1. Read through my powerpoint carefully and read/watch all the links:
Lecture 7 – Social Justice, Social Movements, and Strategies for Dismantling Oppression.ppt
Actions
2. Read pgs 6-8 of this pdf (the section titled “Meaning of Social Justice”):
3. Then, choose ONE of these questions to answer in a thoughtful, creative 350-word post:
- How do we dismantle the “imperialist white supremacist capitalist cisgender heteropatriarchy”? ( bell hooks)
- How do we end institutional racism?
- How do we end sexism and dismantle patriarchy?
- How do we end sexual prejudice and tackle homophobia and transphobia?
- How do we reduce social inequality and end poverty?
- How can we be more intersectional in our thinking?
- (if you want to write about how we can end any other social injustice or oppression, please feel free!)
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
Allan C. Ornstein1
Published online: 27 October 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
Social scientists study social mobility in order to ascertain the
relative openness or fluidity of a social structure. They are inter-
ested in the difficulties different persons or groups experience in
acquiring the goods and services that are valued in the culture
and may be acquired through unequal contributions.
In ascription societies, the stratification system is closed to
individual mobility because prestige (or status) is determined at
birth. The amount of education one will receive, the occupational
status one will enter, one’s income and one’s whole lifestyle
cannot be changed. In an open-class society, although people
start with different advantages, opportunities are available for
them to change their initial positions. The life chances of a wel-
fare recipient’s son born in the slums differ considerably from
those of a banker’s son born in the suburbs. Although the playing
field is tilted and stacked against the slum child, in an
achievement-oriented society, the former can achieve as much
or more than the latter.
The emphasis on vertical social mobility in the American
social structure is one of the most striking features of our class
system—and the basis for what we often call the BAmerican
dream.^ Kurt Mayer, in Class and Society, puts it this way:
BThe United States has placed greater emphasis on social mobil-
ity than any other large nation in modern times. Americans have
firmly proclaimed the idea of equality and freedom of achieve-
ment and have acclaimed the large numbers of individuals who
have risen from humble origins to positions of prominence and
affluence.^ The believe in opportunity is strongly embedded in
the American culture, a view promulgated in the stories of
Horatio Alger and songs like BRags to Riches.^
Most Americans would accept the above analysis of mo-
bility and opportunity. But that’s not how the world works:
For some 5000 years of recorded history, until the late eigh-
teenth century, the ordinary person (nearly 99% of the popu-
lace) has lived on the edge of starvation, slightly above sub-
sistence level, with no rights and no justice.
The Ancient World
From the beginning of civilization to the American
Revolution, the monarchs, priests, and warlords (later the no-
bility class) ruled the world. Economic growth would enhance
the wealth of those who were already rich or powerful; the
masses were little more than slaves, serfs, peasants, or chat-
tel—who worked until death or disablement and whose life
expectancy was 30 to 35 years—depending on the century and
society. Behavior was grounded in appetite, or desire and self-
interest. Those with power and wealth sought to retain their
position, and there was minimal or no opposition by working
and subordinate people who lacked the ability to oppose what
was perceived as the natural order. Nothing could be done to
change it, and that is how the world existed for centuries. The
idea that humans have rights is a relatively new concept—not
more than 350 years old.
Heredity privilege governed society and those fortune by
birth were expected to benefit at the expense of the working
masses who were limited by their unprivileged birth.
Intelligence or any other human strength had to be extraordi-
nary before it could count for much in comparison to heredity
privilege. Each person, relying on traditions of birthright and
background and his own resources, labored within a fixed,
This article is dedicated to Sophia and Carissa who will eventually come
to understand the meaning and implications of the article below.
* Allan C. Ornstein
allanornstein@yahoo.com
1 School of Education, Sullivan Hall, 5th Fl, St. John’s University,
8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens, NY 11439, USA
Soc (2017) 54:541–548
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-017-0188-8
mailto:allanornstein@yahoo.com
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s12115-017-0188-8&domain=pdf
stratified society. The rewards went to the rich and powerful,
while the ordinary person worked from dawn to dusk and
lived in poverty and squalor. The superiority of civilization
over barbarianism did very little to change the miserable con-
ditions of working people. In short, life for the common per-
son was brutal and short. The masses were controlled by those
who ruled. Might made right; there was no rule of law. Human
rights or social justice were nonexistent. Plunder and rape,
starvation and war, characterized the flow of events.
