Religion has always played an important role in people’s lives, but it has been acknowledged that organized religions are in decline now, which is specifically apparent in developed countries. Kotkin (2019) finds the major reason behind this shift towards more secular ways of life in people’s focus on their actions and behaviors with less trust in an almighty supernatural force. People tend to embrace ideology as their faith rather than religious teaching, so they have some guidance but have no trust in a god, focusing on their behaviors and outcomes. Organized religions want to change and implement rebranding to fit the new trend, concentrating on social justice in general rather than the individual spiritual aspirations of a person or a family. However, this attitude can become a certain obstacle to the struggle for social justice in general. The clash between politics and religion can make people’s attempts less effective.
Notably, the three major religions are based on the principles of social justice. However, this concept is hardly properly defined in any of the teachings (Accomazzo et al., 2014). On the contrary, the basic ideals cherished by worshipers are associated with quite well-understood individuals’ spiritual needs and family values. At that, organized religions pay less attention to this aspect in their attempts to become more environmentally conscious or in their struggle for equality. For instance, in Judaism, people are taught to be respectful and helpful, trying to ensure that the vulnerable (oppressed, ill, poor, and so on) can receive support (BibleProject, 2017). However, the more emphasis Orthodox Jews place on social justice, the more they rely on the groups that are hostile to Judaism or any other religion.
In the modern world, people are becoming more secular, looking for spiritual landmarks in political ideologies, which are supported by the media. Political ideologies are also characterized by the focus on social justice, but they are not as universal as major teachings, which makes them more understood. At the same time, political ideologies often segregate populations, making social justice an in-group commodity. Hence, the increasing influence of politics rather than religion can make people concentrate on some groups’ rights that can be secured at the expense of other groups.
References
Accomazzo, S., Moore, M., & Sirojudin, S. (2014). Social justice and religion. In M. J. Austin (Ed.), Social justice and social work (pp. 65-83). SAGE.
The suggested prompt about promoting social justice through serving God is an adequate statement that confirms the dogma of the Christian church. One of the confirmations is Keller and Alsdorf’s (2014) statement about fairness in higher education, when, due to the prevailing trend towards segregation by social status, getting a good education is not available for some. The authors dispute this situation and note the need to revise the existing social norms since the attitude towards other people through the prism of material wealth contradicts Christian values about the soul and knowledge (Keller & Alsdorf, 2014). As Miller and Polson (2019) state, “social justice may be shaped by several factors: race/ethnicity and the experience of racism, Biblical texts or stories including the life of Jesus,” and some other criteria (p. 239). This means that there are no clearly defined boundaries within which a person can keep God’s commandments, and service may imply not specific steps in a certain direction but the perception of equality and brotherhood as important and dominant social values.
Any occupation, viewed from a Christian perspective, can be characterized as a practice to promote social justice. For instance, Keller and Alsdorf (2014) give an example of art and note that “Christian artists have access to a broader and more balanced vision of the world,” which, in turn, helps better see problems and gaps in relationships among people (p. 160). A person who seeks to turn injustice into justice in honest ways is doing a good deed by protecting not only the vulnerable but also oneself from the unrighteous environment. Therefore, serving God in action correlates with the promotion of social justice and reflects the importance of Christian teachings about kindness towards others.
References
Keller, T., & Alsdorf, K. L. (2014). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work to God’s work. Penguin.
Goal of Social Justice and Relations with Multicultural Counseling and Therapy
The compelling vision of social justice is to achieve “free, full, and equal participation” of all groups in society to realize their aspirations and mutual needs (Cohen, de la Vega, & Watson, 2001, p. 72). It envisions a fair society where resources are distributed equitably and the people’s physical and psychological wellbeing is valued. Such a society upholds the individual right to self-determination, democratic self-rule, agency of a person, sense of community, and non-oppressive systems. Realizing the vision of social justice requires the ideals of full participation, equity, social responsibility, and democracy as an impetus for social change (Cohen et al., 2012).
Multicultural counseling and therapy is sensitive to issues of bias, prejudice, and social oppression that result from person-environment interaction. Therefore, it is closely related to the social justice values of self-determination, equity, removal of oppression, and communitarian justice, among others (Vera & Speight, 2003). Realizing these values requires advocacy and case management to address issues of oppression and domination that preclude social justice.
Concepts of Worldview and Locus of Control
A psychologist named Julian Rotter first introduced the idea of locus of control to refer to a “predisposition in the perception to what causes reinforcement” (Sue & Sue, 2013, p. 34). It describes the extent to which a person feels he/she has power over behavioral outcomes. A person with an internal locus of control feels that the “consequences of one’s actions” depend on individual behaviors (Sue & Sue, 2013, p. 35). In contrast, an individual with an external locus of control would believe that the outcome is due to luck or fate that lies outside one’s control (Sue & Sue, 2013). Locus of control shapes how an individual perceives a situation or his/her worldview.
Reinforced beliefs, ethics, and behavior are contingent on individual worldviews. Cultural and religious factors influence how an individual sees the world around him/her (Sue & Sue, 2013). Therefore, a counseling psychologist should be sensitive to how the locus of control could affect his/her choice of his/her worldview to remain open-minded when dealing with a client. Further, understanding the dominant worldviews in a given culture and the client’s locus of control orientation could help teach effective coping strategies for better performance.
