|
|
What is Social Justice? Updates from the Council on Social Work
Education Commission for Diversity and Social and Economic Justice
Hunter College School of Social Work and the Graduate Center Marcie Lazzari, Professor and Founding Director University of Washington Tacoma Social Work Program As social work educators, we are charged with teaching about social
justice, an ideal that is at the heart of the social work profession and, yet, a concept that can be defined and understood
in a variety of ways. The following article reflects three different perspectives grounded in well-known thinking about social
justice. As members of the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) Commission for Diversity and Social and Economic
Justice (CDSEJ), we would also like to share some of the Commission’s current activities, including our own efforts
to more clearly articulate the meaning of social justice and to explore the linkages between human diversity and social and
economic justice. Recently the social work profession has come under attack for its dedication to advocacy and social justice. In 2005 The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that the National Association of Scholars (NAS) accused CSWE and others professions for evaluating students based on "their commitment to social justice” (as cited in Clark, 2007). George Will (2007, October 14) repeated the charge in a Washington Post column in which he stated that social work education programs at 10 major public universities “mandate an ideological orthodoxy to which students must subscribe concerning ‘social justice and oppression’” (p. B07). He added that “the CSWE says students must demonstrate an ability ‘to understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination’” (p. B07). Indeed, social work students are expected to study forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination and to work toward positive social change to best meet the needs of all people. Fortunately the profession stood its ground. In an email to the CSWE membership executive director Julia Watkins (2007, October 16) publicly declared that “the profession…has a long and time-honored practice tradition of advocacy for social justice as well as a commitment to participation and inclusion in the structures of democratic society.” Elizabeth Clark (2007, July) the executive director of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), wrote that "NASW proudly embraces and supports the guiding value of social justice in social work education and practice." In a letter sent to The New York Times, NASW President Elvira Craig de Silva’s stated that “social work requires its members to advocate for individual clients and for systemic reform that improves communities” (de Silva as cited in Clark, 2007). In response to these attacks, leaders of major social work organizations modeled courage, commitment and advocacy on behalf of the profession. Ongoing challenges have intensified social work’s commitment to social justice and raised the following important issues. (1) It is very difficult to find a clear definition of social justice in or outside of social work. (2) Social workers apply the language of social justice to a broad range of important goals and good deeds. This broad brush risks turning “social justice” into a vague catch phrase that muddies the waters, obscures the targets of social change, and dilutes the need for social action. (3) Social workers frequently assume that social justice refers to progressive goals and outcomes. But, in fact, social justice prescriptions exist across the ideological divide. Each ideological perspective calls for a “just” distribution of social, economic and political resources, but their visions and strategies differ sharply. Defining Social Justice and the Ideological Divides Like any good diagnosis, the definition of the problem determines what steps need to be taken. Without a clear definition of what one is trying to achieve, it is much more difficult to create plans or monitor and measure progress. The Encarta World Dictionary defines “social” as “relating to human society and how it is organized, relating to human welfare and the organized welfare services that a community provides.” It defines “justice” as “fairness, reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made.” This article reviews how three major ideologies frame these ideas in relation to the market and need, the meaning of equality, the role of the state, and the significance of social change. Although the various internal divisions and important complexities of each view go beyond the scope of this brief discussion, we hope that a review of at least some core components of each perspective will stimulate social work educators not only to dig deeper, but to work towards identifying and articulating a definition of social justice that is most congruent with the values of the profession. The following descriptions draw on the writings of Blau & Abramovitz, 2007; Ball & Dagger,1999; Heywood, 2007; Jones, et al., 1983; Love, 2006; and Mullaly, 2006. Conservatism: A Fair Share The conservative view of social justice emphasizes individual responsibility, free markets, and minimal government. In a just society individuals have the right and the responsibility to look after themselves, to pursue their own self interest, and to receive a “fair share” of societal resources based on merit, contribution and hard work (Ball & Dagger, 1999; Heywood, 2007; Jones, et al, 1983; Love, 2006; Mullaly, 2006). The market and need. Conservatism stresses individual choice and the market economy as the best mechanism for distributing a fair share of societal resources. The market provides everyone with the same choices and opportunity to rise or fail based on merit, contribution, and effort. Since people buy what they need and need what they buy, the market effectively meets basic needs. Put in other words, consumer demand for goods and services, backed up by the dollar, translates into needs being met. The needs of society as a whole represent not more or less than the sum total of these consumer preferences. The meaning of equality. Conservatism regards inequality as inevitable and desirable. It is inevitable because the distribution of power, property, status, and political rights is naturally uneven