With the exception of the Greeks and Romans, all
the great civilizations of the ancient world would fall
under the aristocratic rule of monarchs and emperors,
supported with an entrenched and corrupt nobility or
property class, where the mass were either slaves, man-
ual laborers or peasant farmers who toiled until their
death. The vast majority of people were nothing more
than disposable units of production kept alive at the
subsistence level. Their function was to keep the system
running. Their wages or economic rewards would main-
ly cover the cost of their daily existence so they could
produce the next generation of children who would be
laborers or till the land. People lived by war and con-
quest and developed first from warlike families which
grew into clans and tribes, cemented by blood, which
then grew into small villages and settlements and then
city-states and monarchies and kingdoms.
The warlords who commanded armies were paid by
monarchs in gold, property and for titles in exchange for their
loyalty. These warring leaders obtained heredity titles and
land, and thus transformed into the Bgentry^ or nobility class.
They gained recognition for possession of goods and people,
as well as military valor. The masses—whether they were
slaves or serfs, peasant farmers or laborers—surrendered their
rights and freedom to those who could provide security and
protect them from plunder and facilitate their survival needs.
People were willing to live in a society where government had
a heavy hand, even in an authoritarian order, so long as they
knew they could live in relative safety; their goal was not to be
raped or brutalized by stronger people and roaming armies—
and to have food on the table.
What we are describing here is a gloomy and brutal
world—and why people are often willing to give up their
freedom, including their rights and opportunities.
Civilization brought a degree of peace and security for the
masses, compared to the age of barbarianism. In a nut shell,
a social order accompanied by a freedom of fear, plunder and
rape takes precedence over economic possessions and prizes
and even human rights. In a Hobbesian world, there is no
moral high ground. People of power and property seek their
own self-preservation and combine by marriage and alliance
to obtain more power and property. They act as a force for
change at the expense of less powerful people who are just
trying to live day-to-day and feed themselves.
Our Western Heritage: The Greeks and Romans
Now ancient Greece and Rome were a slightly different story.
Their development was a variation of this theme, from barbar-
ianism to civilization. But their political system was cemented
by human agreement. Citizens had a political voice among
ruling elites, rather than the simple bloodline and hereditary
succession and the complete domination of the masses in the
ancient civilizations that preceded them.
In the Greek era, a distant mirror of the politics of our own
age, it was believed that the citizens had certain rights and
civic duties—and could argue for or against any proposition
in the marketplace of ideas—the courts, the public arena, etc.
Plato’s Republic fashioned a plan for a perfect state ruled by
an intellectual elite of philosopher-kings—not a money elite or
hereditary aristocracy. Society existed to cultivate truth and virtue
in its inhabitants, based on assumptions that only knowledgeable
men should rule and that all inhabitants who had basic rights
should contribute to the general welfare according to their intel-
lectual capacity and particular aptitude. Education, not privileged
birth, was the major vehicle for defining the social and economic
relations of the residents in Plato’s Republic. The educational
system played a selective role as it rated intellectual aptitude
and sorted children into future categories: philosopher-kings,
auxiliaries and soldiers, and workers. Once assigned to a class,
individuals received the appropriate education assigned to their
social-economic position—and mobility was frozen. Plato be-
lieved that each class would fulfill a necessary function and con-
tribute to the common good. Such a society, he believed, would
be harmonious.
Even now, both liberal and conservative thinkers, love to
make comparisons between the ancient Greeks and our
Western heritage. To some extent, we are all Greeks—at least
in terms of our culture and political beliefs. Americans, I be-
lieve, are more likely to agree with a dead Greek poet or
philosopher than the best known lawyers or social scientists
of the modern world to bolster an argument or advocate a
point of view. We think the ancient scholars from the Greek
islands spoke with less spin (and more virtue) than modern
politicians and policymakers. This view is especially seen in
the writings of traditional educators and philosophers who
advocate the classics and great books approach to education.
It would be nice to envision America as the sole heir of
Athens—where democracy first flourished—and to be a
champion of moral virtue and humanitarianism. But we are
also Romans. The same land that gave us Cierco and Virgil,
and forged the foundations of our Republic, forced humans
(gladiators) to square off against each other and against wild
animals. It is true that Cierco had climbed from relatively
humble surroundings to the highest offices of the Roman
Empire. With Cierco’s death, however, more precisely his
assassination, the Empire lost its most staunchest legal advo-
cate and political conscience—and soon fell under the
542 Soc (2017) 54:541–548
autocratic rule of a series of notorious and corrupt emperors
who brought ruin and decay to Roman society.