Self-assessment
By doing the self-test, I learnt that I have a strong internal locus of control. I strongly believe that my success solely depends on my individual effort. For this reason, I am a self-motivated person and I strive to grow my skills and abilities for a successful task performance. As an individual with an internal locus of control, I cope well under stressful conditions. However, a failure to meet goals or specific deadlines can be stressful at times. To cope with stressful situations, I engage in meditation and aerobics to achieve relaxation and peace of mind.
Counselor’s Role in Promoting Social Justice
Counseling aims at empowering the client by strengthening the individual’s social resources for improved functional ability and agency (Lago & Thompson, 2006). Social justice for refugees goes beyond equitable distribution of resources to addressing systemic factors related to bias, prejudice, oppression, and discrimination. A counselor can assist Muslim refugees to identify prejudice and learn to deal with its effects. Victims of such prejudice include Muslim women wearing the hijab and schoolchildren.
A counselor’s role as an advocate of social justice also entails assisting the refugee or his/her family to receive support, including employment, from community-based social protection agencies. Working with local Islamic organizations, including mosques, in a collaborative endeavor could help identify culturally appropriate services to support the integration of the Muslim refugees. In educational settings, a counselor can help the youth to understand the true meaning of Jihad to dispel the fear of Muslims associated with terrorism. Further, teaching students the causes of social injustice would enable intervene for marginalized groups. Therefore, the counselor’s role in promoting social justice includes that of an advocate, an educator, a community-based support facilitator, and an agent of change.
Advocacy Strategies for Promoting Social Justice
Counselors can be involved in advocacy interventions at individual, couple/family, and societal levels. At the client-level, counselors can advance social justice through empowerment. This approach would entail creating awareness of the barrier, oppression, or prejudice. Further, the caseworker can help Ali’s father develop self-advocacy skills, which is essential in coping social injustices. This may involve working with him to identify personal resources, empowering him through education (English), assertiveness training, creating awareness of individual rights, and understanding the client’s culture (Sue & Sue, 2013). He/she can also use institutional power to advocate for Ali’s rights and wellbeing both at home and at school.
At the couple or family level, the counselor’s advocacy strategies may include visiting the refugee’s household to experience their culture, e.g., burn marks on his stomach, educating the family their rights, and advocating for employment/economic opportunities for the parents. Group-level strategies may include defining the problems facing new immigrants to the local community and school and advocating for societal level support, e.g., language training for Ali’s parents (Lopez-Baez & Paylo, 2009). Other strategies may include educating other community members about the issues affecting the group, relationship building, and political/social action through social protection legislations.
Characteristics and Concerns of Refugees
Cultural competence is required when dealing with culturally diverse clients. At the international level, they are victims of torture, oppression, and marginalization that force them to flee their home country. At the national level, the characteristics that define refugees or new immigrants into the country include cultural/language barriers and socioeconomic challenges. The refugee families, e.g., Ali’s family, have different spiritual and political backgrounds from the dominant religious and political perspectives. Their different backgrounds coupled with the experience of social injustices require counselors to offer culturally competent therapy for better outcomes.
A counselor trained in cultural competence should address international and social issues that are the source of oppression. For example, the Western media have misinterpreted the concept of Jihad creating fear and antipathy against Muslims at public places. The counselor, through community-level strategies, can create awareness about Jihad to non-Muslims to promote integration. In addition, he/she should vouch for Homeland Security policies that do not target Muslims in relation to heightened surveillance at airports. Further, Muslim women who wear hijab should not be the target of security checks by the security agencies. The prejudice and profiling of American Muslims by national security agents hinders their full religious and political participation in the society.
Historical/Current Impact of Immigration, Poverty, and Welfare
Refugees face similar challenges across the country. Since most refugees are fleeing war and destruction, they are impoverished and disoriented. The Muslim family is likely to live in low-income neighborhoods of the city that are prone to violence and drugs. Their children will grow in unsafe environments and may join violent gangs or drug traffickers. This will affect the cohesiveness of the family unit.
Historically and even now, refugee families face difficulties securing employment due to cultural and language barriers (Lago & Thompson, 2006). Thus, refugees are likely to be poverty-stricken. In addition, naturalization requirements prevent them from using federal welfare programs such as Medicaid. Current immigration has created a culturally diverse and pluralistic society. However, racism against minorities prevents them from fully participating in the American society. Muslims are likely to conceal their religious identity when public places or change their names due to the pervasive stereotypes.
Advocacy Processes
Institutional racism and other social barriers can be addressed through social or political advocacy. The counselor can engage with policy makers to address the social barriers that affect minorities (Toporek, Lewis, & Crethar, 2009). Through his/her direct involvement in community affairs, the counselor can become a change agent at policy level. He/she can bring policy change proposals obtained from the clients to legislators. However, he/she must maintain the confidentiality of client stories when arguing for the need for policy change. For instance, the counselor could meet with a lawmaker or his/her personal assistant to discuss the need for cultural awareness training to enable immigrants like Ali’s father to understand child abuse and rights.
Social justice advocacy movements through networks and alliances with various interest groups can also overcome the social barriers that impede access and equity. The counselor can advocate on behalf of minority groups through professional networks. He/she can also agitate for a “social justice mission” in all counseling organizations to drive social policy change at community, academic, and national levels (Lee & Rodgers, 2009, p. 285).