necessitating hierarchies with fixed gradations including both social classes and a ruling elite. Equality is undesirable because leveling the playing field rewards a lack of initiative, reduces the work effort, and leads to economic stagnation and political instability The role of the state. For conservatives, freedom means freedom from government coercion. In a just society the government would not interfere with the free play of economic and political forces. Instead it would limit itself to (a) guaranteeing individuals the formal right to pursue their self-interest, (b) protecting private property, civil liberties and national defense, and (c) penalizing or otherwise sanctioning those who do not follow the rules of the game with minimal government action. Social change. For conservatives maintaining law and order and preserving the status quo is more important than social change. Liberalism: A Fair Chance The liberal view of social justice emphasizes individual choice but also social responsibility, free but also regulated markets, and limited but also active government. In such a just society individuals have the right and responsibility to look after themselves, to pursue their self-interest, but also to be afforded a fair chance to secure societal resources. The market and need. Liberalism argues that the market is not equipped to meet basic needs. The free market produces an unequal distribution of income, resources, and life chances, fails to account for discriminatory barriers that stand in people’s way, and leaves people without the financial wherewithal to meet their needs. Liberalism concludes the free market not only fails to meet individual needs but also lacks the ability to formulate public needs above those of the marketplace. The meaning of equality. Liberalism defines equality narrowly as equal opportunity to participate in the market and formal equality under the law. Liberalism also argues that too much inequality is problematic. Unequal rewards may motivate hard work and sustain social hierarchies, but a large gap between the haves and the have-nots creates tensions that undermine individual life chances, economic productivity, and social harmony. Therefore, inequalities of all kinds need to be tempered to protect both individual well-being and social stability. The role of the state. For liberals, freedom means freedom from want. Therefore in a just society, the government properly compensates for the market’s inability to meet basic needs. It actively protects people against the risks of living and working in market economy, especially the risk of losing one’s income due to illness, old age, death, disability, as well as economic downturns, globalization, and other institutional dislocations. In addition to ensuring a degree of economic security, the government also intervenes to maximize equal opportunity by reducing discriminatory and other barriers that prevent individuals from (a) entering the market, (b) competing for success, and (c) participating in civic society. In effect, liberals also invite the government to (d) redistribute resources more fairly, (e) set a minimum standard of living below which no one should fall, and (f) protect civil liberties and civil rights. Social change. Liberalism supports institutional reform but not structural change. Radicalism: An “Equal” Share The radical view of social justice emphasizes “equality of outcome or result.” In a just society both individuals and the community have the responsibility to ensure life chances, economic opportunities, political participation and to receive an equal (not necessarily the same) share of societal resources based on need. The market and need. Radicalism regards the market and other existing structural arrangements as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The capitalist economy, in particular is viewed as fundamentally unjust offering people neither a fair chance nor a fair share of societal resources. Organized to maximize profits, the market produces goods and services regardless of their social value or capacity to meet basic needs. Advertising and the culture of consumerism encourages people to need to buy what they do not need. The market also allows major needs to go unmet. It does not care if people have too little food, income, housing and health care. It does not falter if the economy produces more cake than bread, more yachts than low-income housing. It does not register the need for parks, schools, satisfying work, environmental protections, or other improvements in the quality of life that do not bring a profit. Finally, high profits depend on low wages and high unemployment and do not drop due to poverty, discrimination, violence or oppression. Put in other words, for radicalism, in a just society the production and distribution of good and services favors the satisfaction of needs over maximization of profits. The meaning of equality. For radicalism, freedom equals equality of condition or outcome. Radicals agree with conservatives that inequality is built into the market economy but argue that the hierarchal social arrangements are not natural, inevitable, or desirable. Rather inequality is socially constructed through institutionalized systems of power and privilege, domination and subordination, historically accumulated disadvantage, and other socially sanctioned arrangements that exploit, exclude, marginalize, oppress and otherwise render people powerless. Radicalism favors a social over a market definition of need, based on what each member of society requires to thrive and to participate fully in the community. Once everyone reaches this civic standard society would distribute resources above this line. The role of the state. Radicalism has a mixed view of the state. Some theories grant the government a major role in achieving social justice while others define it as part of the problem. In any case, according to radicalism individuals need the opportunity to access resources but also the power to exercise their full capacity. Therefore, society should (1) ensure access to resources, opportunities, and self-determination; (2) distribute economic resources based on need rather than merit and effort; (3) redistribute power and privilege downwards; (4) challenge the institutionalized roots of powerlessness and oppression; (5) move beyond