In his last years of life, Cierco warned the Senate about
patrician greed and class warfare, and to shame his colleagues
in the Senate about growing inequality between the patrician
and plebian classes. The orator’s words ring loud today: BA
belief has become established—and harmful to the
Republic…that these courts, with you senators as the jury, will
never convict any man, however guilty if he has sufficient
money.^ We must also read Tacitus in terms of Bdiminutive
rivalries.^ Strong men will trample weak men in war, politics
or business affairs Bas long as there are prizes to contend for
which move their avarice or their ambition.^
We overlook the fact that Greek and Roman society, like all
the previous ancient societies, were built on the backs of
slaves, and only a minority of Greeks and Romans had the
rights and privileges described by the great Greek and Roman
philosophers. We love to trace our philosophical thoughts to
Greece and Rome, but we ignore that both civilizations be-
lieved in a government run by the well educated and property
class—nothing more, if I may add, than an oligarchy—and
what later would be called the European nobility.
The expectation remained in Europe, and the rest of the
world (except America), that the masses were destined to live
at the brink of starvation, famine and disease. This was the
way it had been since the dawn of civilization. The human
condition was characterized first by chaos and then misery—
as the strong plundered the weak. Economic life was a strug-
gle, pure and simple. Life was brutal and short, void of human
rights or justice.
The idea of a social contract between government and the
people or that people had natural rights and could live a de-
scent life, with opportunities for improving their condition,
was considered illogical and contrary to the norms of society.
It violated the customs and traditions of the relations that
bounded the Church and the faithful, Prince and subject peo-
ple, property owner and peasant, master and servant. Equally
disturbing was that in the normal course of events ordinary
people did not expect anything but misfortune and privation,
nor did they expect significant improvement in their social
status or standard of living. From the beginning of recorded
history, the workers and weaker members of society expected
to be pressed down and exploited. The majority opinion was
that the passions of men did not conform to the ideas of rea-
son, fairness or justice; hence, there was the uncritical accep-
tance of the selfish nature of man—and that the strong would
prey over the weak.
A slightly more optimistic current took hold in America,
spearheaded by political leaders who were influenced by the
humanitarian ideas of the Age of Enlightenment. Still, the
concepts of slavery and indentured servants existed and were
woven into the social order during the colonial and post-
colonial era. The platitudes of moral behavior, the common
good, and helping the less fortunate (Kant’s doctrines), the
natural rights of men (Voltaire’s idea), a social contract be-
tween government and the people (Rousseau’s dictum), the
notion of Blife, liberty and property^ (Locke’s statement)
and the substitution of property for Bpursuit of happiness^
(Jefferson’s modification) were all abstract ideas that went
against the tide of opinion and the dictates of reason prior to
the American Revolution.
In Europe Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau were considered
extremely radical among their contemporaries, promoting
ideas based on a false and untenable conception of human
nature. In some ways they were the mouse that roared. Few
people of power and property took them seriously, but even-
tually their writings began to seep into discussions at the tav-
erns and coffee shops of Geneva, London and Paris. Despite
the American and French Revolution, the upper classes in
both the Old and New World did not subscribe to these doc-
trines, nor did they have faith and/or respect in the common
people or the rights of the people. In fact, Thomas Jefferson
was considered a traitor to the class interests of Southern plan-
tation owners and northern bankers, similar to the way
Franklin Roosevelt more than 150 years later was viewed by
the Brahmins and business class when he implemented civil-
ian work programs, unemployment insurance and Social
Security for Americans during the Great Depression.
During the Industrial Revolution which started in merry-
old England around the time of the American Revolution,
special skills and special abilities of people resulted in slightly
higher wages than the norm. But the fixed economic system
and social traditions of prior societies directed toward the past
remained intact, rather than toward a future which men them-
selves might shape. The amount of people who rose from
pittance to what might be called middle class was miniscule
in numbers compared to the masses who remained poor and
destitute.
Actually, the Industrial Revolution increased inequality be-
tween the mercantile and manufacturing class with the labor
and working class because the vast portion of wealth attribut-
ed to economic growth went to the economic elite, not the
masses. To be sure, a rising tide does not always lift all boats
in the water, not when the surrounding environment or custom
is fixed and not when a person’s position in society is consid-
ered from a static position as it was viewed for centuries. We
are not all in the same boat, as Jack found out the hard way in
the movie Titanic. No doubt the new industries allowed a tiny
number of entrepreneurial people to accumulate capital and
equipment. Thus a few people endowed by nature, that is by
strength and cunning, were able to take advantage of the fruits
of their power and abilities.