My Role as a Counselor
As a counselor, I would advocate for a smooth integration of the Muslim family in the local community. I would educate the family the key aspects/values of the American culture to equip the members with multicultural competence skills. I would suggest a basic language training to enable Ali and his family to communicate in public places. Additional training on coping strategies would enable them cope with stress and the effects of culture shock.
I would also utilize community-level strategies to promote integration of Ali’s family into the community. I would use community outreach programs to create awareness on the Islamic culture, including the concept of Jihad and clothing practices of Muslim women. This approach would help reduce the fear that breeds prejudice and discrimination against Muslims by Westerners. Outreach programs involving Islamic clerics would also help remove the terrorist tag associated with Muslims and enhance the appreciation of the Islamic culture and beliefs.
Social Justice
As a counselor, I would employ different strategies to advance social justice at the micro-, meso-, and macro-level. At the micro-level, I would seek to understand the Muslim family’s culture and lifestyle through family visits. This approach would help me deal with personal stereotypes first to support the client adjust to the American society. In addition, I would work with the client to define resources he/she could use to cope with prejudice or oppression in public spaces. At the meso-level, I would work with schools and community organizations through alliances to advocate for change at the community level. I would advocate for community-based support through community collaboration as a facilitator. At the macro-level, I would advocate for enhanced public awareness of the concept of Jihad to remove prejudice and biases against American Muslims.
References
Cohen, D., de la Vega, R., & Watson, G. (2001). Advocacy for social justice: A global action and reflection guide. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
Lago, C., & Thompson, J. (2006). Race, culture, and counselling. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lee, C., & Rodgers, R. (2009). Counselor advocacy: Affecting systemic change in the public arena. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 284-291.
Lopez-Baez, S., & Paylo, M. (2009). Social justice advocacy: Community collaboration and systems advocacy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87(3), 276-283.
Sue, W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Toporek, L., Lewis, J., & Crethar, C. (2009). Promoting systemic change through the advocacy competencies. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87, 260-268.
Vera, M., & Speight, L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(3), 253-272.
The issue of social justice has occupied the minds of many scholars in the society for a long time. Scholars and philosophers such as St. Augustine, Plato and John Locke among others have all tried to define what social justice is and how a society can benefit from it.
According to Zafirovski (2005), social justice can be conceptualized in terms of equality and human rights. To this end, this scholar defines this concept as a situation where a society or an institution operates on the basis of equality solidarity (Zafirovski, 2005). For a society or an institution to be regarded as an entity operating on social justice, it must uphold human rights and the dignity of each and every individual in such a society or institution.
But where did the concept of social justice originate from in contemporary philosophical and political discourse? According to Benhabib (2004), the concept of social justice can be traced back to the writings of Luigi Taparelli in the mid 19th century. Taparelli was analyzing the teachings of Thomas Aquinas when he came up with this concept.
Antonio Rosmini-Serbati later on built on the works of Taparelli to further define social justice in contemporary society (Zafirovski, 2005). Other scholars associated with social justice in contemporary social and political discourse include John Ryan, Coughlin and Kant among others.
According to Benhabib (2004), social justice cannot be separated from human rights and equality in the society. This is given the fact that if the rights of the individual are abused, such an individual will not be in a position to partake in social justice.
On the other hand, a society full of economic, social and political inequalities cannot be regarded as having embraced social justice principles. Social justice is also related to economic egalitarianism (Garrett, 2005). A society which is characterized by economic inequalities as indicated above cannot be regarded as operating on the principles of social justice.
But is social justice the same as political egalitarianism? This is the question that is likely to arise when one is analyzing social justice in the context of political developments in the society. This paper is going to look at whether social justice is similar to political egalitarianism.
The author will first provide a brief background on both social justice and political egalitarianism. The author will then try to analyze how the two are related and whether they are one and the same thing. The paper will be based on social justice theory as envisaged by scholars such as John Rawls, Kant and John Locke.
Social Justice
An Overview
Wardell (2011) justice as a concept has been addressed in various legal, political, philosophical and religious discourses. According to him, this concept involves the treatment of the poor and marginalized individuals in the society on an equal basis with those who are privileged. Wardell’s definition of social justice might appear simplistic on the eyes of social justice theorists, but it provides a significant perspective to the social justice concept. This is the aspect of treating the marginalized and the disadvantaged members of the society equally with the privileged. A society that draws a line between the so called ‘common man’ and the ‘elite’ is not just at all. This is the reason why scholars such as Locke and Kant were concerned with the social stratification in early societies that treated members of the royal family as superior citizens while the rest of the society was left to grapple with poverty and starvation.
Like any other concept in contemporary society, many schools of thought on social justice have been formed over the years. The different schools of thought advocate different strategies in addressing the issue of social justice in the society. Most of the arguments advocated by the different schools of thought are based on the principles of social justice that are to be found in John Rawl’s theory of justice.
Social Justice Theory
Rawls’ Theory of Justice
Several scholars have made contributions to the justice theories depending on their academic orientation and their beliefs in this concept. These scholars include John Rawls, John Locke and Kant among others.
In the year 1971, John Rawls wrote a book titled Theory of Justice in which he provided his views on several aspects of justice such as social justice and political egalitarianism. In this book, the scholar gives his views of a liberal egalitarian society built on the principles of human rights and equality (Wardell, 2011).
Rawls borrowed heavily from Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who is also regarded as a father figure in social justice discourses (Wardell, 2011). Kant was of the view that “people are individuals first (and not) the means to another individual’s ends” (as cited in Wardell, 2011: p. 2). Building on this concept, Rawls (1985) asserts that individuals in the society must work in tandem to establish equality for all regardless of their social or class status.
