CCBC-Net Archives
Social Justice Definition - II
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_ttmd.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:19:55 -0500
Following from my Nov 9 post.
No matter which Social Justice lens we take (Individual, Political, Ideological), the common theme seems to be the desire to assist the individuals and people who bear negative consequences from actions not of their own making and face challenges arising from circumstances beyond their control. The assistance might be in terms of changing the cause of the situation or changing how we respond to the situation.
Depending which lens we use, I think there are different implications for what Social Justice means in the context of books and children reading.
With any hypothesis, proposition or argument there are always five questions to be asked - 1) Is it real?, 2) Do we understand and agree on the causes?, 3) Can we change it?, 4) Is it important?, and 5) Is it worth it?
For Social Justice issues of an individual nature, which everyone experiences (coercion/bullying, disparate capabilities, disparate endowments, disparate outcomes, effort without reward, failure, etc.) I think the answers to the five questions, were you to ask the public, are more or less strongly Yes. Yes they are real issues, Yes we broadly understand causes, Yes we can either change the causes or mitigate the consequences, Yes we generally agree they are important issues, and Yes they are usually worth addressing. Answers: Yes, Pretty Much, Yes, Yes, Yes. I think this is the least controversial lens for viewing Social Justice and I think an argument could be made that much of children's literature, classic and contemporary, is directly or indirectly related to learning about Individual Social Justice. Someone is usually trying to make something better.
For Social Justice of a policy or political nature, where we are looking at issues beyond the scope or control of individuals such as poverty, environment degradation, income inequality, globalization, global warming, etc. the answers are somewhat different and will vary much more by issue. For example: Is there poverty in the US? I think the public answers would be along the lines of: Yes but we have to be careful about definitions distinguishing absolute from relative poverty - almost no absolute poverty in world terms but lots of relative poverty. Do we understand its causes? We have alternate hypotheses which are not uniformly shared. Statistically we have a pretty good read on what causes poverty but we do not have a consensus on that data so the answer has to be that collectively we don't agree on the causes. Can we change it? Again, complicated. Can poverty be ameliorated? Yes, that has been done successfully many times and places but it depends on the correct diagnosis of the root causes. Is it impor tant? Probably a reasonable consensus that the existence of poverty is an important issue. Is it worth it? Can't be determined without agreement on root causes. So the answers are Sort of, No, Probably, Yes, and Don't Know. Much more of a mixed bag than with the Individual Social Justice lens. You would also get a different set of answers for each political/policy issue. With the Social Justice Policy lens, children's books are going to be much more varied usually trying to establish more of a consensus around the particular topic in terms of its reality, causes, feasibility to change, importance and value. More of an advocacy element than in the case of Individual Social Justice. And where there is variability in the answers among the population, there is more delicacy and sensitivity involved.
For Social Justice of an ideological nature, I think there is much more contention, in part because it runs counter to some of our most fundamental cultural precepts which are reinforced by our history and political structure (freedom, rule of law, due process, agency, individualism, pluralism, etc.). One of the biggest fears of the founding fathers was the tyranny of the majority and their solution was a reliance on checks and balances to constrain the accumulation of power. In government structure this was reflected in the three branches. In the Federalist papers, they are much more clear about the full range of options beyond just relying on laws and government structure. For example, to avoid a singular state religion, they not only had the bill of rights precluding that but in the Federalist papers they discuss the importance of the existence of multiple religions within society at large to prevent the emergence of a singular national religion. Similarly, James Madison in FP #51 is specific about the da ngers of powerful "interests" and the importance of having many counterbalancing interests within society and within individuals, i.e. every individual ought to be constituted of many interests and not be viewed as a singular identity. This history is reflected in a long standing American concern regarding anything "BIG": Big Business, Big Government, Big Labor, Big Religion, Big People (mob), Big Science, Big Professions, etc. Grouping people into monolithic Groups then, runs counter to much of the tradition and what Americans tend to take for granted - pluralism, individualism, agency.
Not to say that the Social Justice Ideology lens is wrong, only that it is incongruent with the public in a way that is not so characteristic of Social Justice Individual and Social Justice Policy.