This new concept of competition and productivity led to
nineteenth century Darwinist thinking, that is Bsurvival of the
fittest^ and Herbert Spencer’s dictum, the Blaw of the jungle.^
Such ideas could be viewed as an outgrowth of the ancient
Soc (2017) 54:541–548 543
world which set man against man in the pursuit of power,
prestige and wealth—and left the masses to fend for them-
selves relative to their state of nature. This idea was modified
in the New World, whereby common people could success-
fully compete and fit well into the American landscape, large-
ly because of the frontier experience, the abundance of free
land and natural resources, the constant flow of immigrants,
and the long-favored notion of progress and change.
Moreover, there was no history of warlords, family lineage
or bloodlines; the land had not been carved up by centuries
of war and strife, by warlords who later became known as
Dukes, Earls, and Barons.
The point is that in the U.S., there was so much land and
resources for the taking that it did not create a zero-sum game
between the power elite and the common person; the people
with new powers and property allowed the masses to accumu-
late their own riches because there was so much land available
for anyone who was willing to risk the unknown and work
hard. BSurvival of the fittest^ eventually blended into the folk-
lore of the West and later the customs of the Gilded Age. The
picture of the self-made man of the nineteenth century, epito-
mized by the robber baron, warped into Ayn Rand’s book,
Atlas-Shrugged, published in 1957. In the twentieth century,
Rand’s image of the self-reliant, egotistical person rejected the
idea of the common good, altruism and helping less fortunate
people. In both centuries, however, the capitalist system
evolved from the brutal conditions of the ancient world: The
strong survived and the weak barely existed or perished. Life
was a struggle, a part of nature—where every group, every
animal or human was always in a ceaseless struggle with its
environment and its species.
Material wealth at the expense of Bthe herd^ or ordinary
people was common. Greed was and still is considered good;
it’s the fuel or engine that supposedly drives the economy.
There is little concern for the working person—as well as
for the weak, the old, the disabled, etc.
The Promised Land
But America is the land of opportunity, where peoples’ aspi-
rations and dreams come true, where ordinary citizens have
rights guaranteed by law. Immigrants fleeing from oppressive
governments or economic hardship can start a new life and
have multiple chances to succeed.
Keep in mind our history: The ideas of the Enlightenment,
when transported across the ocean, prevailed over authoritar-
ianism and theocracy. Thank the heavens that a group of
middle-aged rebels were willing to put their lives on the line,
and thank Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of
Independence and said the right words at the right time and
provided the framework that gave us the natural right to es-
tablish the rights of people and separate the church and state.
Of course, the English aristocrats and conservatives did not
see it the same way. Harping on the vulgarity and clumsiness
of their former colonialists, one English novelist some 50 years
ago summed up the American revolutionists as
Bmalcontented^ children and Americans in general as
Bcowards^ who were Balmost all the descendants of wretches
who deserted their legitimate monarchs for fear of military
service.^
The doctrine of natural rights of man, Bthe right of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,^ the idea that Ball men
are created equal,^ a belief in Ba government of the people and
by the people,^ the rights to own land, the rights to assemble,
to protest and express opinions, the devotion to education and
self-improvement for plain people—all these principles that
we take for granted today did not come easily and required an
uphill battle of ideas and for the minds of people. Liberty and
freedom are not given to a country, but it is a result of hard-
won struggles, a belief in the rights of all people and the
protection of minority rights. It is not easy to transcend reli-
gion in a deeply religious country as ours, and to allow secular
laws to prevail. It is not easy to overcome the power of the rich
and allow the people to govern, whereby the rich ultimately
have to answer to the people and where the rule of law
prevails.
In the U.S. capitalism would be encouraged to expand, but
there would be no feudal class, no peasant class, no serfs perpet-
ually indentured to the monarch or nobility class. There would be
genuine reform in which people of different classes and occupa-
tions would come nearer in speaking the same language and have
similar opportunities than anywhere else in the world. The re-
ward system based on inherited privilege and power would be
curtailed so that the nation would not have the same Bwinners^
and Blosers^ from one generation to the other. The ultimate ques-
tion comes down to what we should do so all Americans could
thrive. The answer was to use government to bring about reform
so everyone had the potential to prosper. The country would have
to work for everyone! A government of the people and for the
people was the only counter force powerful enough to curtail
corporate power and abuse.