In his theory, Rawls is of the view that a society operating on social justice principles is characterized by freedom of speech (Benhabib, 2004), equality in the eyes of the law and freedom of assembly (Solway, 2006). The members of such a society must also enjoy equal access to education, employment and other social facilities such as health cover. Contemporary scholars subscribing to Rawls’ school of thought cites the central theme in his theory in their writings.
This is the fact that the disadvantaged and marginalized members of the society should be assisted to enable them succeed in the society and live at par with the privileged individuals (Zafirovski, 2005). According to Rawls, all nation states in the world should put social justice at the forefront given the fact that all other policies formulated by the state rest on it. This is for example social and legal policies that are formulated by the state to improve the wellbeing of the citizens (Fernandez & Nicolas, 2006).
Rawls’ Two Principles of Justice
Rawls’ social justice theory identifies what he calls two principles of justice (Wardell, 2011).
The First Principle
The first principle as identified by this scholar has already been referred to earlier in this paper. It involves the basic liberties of any member of the society. These include political liberty which involves the freedom to participate in democratic elections, freedom of speech and the freedom to accumulate and own property among others (Solway, 2006).
To support this position, Rawls is of the view that “….first, each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Rawls 1971 p.53 as cited in Wardell, 2011 p.34). This means that the individual should be treated equally with other members of the society regardless of their social and class status.
The Second Principle
According to Garrett (2005), the second principle in Rawls’ theory is concerned with social and economic inequalities. According to Rawls, the two inequalities should exist in a state of balance that meets two conditions. The first condition is the fact that the inequalities should be beneficial to the marginalized and less-privileged individuals in the society or social institution (Garrett, 2005). The second condition is the fact that offices and positions in the society (or within the social institution under consideration) should be accessible to all members of the society. This means that a society operating on social justice principles should not discriminate when it comes to appointments and democratic elections.
Political Egalitarianism
Having looked at social justice in the section above, it is now imperative to address political egalitarianism at this juncture. Fernandez & Nicolas (2006) conceptualize political egalitarianism in terms of political power and political influence in the society.
They regard it as a situation where individuals in the society or within a social institution are equal in terms of the political power and influence that they wield. Wardell (2011) is of the view that political egalitarianism is the foundation on which many democracies are built. It is synonymous with moral reciprocity or legal equality in the society (Solway, 2006).
Some scholars such as Fernandez & Nicolas (2006) have regarded political egalitarianism in significantly different terms. They are of the view that its reductionist and erroneous to limit the concept of political egalitarianism to equality within the political domain. Instead, they view this concept from John Rawls justice theory perspective.
To this end, they refer to it as the “egalitarian distributive justice” (Zafirovski, 2005: p.23) that is in operation in a heterogeneous society. When political egalitarianism is regarded as such, it assumes political tones that are similar to Rawls’ political liberalism (Zafirovski, 2005).
But what exactly is egalitarianism? According to Wardell (2011), egalitarianism is a school of thought that advocates for various forms of equalities among individuals in the society. Those who advocates for egalitarianism are of the view that equality leads to equity and improved quality of life among the members of the society. Egalitarianism advocates for equal treatment of all individuals in the society regardless of their social class.
Egalitarianism recognizes the fact that the society is heterogeneous and it is made up of individuals from different backgrounds. The members of the society differ in their gender, their race, religious and sexual orientation among others. However, egalitarianism recognizes that in spite of these differences, each member of the society possesses similar intrinsic qualities that make them equal in all aspects (Fernandez & Nicolas, 2006).
Egalitarian principles recognize the fact that all members of the society are equal when it comes to the value they add into the society as a whole and the social status that they occupy. There are various forms of egalitarianism, and political egalitarianism that was discussed earlier in this paper is one such form. The others include economic, religious and philosophical egalitarianism among others.
It is important to highlight the various forms of egalitarianism at this juncture. The highlight will help the reader to relate the various forms of egalitarianism to political egalitarianism which is the central focus of this section.
According to Solway (2006), economic egalitarianism can be regarded as the equal participation of all members of the society in the economic processes of the society. Economic egalitarianism ensures that all individuals in the society share equally in the economic activities of the society. This is where the aspect of price fixing by the government comes into play. Price fixing ensures that each member of the society is able to access the economic products and services at the same price as their counterparts in the society.
Religious egalitarianism on its part is the situation whereby all members of the society are regarded as being equal before the eyes of God. For example, Christianity teaches that each and every one of us is equal before the eyes of God. This is regardless of our sex, gender, economic status, race and cultural background among others.
On the other hand, legal egalitarianism is the process whereby all members of the society are regarded as equal before the law (Garrett, 2005). This involves the application of similar legal standards to all members of the society regardless of their social or class status. For example, a criminal from a poor background should not be treated harshly by the law while a criminal from an affluent background is let scot-free.
So Is Social Justice the Same Thing as Political Egalitarianism?
It is a fact beyond doubt that social justice and political egalitarianism are inextricably intertwined. The two concepts are closely related and they share some qualities that might make them similar before the eyes of an undiscerning individual.
However, the analysis of social justice and political egalitarianism provided above reveals that the two are not the same thing. This is in spite of the various similarities between them. In this case, similarities between social justice and political egalitarianism do not make the two concepts one and the same thing.