I think this potential conflict shows up in the answers to the five questions. The proposition would have to be something like: the current circumstances of individuals is primarily ascribable to their membership in certain groups (Race, Gender, Class, etc.) and is a consequence of the past inequalities and inequities visited on those groups. If their current conditions are due to current actions, then it is addressable via the law and politics, i.e. Social Justice via Politics. I am inferring that in order to be beyond the reach of existing law and policies, it has to be predicated on past injustices. So if we make the proposition as I have formulated it, I think the general public consensus would probably be: Is it real? No, surveys indicate that the public generally buys in to agency and believe people's current conditions are primarily the result of their current decisions and actions. Do we know what causes it? It would be very hard to make an evidenced based argument for past events determining current
circumstances; influence certainly but not cause. Can we change it? Can't change past events and can't address current events without identifying actually root causes for which there is likely to be little agreement. Is it important? Group Identity (monolithic version) - no; Group Identities (multiplicity of identities) - probably yes. Is it worth it? - With no agreement on the reality of the issue, causes, and actions to change, there can't be agreement on whether it is worth it, so no. Answers: No, No, No, Nuanced Yes, and No.
In this case, Social Justice Ideology is seeking a material change in world view rather individual actions or policy actions to which people can agree to in order to address specific problems. This Social Justice lens is, I think extremely problematic and therefore much more challenging to address via children's literature.
Net: My take away from the discussion is that there are three forms of Social Justice; Individual, Policy/Political and Ideological. The first, Individual, is already prevalent in children's literature (ex. The Hundred Dresses for bullying), and in the scheme of things, is generally uncontroversial. The second, Policy/Political, is becoming more common than it might have been in the past and is reasonably well represented in children's literature (ex. My Side of the Mountain for environment, The Little Match Girl and A Christmas Carol for poverty, etc.). The third, Ideological, is I think still out of the mainstream and likely to remain so even though there are strong advocates for an orientation towards Group Identity as the lens. Ideological Social Justice is the area I think most likely to excite controversy.
Charles
Received on Wed 09 Nov 2011 01:19:55 PM CST
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:19:55 -0500
Following from my Nov 9 post.
No matter which Social Justice lens we take (Individual, Political, Ideological), the common theme seems to be the desire to assist the individuals and people who bear negative consequences from actions not of their own making and face challenges arising from circumstances beyond their control. The assistance might be in terms of changing the cause of the situation or changing how we respond to the situation.
Depending which lens we use, I think there are different implications for what Social Justice means in the context of books and children reading.
With any hypothesis, proposition or argument there are always five questions to be asked - 1) Is it real?, 2) Do we understand and agree on the causes?, 3) Can we change it?, 4) Is it important?, and 5) Is it worth it?
For Social Justice issues of an individual nature, which everyone experiences (coercion/bullying, disparate capabilities, disparate endowments, disparate outcomes, effort without reward, failure, etc.) I think the answers to the five questions, were you to ask the public, are more or less strongly Yes. Yes they are real issues, Yes we broadly understand causes, Yes we can either change the causes or mitigate the consequences, Yes we generally agree they are important issues, and Yes they are usually worth addressing. Answers: Yes, Pretty Much, Yes, Yes, Yes. I think this is the least controversial lens for viewing Social Justice and I think an argument could be made that much of children's literature, classic and contemporary, is directly or indirectly related to learning about Individual Social Justice. Someone is usually trying to make something better.
For Social Justice of a policy or political nature, where we are looking at issues beyond the scope or control of individuals such as poverty, environment degradation, income inequality, globalization, global warming, etc. the answers are somewhat different and will vary much more by issue. For example: Is there poverty in the US? I think the public answers would be along the lines of: Yes but we have to be careful about definitions distinguishing absolute from relative poverty - almost no absolute poverty in world terms but lots of relative poverty. Do we understand its causes? We have alternate hypotheses which are not uniformly shared. Statistically we have a pretty good read on what causes poverty but we do not have a consensus on that data so the answer has to be that collectively we don't agree on the causes. Can we change it? Again, complicated. Can poverty be ameliorated? Yes, that has been done successfully many times and places but it depends on the correct diagnosis of the root causes. Is it impor tant? Probably a reasonable consensus that the existence of poverty is an important issue. Is it worth it? Can't be determined without agreement on root causes. So the answers are Sort of, No, Probably, Yes, and Don't Know. Much more of a mixed bag than with the Individual Social Justice lens. You would also get a different set of answers for each political/policy issue. With the Social Justice Policy lens, children's books are going to be much more varied usually trying to establish more of a consensus around the particular topic in terms of its reality, causes, feasibility to change, importance and value. More of an advocacy element than in the case of Individual Social Justice. And where there is variability in the answers among the population, there is more delicacy and sensitivity involved.