So we are the lucky ones. Over the course of nearly 250 years,
this nation has grown from a small cluster of colonies with a
ragtag collection of people and a makeshift army, to a free,
mighty, and wealthy nation—the most influential one in the his-
tory of humankind and on the present world stage. How was this
possible? Does it boil down to accident, luck, or design?
I cannot give you a precise answer—why we are the chosen
ones, or the lucky ones. The answer, to some extent, comes
from the heart, from the feelings and emotions of plain people,
immigrant people, and working people who inhabit our land-
scape and who know they are free: Free from the yoke of
oppression, free from the sword, whip and boot—and there-
fore strive, innovate, and invent. Despite that we are a nation
of many nations, with different customs and folklore, we all
544 Soc (2017) 54:541–548
speak the same language as free men and women and breathe
the same free air. The answer also comes from all the people
around the world who clamor to come to our shores to escape
their nations’ rulers, tyrants, and oligarchies, to find that pot of
gold that can only be found in the New World. Here common
people can fulfill their dreams. Here justice has a chance to
prevail.
James Weaver, a Populist philosopher at the turn of the
twentieth century, identified with the Founding Fathers of
1776 and put it this way: BThroughout all history we have
had ample evidence that the new world is the theater upon
which the great struggle for the rights of man is to be made,^
Or, could the answer simply be what Otto von Bismarck, the
Prussian chancellor, once muttered? BGod has special provi-
dence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America.^
Alex de Tocqueville, perhaps the most influential visitor and
profound observer of America, put it in more realistic terms in
1835: Whereas a Bpermanent inequality of condition prevailed^
in the Old World, where the social conditions tended Bto pro-
mote the despotism of the monarchs and ruling class on the
masses,^ the principle of democracy prevailed in the United
States. Some 175 years later, another foreign gentleman, this
time an immigrant from the far-off land of India, Dinesh
D’Souza (someone much more conservative but just as idealis-
tic as Weaver and de Tocqueville) commented: BAmerica is a
new kind of society that produces a new kind of human being.
The human being—confident, self-reliant, tolerant, generous,
future oriented—is a vast improvement over the wretched, fa-
talistic, and intolerant human being that traditional societies
have always produced and…produce now.^
Then there is David Reynolds, a Cambridge historian, who
recently wrote a lengthy history of the U.S., entitled America:
Empire of Liberty. American contradictions are described be-
tween our lofty ideals and practice. He sees the nation as an
empire pieced together by war and conquest, much like other
empires of the past. But he also sees America as the successful
integration of different people from around the world with
diverse and innovative thoughts. Faceless and unknown, lack-
ing hereditary privilege and wealth, people come to America
seeking a new beginning, a fair chance, and a future that is
offered no where else on earth.
The pictures at Ellis Island tell a story: A tale of people
clamoring to come to America, some weeping for joy as they
passed into the New York Harbor and saw the Statue of
Liberty beckoning them—the huddled masses yearning to be
free. The American dream is built on the aspirations and
achievements of these immigrants risking life and limb to
come to our shores, some seeking political asylum, others
seeking economic opportunity and/or a new life. Indeed, there
is no better way to judge this country, or any country, than by
the numbers of people trying to get into it, as opposed to other
parts of the world where people are desperately trying to get
out of their country.
The Roots of Social Justice
The notion of social justice is based on the Christian doctrine
of helping less fortunate people—the weak, sickly, and
oppressed. To be sure, Jesus cared deeply about people. He
went out of his way to help people facing injustices. The Bible
is full of passages that advocate helping and caring for people.
Instead of being motivated by power, pride, or material
wealth, those clergy that follow the scriptures find purpose
through acts of justice.
Since the 1920s, social democratic governments in Western
Europe have reinforced the view that all citizens should be
treated equally. Society cannot be fair or just if it has different
categories or types of citizenship, such as nobility and the rest
of the population, whites as first class citizens and blacks as
second class, dominant and subordinate (or oppressed)
groups, etc. Inequality must be reduced or eliminated; oppor-
tunities for poor and working people need to be expanded;
government is obligated to provide free health and education
(including college) services; the free market system needs to
be regulated by government; labor has the right to organize
into unions; resources need to be allocated more equally; and
the rich have to pay higher taxes. In short, income and wealth
should be redistributed so there is greater opportunity and
equality among the populace, and therefore more justice.
