Social work as a profession can trace its commitment to Social and Economic Justice back to its earliest roots.  Whether that commitment is to individuals, groups, communities, social institutions, national concerns or international concerns, generalist practitioners have always maintained an allegiance to this key principle. 

In this issue, Guest Editor Barbara Shank has gathered articles that examine four separate but complimentary views of social justice.  All of these articles link closely to the definition of social justice embraced by the social work profession.

However, there are other definitions of social justice to be considered.  Economist Walter Block offers us three perspectives on social justice.  The first of these encompasses a liberal perspective (e.g., poverty is a product of capitalism; laws should be passed to regulate social problems).  Block offers a second approach to social justice as a topic of research, and notes that this perspective suggests that social issues should be studied without reference to any particular political viewpoint.  Finally, Block offers a third perspective on social justice that refers to justice in the social arena.  According to this third perspective, liberals would focus on egalitarianism and conservatives would focus on property rights.  Under the third perspective, liberals and conservatives might both champion social justice as a value while simultaneously working toward opposite goals and objectives. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block37.html, Retrieved 5/20/08).

People with opposing ideologies can and do claim to be proponents of social justice.  Thus it becomes extremely important for us as social work educators to clearly define this term for our students and to explain to them the ambiguities that are often associated with this term by others. 

In my macro social work methods class and my policy class, one of the key assignments for the semester is for students to watch five reruns of All in the Family.  Although he does not use the term “social justice”, Archie Bunker expresses the belief that justice or fairness involves elimination of social programs that provide advantages to particular groups that they have not “earned” or “purchased”.  Archie clearly expresses the view embodied in the Norm of Reciprocity.  This norm is easily taught by asking students what they would have to do if I were to buy them lunch today.  They respond immediately that they would have to buy me lunch tomorrow.  If they were to add desert to the lunch that they bought me, they understand that I would, then, owe them a desert. 

I then discuss how social work clients often involuntarily "violate" the norm of reciprocity by receiving services for which others have paid.  We note that agencies must respond to those who pay the bill for services, even when this means that some client needs remain unmet.  We look at the words in the All in the family Theme Song; “…Didn’t need no welfare state.  Everybody pulled his weight…”  This discussion asks social work students to recognize the fact that much of society has very different values than we have.  Even when those values appear to coincide, the terms on which we appear to agree may have very different definitions. 

From there, the class can move to determine what real commonalities exist between social workers, social work clients, and the larger society.  This is a step that is vital for students to take if they are to successfully engage others in larger settings, including agencies, communities, and the larger society.

Our guest editor, Barbara Shank, and the authors of the four social justice articles are challenging us to look beneath the surface of some of the issues and ethical dilemmas with which we as a profession are presented.   I hope that you will find the articles in the issue of Update to be as thought provoking as I have found them to be.