the provision of a social minimum to a collectively defined adequate standard of living, and (6) promote cooperation rather than competition, social solidarity rather than individualism, and full participation in the community. Social change. For radicals, social change means moving beyond changing individuals and institutions to the transformation of structural arrangements that keep people down and out. Some see the government as playing a major role in such a societal transformation. Those who regard government as part of the problem rather than part of the solution call for its transformation or demise. The Role of CSWE’s Commission for Diversity and Social and Economic Justice The CSWE recognizes the complexities of defining, understanding, and working toward social and economic justice. To this end, in 2004 as part of its strategic planning process, the CSWE established the Commission for Diversity and Social and Economic Justice. Charged by the Board of Directors: The Commission for Diversity and Social and Economic Justice shall promote in social work education inclusion, equity, social and economic justice, and the integration of knowledge of how the multiple aspects of human diversity intersect. … Concerning itself with the impacts of oppression, power and privilege, the Commission shall also initiate and support efforts to expand the presence of historically oppressed and underrepresented populations among students, faculty, and staff in social work education programs. (Council on Social Work Education, 2004) The CDSEJ is composed of CSWE’s four diversity-related councils that focus upon the role and status of women in social work education; disability and persons with disabilities; gender expression and sexual orientation; and race, ethnic and cultural diversity. Although not organizationally part of CSWE, the following groups whose work focuses on diversity, social and economic justice also have seats on the Commission as official affiliated groups: American Indian Alaska Natives, Asian and Pacific Islanders, Latinos, Blacks, and Koreans. The CDSEJ struggles with the question of what we mean by social justice and, in particular, its relationship to the intersections of human diversities. Diversity and justice are intimately intertwined given the systemic marginalization and exclusion of persons of color; women of all races and ethnicities; gay, lesbian bi-sexual, and trans-gendered persons; and persons with disabilities, among others, thus contributing to the unequal or unjust distribution of power and resources and vice versa. Undoing the unequal treatment of people based on gender, race/ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, ability capacity and other aspects of diversity (some unchangeable, others that change over time, and others of choice) and undoing the unequal distribution of societal resources is critical for individual well-being, social cohesion, and a sense of community. While the Commission’s work varies, two projects stand out that reflect our efforts to transform thinking into action: the creation of a Center on Diversity and Social and Economic Justice and the launching of organized conversations on these issues. The CSWE Center for Diversity and Social and Economic Justice In January 2005, the CSWE Board of Directors mandated the Commission to explore the possibility of creating a Center that would support educational efforts to strengthen the profession’s commitment to social and economic justice. The Commission formed a workgroup, wrote a proposal for such a Center that was approved by the CSWE Board in June 2006 and given limited staff support. The Center, although still virtual at this time, will give voice and visibility to social work’s commitment to advancing social justice through teaching, research and service, and in practice and in policy – thereby raising the profession’s national leadership profile in support of this important work. In March 2007, to avoid reinventing the wheel and to build on what social work educators have already accomplished, The Center developed a short survey to gather information about courses, programs, task forces, trainings, research, and other social and economic justice activities at social work schools and programs. Distributed by CSWE in February 2008, the returns are still being collected. Meanwhile the CDSEJ is exploring funding options to transform the virtual Center into a vital and productive reality in support of social work education. The Diversity Conversation In late April 2008 CSWE sponsored “Diversity Conversations” to promote dialogue about the ways in which diversity issues and activities interface with those of social and economic justice. Held in Alexandria Virginia, the stimulating day long discussion created a comfortable space for representatives from the CDSEJ and its affiliated groups to share their views, air their differences, and advance their thinking. As a result of this process, a written document is being planned that can be distributed to other social work educators who like those at the meeting regularly grapple with the best way to define social justice, to teach about it effectively, and to make our academic institutions, communities, the nation, and the global society a fair and more equal place for everyone. These are weighty issues and goals. Nonetheless, the harsh persistence of injustice and the lack of enough clear action in wider society offer social workers the distinct opportunity to act upon our core values. Located between the individual and society, the social work profession is uniquely well-positioned to advance its commitment to achieve equality and justice for all. References Ball, T. & Dagger,
R. (1999). Political ideologies and the democratic ideal. New York: Longman.
Clark, E. (2007, July). Advocacy:
Profession's cornerstone, NASW News, 52(7). Retrieved April 8, 2008, from Council
on Social Work Education. (2004). Charge from the Board of Directors to the Commission for Social http://www.cswe.org/CSWE/about/governance/councils/Diversity+Commission.htm Heywood, A. (2007). Political
ideologies: An introduction. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
|
Another article on Social Justice is on the next page...
BPD Update Online, Volume 30, No. 2, Spring, 2008
The BPD Update Online web site is sponsored by Lyceum Books.