Across the Atlantic Ocean, it was and still is considered
unwise to associate with Europe’s Bsocial democracy^ to
avoid being labeled as socialists. The word Bliberalism^ was
used in lieu of socialism. When liberal became a derogatory
word, the same ideas were expressed as Bprogressive.^
Nonetheless, similar ideas were being promogated as part of
Theodore Roosevelt’s BSquare Deal,^ Franklin Roosevelt’s
BNew Deal,^ Harry Truman’s BFair Deal,^ Lyndon
Johnson’s War on Poverty and BGreat Society^ and Bill
BClintonomics.^ The rational behind these policies were
discussed in terms of human rights, rooted in the Age of
Enlightenment and the U.S. Bill of Rights. Ideally govern-
ment would be used to bring about reform so that every
American could participate in the American dream; govern-
ment legislation would right the wrongs of history.
Starting in the early 1960s social scientists began to touch
on topics of justice without using or identifying the name. The
conversation focused on equality—and issues related to class
and caste. Indeed, the 1960s ushered in a period in which the
social conscious of Americans burst forth—coinciding with
our concern over racial discrimination, poverty, and equal op-
portunity. Three authors/books stand out during this period.
James Conant, the Harvard University president, was part
of the Educational Establishment. In 1961 he published Slums
and Suburbs. Slum schools were compared to their suburban
counterparts; they lacked resources, experienced teachers, and
a relevant curriculum that could meet the needs of their stu-
dents. Slum schools were in grave physical condition—
Soc (2017) 54:541–548 545
characterized by broken windows, broken toilets, and graffiti
on the walls. Conant wrote that the students in the ghetto areas
of large cities Beither drop out or graduate from school [with
minimal] prospects of future education or employment.^ He
argued that youth out of school and out of work was Ba men-
ace to the social and political health of the large cities.^ He
went on to coin the word Bsocial dynamite^ and warned that if
the social/economic situation did not improve in these schools
and cities there would be serious consequences. In short, he
was predicting the social and racial upheaval that would soon
grip the American landscape.
The same year (1961) John Gardner, Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare under the Johnson administration,
wrote Excellence: Can We Be Equal Too? He discussed social
issues that later gave rise to equal opportunity legislation and
affirmative action policies. Gardner noted that extreme forms
of egalitarianism in schools or jobs tended to eliminate both
excellence and merit. On the other hand, extreme forms of
competition and excellence could create a permanent under-
class with the less abled. He tried to draw a middle position,
including multiple chances for succeeding and identifying
many different forms of talent—not just academic talent. BIt
takes more than an educated elite to run a complex, technical
society.^ Differences in rewards are accepted so long as peo-
ple with special abilities serve the common good and do not
use them against society, say in robbing a bank. There is also
an expectation that society will establish appropriate institu-
tions such as schools and colleges to nurture those differences
in abilities and talents, but it must also provide opportunity for
people who are not as smart and talented.
The following year (1962), Michael Harrington, who was a
socialist writer published The Other America. The book fo-
cused on the forgotten, overlooked, and invisible American,
that is the poor who he claimed comprised one third of the US
population. Harrington’s main point was that poverty was no
longer cyclical or temporary. The condition was permanent in
the midst of general prosperity; it was a travesty in the richest
nation of the world that so many Americans were struggling
and living day-to-day. Although the book was small in size, it
was a major factor in galvanizing nation-wide support for
assisting the less fortunate in America. It was crucial in
influencing both President Kennedy and Johnson, and led to
the subsequent War on Poverty.
In 1971, John Rawls, a Harvard University professor, pub-
lished A Theory of Justice. He criticized the gap between the
highest and lowest paid workers, called for a floor and ceiling
in earnings to close the gaps in income, and advocated that the
rich pay more taxes. He also asserted that justice must be
conceived in terms of fairness and basic moral principles. A
social contract was needed to ensure basic rights for the peo-
ple. Although Rawls’ writing was cumbersome and difficult to
read, the book was instrumental in getting scholars and pun-
dits to discuss and write about the principles and policies of
justice. Eventually, the notion of justice was fused into the US
civil rights movement, emphasizing the rights of all people
and the moral principles of justice.
The Meaning of Social Justice
Social Justice means different things to different people. If you
are going to speak or write about social justice you will need
to have some understanding of what is a democracy, what
rights do people have or should have, and how society should
provide for less fortunate people. In the pages below, the au-
thor identifies 30 basic principles that should be considered as
a framework for defining justice (social justice).
1. The history of Western society bends toward social jus-
tice. The fight for social justice is incremental and ex-
tends over centuries. The interpretation and judgment of
social justice depends on who interprets it and who
writes the laws of society.