Social justice is broader than political egalitarianism. Political egalitarianism confines itself more to the political domain of the society. The arguments given by Fernandez & Nicolas (2006) and other scholars who argue that political egalitarianism is synonymous to social justice fail to eliminate the line that demarcates the two.
Social justice leads to political egalitarianism. In other words, political egalitarianism is one of the various products of social justice. Political egalitarianism is one of the aspects that characterize social justice in a society or within a social institution.
Zafirovski (2005) is of the view that social justice is one of the key pillars of a liberal democracy. This view brings to fore the interconnectedness between social justice and political egalitarianism. This is given the fact that political egalitarianism is one element of liberal democracy.
Zafirovski (2005) goes further to argue that “integral political equality (is the foundation on which) justice in a liberal democracy is built” (p. 411). In essence, a political system that is devoid of egalitarianism is regarded as being unfair and unjust to the citizens. In other words, it lacks in social justice.
Political inequality and inequity (all aspects of lack of political egalitarianism) leads to stress and conflict in the society. This is the reason why contemporary democracies shun anti-liberalism movements in the society.
Anti-liberalism movements advocates for what Popper referred to as anti-equalitarianism in 1973 (as cited in Zafirovski, 2005; p. 413). Anti-equalitarianism is synonymous to exclusion of some individuals in politics and other spheres of the society. It extends beyond politics to include exclusion in economy and culture (Solway, 2006).
So how exactly is liberal democracy related to social justice and in extension political egalitarianism? According to Wardell (2011), a liberal democracy is one of the most just and equitable democracies in the world. This is given the fact that it is essentially egalitarian as far as political and social equality are concerned. A liberal democracy advocates for inclusion in all aspects of the society.
Some scholars such as Garrett (2005) provide a new perspective to the relationship between social justice and political egalitarianism. They are of the view that when political egalitarianism occurs in the absence of social justice, it creates a condition within which social justice is able to thrive. In other words, political egalitarianism can also lead to social justice.
The scholars are of the view that “political egalitarianism (brings to fore) justice and fairness in a (contemporary) liberal democracy). On the other hand, political anti-egalitarianism (which is lack of political egalitarianism) leads to crime and injustice in the society (Wardell, 2011).
Conclusion
This paper tried to analyze whether social justice and political egalitarianism are one and the same thing. An analysis of social justice (including Rawls’ justice theory) and political egalitarianism was conducted. The author came to the conclusion that social justice and political egalitarianism are inextricably intertwined but they are not one and the same thing. In other words, social justice is not the same thing as political egalitarianism according to this author.
References
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fernandez, G. M., & Nicolas, A. D. (2006). Egalitarian envy: The foundations of social justice. New York: Free Press.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3): 223-251.
Solway, J. (2006). The politics of egalitarianism: Theory and practice. New York: Berghahn Books.
Wardell, A. (2011). Social justice theory. Web.
Zafirovski, M. (2005). Liberal modernity and its adversaries: Freedom, liberalism and anti-liberalism in the 21st century. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
Whosoever said that ‘Knowledge is Power’ was probably referring to empowerment through knowledge. To me, social justice is of great value because it implies that all individuals in society are treated equally and with dignity. Every individual has the same value so that there is no discrimination based on gender, religion, age, caste, or creed. However, our current society severely lacks in social justice; not all individuals are treated with equality and there is a huge divide between the rich and the poor. In order to reduce or remove this divide, it is important that all humans have equal access to opportunities for education and employment. I firmly believe that the philosophy of empowerment has the power and potential to create a uniform society with equal opportunity for all.
Main body
An important aspect of social justice, ‘empowerment’ can be explained as the process of increasing power within individuals, families, societies, and communities. Through empowerment, people can develop the potential to enhance their situations in all aspects of life. Within the context of social justice, the philosophy of empowerment stands out because it equips individuals to improve their abilities, strengths, confidence, and ultimately their social and economic status in society. One of the most important rules of empowerment is to share knowledge, listen to people, and encourage them to share their ideas. Empowerment opposes the oppression of any kind. Motivation is also an important tenet of empowerment.
The philosophy of empowerment supports dignity and self-worth; as such, value to all people, regardless of their status or race is an important rule of empowerment. Children are innocent and weak; to me, defending the innocent is a vital rule of empowerment. Finally, the central rule of my philosophy of empowerment is the truth. The truth empowers people in all ways so that they can defend their rights and stand up for the causes they believe in.
Empowerment gives human beings the authority and ability to make rational choices and assumes responsibility for these choices. In the broad context, empowerment is an educational process that helps individuals in developing their knowledge, skills, and attitudes for creating a better future for themselves. Individuals should be motivated to engage in critical thinking so that they can make the right decisions. When people develop these skills, there is a change in the self-image which helps them become stronger and better equipped to progress in life. Since empowerment is such a powerful term and aims at increasing the capabilities of individuals, families, and communities, I believe it is the most reasonable philosophy of social justice.
Conclusion
Empowerment enhances the physical, mental, financial, and spiritual wellness of individuals. It is therefore in compliance with the principle of social justice – balancing unequal distributions of resources, wealth, and power in society. Other values supported by this philosophy are the elimination of sexism and racism in society through self-determination and actualization. Through the process of empowerment, it is possible to facilitate power in people which they can use to improve their lives, their communities, and finally the society within which they function. The development of this power allows people to act on issues important to them. Since it is such a powerful tool with the potential to bring about a radical change in society, I consider the philosophy of empowerment most appropriate.
