that touch most people (difficulties and challenges children encounter not of their own making; bullying, marginalization, income disparities, differences in abilities, anything departing from the "norm", disrespect, etc.) or are we talking about very targeted, specific issues (poverty, refugee status, environmental issues, activism or political engagement, class, orientation)? Both conversations have value but they are different conversations.
If I might characterize it as such, the generic issues that potentially touch most people are a somewhat unifying discussion - we are all subject to bullying, we all have people who are better off than us, we all compare ourselves to people that can do some things that we would wish we could do, we all experience failure of some sort. These unpleasant issues are pertinent across race, culture, geography, class, etc. This conversation would seem to be basically about how people grow up and learn to manage those issues as individuals.
The second conversation is more targeted - what are the specific issues, causations, and contexts. American kids are not likely to become refugees, live in extreme poverty (of the global sort)and so on, but it is likely important for them to know of those issues. Some subsection of American kids are likely to experience relative poverty, be concerned about the environment, deal with issues of orientation, etc. Part of the difference in this conversation is the political element - what are the causes of famine, poverty, discrimination, prejudice, etc. Important issues but, I think, far more nuanced and delicate. This is much more of a community conversation. The issue of parental perspective is also important to a greater degree than in the first conversation, i.e. everyone would agree that bullying is generally a bad thing but perhaps not everyone would agree, for example, on the role of personal responsibility with regard to poverty or the trade-offs between deforestation and economic development.
In the first conversation we are pretty much looking at books that children can enjoy and from which they can derive guidance and wisdom. It is a matter of picking and choosing what seems most effective - people broadly agree on the issue and are only looking for the books that are most likely to be effective and engaging in addressing the issue; it is a personal development issue. The second conversation is more of a minefield because there is a much greater diversity in terms of defining what the issues are in the first place, what their root causes are, their pertinence, etc. You aren't just picking the best books for the issue, you are engaging in a community conversation beyond just what the children might want to read about and are exploring what it is appropriate for them to read. We might all agree that extreme poverty is bad but if different groups lay the blame for poverty differently on: bankers, greedy industrialists, incompetent government policy, personal weakness, bad decisions at a personal l evel, fate, systemic religious/ethnic/racial/class discrimination, and so on; then we have to reach some community consensus on the nature and importance of the issue. Far more challenging.
It seems from the comments that we are talking about Social Justice in a way that includes hardships that potentially touch everyone as well as challenges that arise from very particular circumstances. Just flagging that we can end up talking at cross-purposes with both perspectives in play.
Charles
Received on Mon 07 Nov 2011 01:31:03 PM CST
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:31:03 -0500
Lyn,
I am not dismissing anything, just seeking clarity. Are we talking about generic, broad issues that touch most people (difficulties and challenges children encounter not of their own making; bullying, marginalization, income disparities, differences in abilities, anything departing from the "norm", disrespect, etc.) or are we talking about very targeted, specific issues (poverty, refugee status, environmental issues, activism or political engagement, class, orientation)? Both conversations have value but they are different conversations.
If I might characterize it as such, the generic issues that potentially touch most people are a somewhat unifying discussion - we are all subject to bullying, we all have people who are better off than us, we all compare ourselves to people that can do some things that we would wish we could do, we all experience failure of some sort. These unpleasant issues are pertinent across race, culture, geography, class, etc. This conversation would seem to be basically about how people grow up and learn to manage those issues as individuals.
The second conversation is more targeted - what are the specific issues, causations, and contexts. American kids are not likely to become refugees, live in extreme poverty (of the global sort)and so on, but it is likely important for them to know of those issues. Some subsection of American kids are likely to experience relative poverty, be concerned about the environment, deal with issues of orientation, etc. Part of the difference in this conversation is the political element - what are the causes of famine, poverty, discrimination, prejudice, etc. Important issues but, I think, far more nuanced and delicate. This is much more of a community conversation. The issue of parental perspective is also important to a greater degree than in the first conversation, i.e. everyone would agree that bullying is generally a bad thing but perhaps not everyone would agree, for example, on the role of personal responsibility with regard to poverty or the trade-offs between deforestation and economic development.
In the first conversation we are pretty much looking at books that children can enjoy and from which they can derive guidance and wisdom. It is a matter of picking and choosing what seems most effective - people broadly agree on the issue and are only looking for the books that are most likely to be effective and engaging in addressing the issue; it is a personal development issue. The second conversation is more of a minefield because there is a much greater diversity in terms of defining what the issues are in the first place, what their root causes are, their pertinence, etc. You aren't just picking the best books for the issue, you are engaging in a community conversation beyond just what the children might want to read about and are exploring what it is appropriate for them to read. We might all agree that extreme poverty is bad but if different groups lay the blame for poverty differently on: bankers, greedy industrialists, incompetent government policy, personal weakness, bad decisions at a personal l evel, fate, systemic religious/ethnic/racial/class discrimination, and so on; then we have to reach some community consensus on the nature and importance of the issue. Far more challenging.
It seems from the comments that we are talking about Social Justice in a way that includes hardships that potentially touch everyone as well as challenges that arise from very particular circumstances. Just flagging that we can end up talking at cross-purposes with both perspectives in play.
Charles
Received on Mon 07 Nov 2011 01:31:03 PM CST