2. Ordinary people can change the course of history by
joining a movement. Social justice is a movement for
improving the lives of people. You usually get one or
two chances in life to join a movement and make a
difference. The idea, to paraphrase Aretha Franklin, is
to know when the train is coming, to get on board, and to
hold your head up high. In short, the fight for social
justice takes persistence, guts, and knowing and doing
what’s right.
3. A fair and just society will encourage democratic princi-
ples of equality, opportunity, and mobility. It will also
provide a legal framework for human rights (the concept
is less than 350 years old), civil rights, and individual
rights.
4. Every democratic society must try to reduce the gap in
income and wealth among its citizenry. There must be a
reasonable floor and ceiling in income and wealth.
5. The floor and ceiling is achieved through some form of
monetary redistribution and taxation, as well as by po-
litical compromise. But just when you think you have
reached some compromise or agreement, the political
winds change and you have a new floor and ceiling.
6. In a just society, all lives have equal value, equal oppor-
tunity and equal chances for success.
7. A socially just society cannot forget or ignore people in
need, nor leave the majority of its people behind. It must
put people first—not property nor profits. It must be
willing to examine and reexamine its beliefs and philos-
ophy on a regular basis.
8. All groups, including those who define themselves as a
political minority (blacks, Hispanics, women, gay les-
bians, labor unions, etc.) recognize some bias and dis-
crimination will always exist. But in a just society, the
546 Soc (2017) 54:541–548
bias and discrimination are minimal and minority groups
have the same rights as the majority and are able to fulfill
their dreams.
9. In a fair or just society, the class structures are fluid in both
directions—up and down, from lower class to upper class
and from upper class to lower.
10. In a just society, there must be a political and legal frame-
work that protects and enhances the rights of the people.
Laws must not be based on partisan or tribal politics, or
they will become temporary, but rooted in moral, social,
and economic doctrines that provide opportunities and
mobility for all people and groups in society.
11. In a just society, individual rights supersede group rights,
corporate rights and property rights. Lawyers and judges
have elevated status. The ordinary person can find legal
protection as well as redress in the courts. The police
must follow and obey the laws.
12. For social justice to flourish, the government must be
prepared to intervene. A free-market system, without
government restraints, leads to greater inequality where-
by talented people make large sums of money and aver-
age and less than average workers (the common people
or silent majority) are paid at best a living wage.
13. A society characterized by a wide income/wealth gap
rewards special talent and entrepreneurship. A society
characterized by a narrow gap pays descent wages to
ordinary people and rewards the working and middle
class.
14. Those who believe that a social contract exists between
government and its people reject large gaps in income
and wealth; such differences reflect the excesses of cap-
italism. Those who believe in limited government see
large differences in income and wealth as a reflection
of the success of capitalism.
15. Given a social contract, the government not only protects
the people, but also provides revenue for building
schools, roads, and bridges; it also provides safety nets
and social programs for its disadvantaged populace, in-
cluding the poor, sick, disabled, and elderly.
16. An innovative and entrepreneurial society will accept
large amounts of inequality; a fair or just society will
reduce these differences.
17. The people who believe that getting ahead is a matter of
perspiration, talent, or enterprise tend to oppose govern-
ment intervention and redistributive policies, as well as
social programs, safety nets, or entitlements. On the oth-
er hand, those who believe that Bsuccess^ is related to
inherited advantages, socioeconomic advantages, or
worse, being a member of a dominant group (i.e. born
white and born in an upper-class family) support redis-
tributive policies and/or reverse discrimination.
18. Those who believe in the Horacio Alger stories of hard
work, self-denial, and honor contend that those who are
Bsuccessful^ have earned their money and deserve it.
Those who believe that many wealthy people have ac-
quired their money or assets by inheritance or by
exploiting the system (Rockerfellers, Goulds,
Kennedys, Trump) believe that ordinary people have
little chance for Bsuccess.^ That said, social justice has
a long road ahead.
19. Those who control capital, property and/or equipment
represent the dominant class—and how wealth is creat-
ed. Mobility and opportunity must exist to the extent that
the subordinate class, or more precisely the common
people who work for a living, can improve their social-
economic status.
20. In a just society, those who have the least benefit from
those who have the most via charity works, philanthropy,
and in fair tax code.
21. Although a dominant and subordinate group may exist in
all societies, in a just society, the differences do not lead
to institutional racism, class consciousness, or economic
warfare.
22. If the assignment of personal responsibility is used to
justify inequality of income and wealth, then there is
little chance for social justice. Of course, there could be
other reasons for the difference in outcomes such as per-
sonal characteristics, luck, or making the right choice at
the right time. It is fair if people have more money or
assets than others if there is equal opportunity for all
citizens.