Social justice is a part of the area of philosophy called “political philosophy.” This branch of philosophy explores themes related to rights, justice, laws, liberties, and, of course, politics. Another science that touches social justice as a subject is ethics, which deals with the questions of morality, vices, and virtues, justice, and crime.
Argument Analysis
To my mind, the two most important principles of justice that should be used to govern within a just society are the selection of highly virtuous state leaders and government representatives to put in charge of the society and the principle of mutual social agreement between people and the state leaders.
Confucius was the supporter of the idea that the leaders of the society must be full of virtue and merit. According to Confucius, this was the main rule to follow in order to provide happiness and wellbeing to society. Moreover, the Chinese philosopher stated that poverty is the result of unreasonably high taxation and poor distribution of state land. Confucian government’s main roles were to provide welfare and economic security to the people. Of course, the idea that this task would be fulfilled assumed that the country leaders were very honest and generous people who cared cordially about the nation’s well being.
Thomas Hobbes was one of the founders of the theory of social agreement, which was the necessary measure to save people from anarchy, antisocial behavior, and decay. The agreement is based on the voluntary refusal of certain rights by the members of a society and freewill surrendering to the power of the leaders. Such organization, according to Hobbes, promotes order and peace. At the same time, society agrees to protect itself from the individuals breaking the rules of social agreement.
Such a system assumes that the majority of members of the society agree to follow the rules; in the opposite case, the system automatically turns into tyranny and can be destroyed as the members of this society are guaranteed the right to rebel.
Argument Evaluation
The theory of Confucius is based on social virtue. Ideally, every member of such a society should possess virtue and merit. Clearly, such a society is a utopia. In reality, the dominant trait of the leaders of most societies and countries is greed; as a result, we have countries drowning in corruption and social injustice. To my mind, theoretically, the selection of highly virtuous leaders for the country would be the key to having just societies. Practically, I consider it hardly possible. Although since I am creating a theoretically perfect society – I am using this principle. The rules of Confucian society, including light taxation and economic security, are crucial for my theoretical society in order to avoid injustice, greed, property conflicts, and poverty.
The social agreement is the basis of obedience in society. Again – in an ideal one, because real societies have proved to be filled with individuals willing to disobey the rules of social agreement. Hobbes saw the social agreement as a mode of social organization opposite to tyranny. On the other hand, tyranny is a form of ruling that gives none or limited free will to the citizens. To check the validity of such a system, we could try to find a free-social agreement zone on the modern map of the world, but we will fail. It turns out that social agreement also can be seen as a form of tyranny as there is no place for the individuals refusing to obey its rules and laws.
Conclusion
Having thought about all the advantages and disadvantages of the principles suggested by Confucius and Thomas Hobbes, I drew some conclusions. Clearly, the society ruled by virtuous and generous leaders is from the field of fairytales, but I think some parts of this idea are quite sound. The proper distribution of land and resources, division of the country’s property in order to financially secure its citizens – these are the ideas that come from the Confucian virtue-based state.
Another important advantage of Confucian virtuous society is its education that spreads the virtues and unites the citizens under the common system of values. Besides, Hobbes’ valid point about the society protecting itself from the individuals that go against the rights of others can be applied to the corrupted leaders, as social agreement disapproves discrimination and unjust taxation. Actually, some supporters of the social agreement theory fully disagree with the idea of taxation.
In a just society, how will taxation be structured?
To my mind, in a just society, taxation is necessary to maintain the proper operation of state facilities and organizations. Tax sizes should be light and depend on the citizen’s income. The taxes should only be spent to support the state facilities, not to maintain the politicians’ wellbeing.
In a just society, how will vices be treated?
In a just society based on virtue, vices such as drugs, alcohol, unhealthy food, or pornography will be treated as cheating. An attempt to distribute poisonous, unhealthy, and destructive goods and make the members of the society dependant on the consumption of these goods will be considered an act against the laws and rules of this society. The citizens affected by the destructive influences of these vies will be offered free help. Virtuous society is educated to not give in to the dangerous dependencies leading to serious health and mental issues.
In the theory of justice, the conception of the desert isn’t commonly accepted as the concept of punishment. The conception of desert implies the reward for the virtuous actions, and there are some particular judgments exist which help to determine the reasonableness of rewards. The dependence of rewards on the variety of external and conditional factors makes the public and scholars question the idea of the desert and its use for justice. Nevertheless, Miller calls into question the apprehension of the desert as “merely a conventional idea” (1999, p.135).
Usually, the reward appears in the wake of a particular performance by an agent that can be a person or a group of people. Through the process of judgement of the agent’s responsibility for the action, the circumstances and the agent’s initial intentions are analysed. The analysed action must have value in society.
Since people can have different motivations for their performances, it is essential to make sure that the best person is the one who is rewarded. Thus the assessment of the agent’s quality is important for judgement. Judgment should not depend just on the situational criteria or predictions and prejudices. According to Miller, the qualitative assessment is crucial, and thereby the person who deserves reward is the person who “will subsequently perform at the highest level” (1999, p. 137).
Though desert implies the existence of institutions that fulfil the judgement, Miller claims that desert is “predominantly a pre-institutional notion” (1999, p. 142). Nowadays, many social institutions’ reward systems function in obedience to external factors and preconceptions. This approach often creates inequality, and its fairness is doubted. To provide the efficiency of the desert, the institutional standards need to be conformed to the idea of the superior performance that deserves a reward.