For Social Justice of an ideological nature, I think there is much more contention, in part because it runs counter to some of our most fundamental cultural precepts which are reinforced by our history and political structure (freedom, rule of law, due process, agency, individualism, pluralism, etc.). One of the biggest fears of the founding fathers was the tyranny of the majority and their solution was a reliance on checks and balances to constrain the accumulation of power. In government structure this was reflected in the three branches. In the Federalist papers, they are much more clear about the full range of options beyond just relying on laws and government structure. For example, to avoid a singular state religion, they not only had the bill of rights precluding that but in the Federalist papers they discuss the importance of the existence of multiple religions within society at large to prevent the emergence of a singular national religion. Similarly, James Madison in FP #51 is specific about the da ngers of powerful "interests" and the importance of having many counterbalancing interests within society and within individuals, i.e. every individual ought to be constituted of many interests and not be viewed as a singular identity. This history is reflected in a long standing American concern regarding anything "BIG": Big Business, Big Government, Big Labor, Big Religion, Big People (mob), Big Science, Big Professions, etc. Grouping people into monolithic Groups then, runs counter to much of the tradition and what Americans tend to take for granted - pluralism, individualism, agency.
Not to say that the Social Justice Ideology lens is wrong, only that it is incongruent with the public in a way that is not so characteristic of Social Justice Individual and Social Justice Policy.
I think this potential conflict shows up in the answers to the five questions. The proposition would have to be something like: the current circumstances of individuals is primarily ascribable to their membership in certain groups (Race, Gender, Class, etc.) and is a consequence of the past inequalities and inequities visited on those groups. If their current conditions are due to current actions, then it is addressable via the law and politics, i.e. Social Justice via Politics. I am inferring that in order to be beyond the reach of existing law and policies, it has to be predicated on past injustices. So if we make the proposition as I have formulated it, I think the general public consensus would probably be: Is it real? No, surveys indicate that the public generally buys in to agency and believe people's current conditions are primarily the result of their current decisions and actions. Do we know what causes it? It would be very hard to make an evidenced based argument for past events determining current
circumstances; influence certainly but not cause. Can we change it? Can't change past events and can't address current events without identifying actually root causes for which there is likely to be little agreement. Is it important? Group Identity (monolithic version) - no; Group Identities (multiplicity of identities) - probably yes. Is it worth it? - With no agreement on the reality of the issue, causes, and actions to change, there can't be agreement on whether it is worth it, so no. Answers: No, No, No, Nuanced Yes, and No.
In this case, Social Justice Ideology is seeking a material change in world view rather individual actions or policy actions to which people can agree to in order to address specific problems. This Social Justice lens is, I think extremely problematic and therefore much more challenging to address via children's literature.
Net: My take away from the discussion is that there are three forms of Social Justice; Individual, Policy/Political and Ideological. The first, Individual, is already prevalent in children's literature (ex. The Hundred Dresses for bullying), and in the scheme of things, is generally uncontroversial. The second, Policy/Political, is becoming more common than it might have been in the past and is reasonably well represented in children's literature (ex. My Side of the Mountain for environment, The Little Match Girl and A Christmas Carol for poverty, etc.). The third, Ideological, is I think still out of the mainstream and likely to remain so even though there are strong advocates for an orientation towards Group Identity as the lens. Ideological Social Justice is the area I think most likely to excite controversy.
Charles
Received on Wed 09 Nov 2011 01:19:55 PM CST