Though nowadays, many writers and scholars do not support the significance of the desert for the conception of justice, David Miller successfully depicts its importance. The implementation of the desert judgment principals based on the responsibility, intentions and the quality of performance will help to improve the institutional policies and in some measure resolve the issue of social inequality.
Reference List
Miller, D 1999, Principles of Social Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Because it is a relatively new and unpopular notion, social justice is not a term that is defined. People are often action-takers rather than thinkers. Hence, the majority of people do not understand the concept of social justice. Despite this, modern philosophers continue to attempt to define justice without fully comprehending its nature. Many philosophers have tried to delve deeper into and better define social justice. These thinkers include Nozick, Rawls, and Hayek. Although their theories of justice were significant, they would not have existed without Plato’s influence and the contribution that their ideas of justice have made to political philosophy.
John Rawls, an American philosopher who lived in the 20th century, first proposed the idea that justice equals fairness (Swift). According to his theory, individuals will act more fairly than they would if they knew what form of justice they would receive. However, twentieth-century American philosopher Robert Nozick rejected Rawls’ idea. Nozick stated that attempts to level the playing field by nature are futile and should not be made. He said people have a right to their possessions so long as they do not unfairly steal or acquire them. In Friedrich von Hayek’s opinion, the fundamental concept of social fairness is a hallucination. According to Hayek, there is no need to justify inequality in the first place (Swift).
According to Plato, justice covers both the just person and the just government. In addition to influencing the growth of political theory, Plato’s notion of justice also affected the theories of Nozick and Hayek. He thought that justice was a moral idea rather than a legal one. He also asserted that there are two levels—individual and social—at which justice can be understood. Even so, he maintained that people could not advance because they were born into their current class. People are socially situated without their consent.
The idea of justice has long been significant in political theory. Because it imposes a specific standard of goodness on people’s activities and compels them to pay attention to those actions, justice is one of the most fundamental social, ethical, and moral ideas that individuals deal with daily and political theory. The definition of justice for each individual will determine how he or she view society. What it means to distribute justly is a topic of much debate. As a result, those who breach the law are punished by what others deem to be “just” or “just” to safeguard the community.
Finally, many philosophers have tried to define justice, including social justice. While they may have some things in common, their views on what constitutes a just society differ significantly. The most intriguing theories came from Nozick, Rawls, and Hayek, all influenced by the great philosopher Plato. Justice is crucial in ensuring that society operates effectively and to its fullest potential.
Work Cited
Swift, Adam. Political Philosophy. 3rd ed., Polity Press, 2013.
Quotes from Literature Written in the English Language
“never worse than now – ever I suffer the torment of my exile.” (Line 4-5)
“that man’s kinsmen began to think in secret that they would separate us” (Line 11-)
“so we would live far apart in the world” (Line 13)
“My lord commanded me to live with him here” (Line 15)
“I had few loved ones or loyal friends in this country, which causes me grief” (Line 16-17)
“filled with grief, concealing his mind,” (Line 19-20)
“plotting murder with a smiling face” (Line 21).
” I must endure the hatred of my dearest one” (Line 21-26).
“There are friends on earth, lovers living who lie in their bed” (Line 33-34)
“I walk alone in the light of dawn (Line 35).
“I can weep for all my exiles” (Line 38)
“ I may never escape from the cares of my sorrowful mind” (Line 39-40)
“May the young man be sad-minded” (Line 42)
“let him have a smiling face along with his heartache” (Line 43-44)
“let him be outlawed in a far distant land” (Line 46-47)
“My beloved will suffer the cares of a sorrowful mind” (Line 49-50)
“Woe to the one who must suffer longing for a loved one” (Line 53-54)
The Lessons Learnt from Collecting Quotes
Marriage is one of the underrated social justice issues because people generally prefer assuming that the love between a couple makes it equitable. In a few cases where marriage has been analyzed as a social justice issue, the focus is always comparing the lives of the married couple against those of people who never marry. However, after reading through Christian Beck’s poem, “The wife’s lament,” I realized that even within a heterosexual marriage, it is still possible to experience injustices. Some overarching themes include exile by relatives, dissertation, forceful relocation, deep loneliness, and psychological stress. As the poem progresses, the reader gets the impression that the woman is cursing her husband and wishing him ill. Although marriage is supposed to be a loving relationship of joy and happiness, it sometimes brings significant inequalities that put women at a disadvantage.
One of the words that keep repeating is “suffer,” used to show a state of struggle and pain. In most cases, one of evidence of social justice is when one group of people is experiencing turmoil, and the other is doing fine. The other word that is repeated throughout the quotes is “exile,” which means being barred from home. Noteworthy, after marriage, the woman is often expected to leave her father’s house and make her husband’s residence her new home. The other word with repetition in the literature is “kinsmen,” which means extended family members with blood relations or the same ethnic background. In the poem, it is apparent that the relatives of her husband do not love the wife. The implication is that she feels like a woman in an exiled country with hostile hosts.
However, there is also a surprising absence of vocabulary that are typical for the social issue. For example, words such as divorce and separation are not present despite an obvious struggle in the marital relationship. I think the words such as tolerance and commitment are typical when there are wrangles between a married couple. However, those vocabularies were surprisingly missing from the quotes, and the persona even claims that there is a plot of murder. There were no such words as forgiveness and reconciliation, which are typical in a marriage relationship undergoing some challenges. However, it appears that there is no hope for the relationship as It ends with curses.
The quotes offer some insights about changing values in a marriage relationship. For example, at the start, one of the quotes shows the person referring to her husband as lord. Notably, the title she has given shows that she has respect for her husband. Moreover, she obediently followed and lived where her husband commanded. Later, he uses the phrase “you man,” which shows less honor when referring to her husband. She later uses the term “my beloved” ironically as she curses and wishes ill to the man. The implication is that the values have changed from that of honor to a feeling of disgust.
There are words that change and drop as time goes, some drop, and others emerge, all with the same meaning. For instance, the phrase “my lord” is present at first but then changes to a new word, “beloved.” The changes in these words are an indication of historical changes in cultures and circumstances. For instance, traditionally, a married woman was like a subordinate to the man. She was expected to obey her husband without question. However, when she refers to him as “man” or “beloved,” there is a cultural shift where there is equality in marriage. Circumstantial changes have made the wife to lose reverence for her husband and start despising him for the sorrow she feels. The inequality gradually breeds resentment among couples as the wife feel that they gave everything for the man but received nothing in return but abandonment and heartbreak.
If I was to create a lesson plan for high school students based on the changes I have noticed on my commonplace journal, it would be about the influence of culture on the evolution of English language. The lesson plan would be about the metamorphosis of English due to social Injustices. I will then use heterosexual marriage as an example of social injustice. The quotations that I have collected will serve as examples of the social injustices and the differences in terminologies from the past and present decades. In concluding the lesson plan, I will ask each student to select a form of social injustice in society and trace its historical roots. They can choose any topic, including racism, slavery and human trafficking, disability, and religion, among other themes. Each student will then have five minutes to present what they have discovered in front of the class.
The English language has various restrictions and affordances of the English language. Some words can be restrictive and not subject to any changes as language develops. For example, the word money is restricted to mean currency used for business transactions. Within the context of social justice, the term marriage is restrictive to mean only a legal partnership between a couple who relate romantically. However, some words have affordance and can mean many things or keep evolving. For example, the word lord is ideally used to denote a master, the word has been used in reference to god and husband. The other word with affordance is like, it can mean love to something or comparison of things that are similar. Thus, in as much as the English language is evolving, there are some root words whose meaning do not change and use are restrictive.
The mass media is one of the primary sources of information available to society. Public opinion, in turn, matters because people do not interact with each other and ultimately it leads to social isolation. Therefore, society ends up relying on media updates and not on the factual data obtained from other people. Similarly, it means that society does not perceive all the dangers of miscommunication (Marion & Oliver, 2012). If the government fails to contact the citizens, the latter will look for the news in the mass media which usually exaggerates the outcomes but does not propose solutions to the problems. The current point of view at the crimes and violence is predestined by the commercial pressure applied to the mass media sources. Ultimately, this leads to the transformation of public opinion and major criminal justice policies. In other words, the mass media takes into account marketing and economic objectives that overrule the usual journalistic principles instead of mirroring the news.
The Role of Newspapers and Television
The role of newspapers and television can be described as an exaggeration of news reports and real dimensions of the problems. As a result, this majorly impacts public order and safety. In the majority of the cases, popular media becomes the viral source of information which forms the public opinion (Griffin, Woodward, & Sloan, 2016). Sometimes, the crucial sources of information are used to influence public opinion to implicitly affect certain political outcomes.
Newspapers and television are used to criminal sensations because this kind of information usually boosts ratings. For these companies, the higher goes the rating, the higher go the profits. It is a well-known fact that violence rates have grown significantly since the appearance of the contemporary mass media business. Public anxieties are intensified through newspapers, television, and social media. The key problem is that the reports commonly focus on the personal interpretation of the reported crimes and not on the expert commentary and factual data. This tendency is also present in the political sphere as numerous politicians prefer yellow press to quality sources.
The Roles of Various Interest Groups
Special interest groups may seriously impact the development of public policies. It is safe to say that a great number of professional associations are no strangers to spending money on the operations intended to transform public opinion. The majority of lobbyists who are directly related to the development of new legislations are closely acquainted with policymakers and government representatives (Gaines, 2014). Even though special interest groups claim that their key objective is affluence of the population, they are most interested in greater revenues and tend to disregard the initial propositions when their goal is accomplished. The negative impact of interest groups can be described as thriving political and administrative corruption and social influence.
The Characteristics of Interest Groups in the Formulation of Criminal Justice Policies
There are several characteristics of interest groups that impact the way they are perceived. First, the outcomes of the creation of an interest group rely on the goals of the group and the perspectives of offered incentives. Second, the impact of interest groups on the formation of criminal justice policies is influenced by the roles of the members in the decision-making process (Tanenhaus & Zimring, 2014). This means that the level of impact is dependent on the status of a member of the special group. The last characteristic is the degree of bureaucracy. This factor influences the creation and employment of administrative strategies.
References
Gaines, L. K. (2014). Homeland security: A new criminal justice mandate. In S. L. Mallicoat & C. L. Gardiner (Eds.), Criminal justice policy (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Griffin, O., Woodward, V. H., & Sloan, J. J. (2016). The money and politics of criminal justice policy. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tanenhaus, D. S., & Zimring, F. E. (2014). Choosing the future for American juvenile justice. New York, NY: New York University Press.