23. Power corrupts; power must be held accountable. In a
just society, the people have the ability to peacefully
remove their political leaders and elected officials when-
ever they deem it necessary.
24. For social justice to be part of the fabric of society, the
people must be afforded the right and legal mechanism
to investigate, impeach, convict and/or jail their political
leaders for incompetence, corruption and/or unlawful
behavior.
25. Government laws or executive orders that discriminate
against specific groups (racial, ethnic or religious), under
the guise of protecting the majority of people or preserv-
ing a way of life, are morally wrong and usually illegal.
In democratic societies, such laws and orders must be
challenged and rejected by the people in the courts or
legislated bodies of that country.
26. In a fair and just society, people are paid on the basis of
the goods and services they produce for the common
good. In a society that stresses excellence, people are
paid on the basis of supply/demand, the profit they gen-
erate or the cost occurred by hiring them. Those who
generate profits are paid the most, sometimes hundreds
or thousands of times more than those who are consid-
ered cost factors. Teachers are cost factors. The idea is
for school boards to control the budget and limit salaries.
Soc (2017) 54:541–548 547
27. So long as Americans have the view that the Sam
Waltons, Mark Zuckerbergs Michael Jordans and
Madonnas of the world, and all their descendants are
entitled to all their wealth, because they worked hard,
founded highly successful companies, or could shoot a
ball through a hoop or entertain large crowds, then the
millions and billions they make will continue to create
social injustices and economic imbalance—and doom
the rest of us to a bleak future characterized by vast
inequality.
28. Globalization affects social justice. The market is seven
billion people, not just the size of our country. This
means a bigger pie for millionaires and billionaires to
build their wealth, thus increasing inequality and reduc-
ing social justice around the world. In a just society, the
majority of people must be committed to a level playing
field, and some legitimate form of equality, even if it
means that income and wealth will be redistributed to
less fortunate people.
29. When two and two is considered to be five (or up is
down and down is up), by a majority populace or by
those in power, social justice is at risk and/or significant-
ly diminished.
30. Words count. They are the instrument for both reflection
and revolution. A just society permits and defends free
speech, a free press and the right to protest peacefully. It
recognizes and supports poetry, plays, songs, speeches
and film, as well as the publication of newspapers, mag-
azines and books as essential for the health and vitality of
society. Words can be used for waging war or for
healing.
Conclusion
Consider that the rich and powerful have always kept the
masses in a subordinate position, thus curtailing the opportu-
nity for the majority populace. Only in recent times, with the
rise of democratic governments in Western society do the
common people have a chance to curtail the dominant class
(the rich and powerful) by voting at the ballot box, as well as a
chance to reach for the stars and fulfill their own dreams. With
the twenty-first century unfolding in the U.S., there should be
continuous pressure to increase equality and redistribute in-
come and wealth.
The commitment to provide a fair chance for every-
one to succeed and develop their abilities and talents
remains central to the national creed for the vast major-
ity of Americans; this is what distinguishes us from the
rest of the world. Virtually no one in the U.S. favors
equal distribution of income for it would discourage
hard work, risk taking and innovation. Some form of
inequality, based on abilities and talent, is the price
we pay for a dynamic economy and the right for each
person to retain the benefits of his or her labor, capital
investment or property. The idea is not to focus on the
outcomes of inequality, but to address the reasons for
inequality—and what can be done to improve the hu-
man condition.
It is doubtful if inequality of income and wealth can be
reduced simply by education, because the gap between the
rich and the rest of us is so great and continues to grow wider.
A moral society needs to redistribute income and wealth in
order to make its nation more democratic, fair and just.
Finding the right mechanism, reaching some compromise,
setting limits on income and wealth (a floor and ceiling) is
no easy task. Nonetheless, it is essential that we begin to make
such changes if most of us in this country are to share in the
American dream.
Every generation going forward is obligated to interpret
and reinterpret the principles of human rights and justice.
Every person in a free society must learn the government’s
obligations to its people and the peoples’ obligation to their
fellow citizens and humanity in general. That said, the mean-
ing you find in the above 30 principles of justice depends on
your own sense of history and life experiences. The list is not
permanent, and should evolve as society changes. The hand-
writing is on the wall. You only have to see six inches in front
of your eyeballs. As the population changes and we become
more diverse, educated and tolerant as a nation, we can expect
a more liberal or progressive interpretation of justice.
Allan Ornstein is a professor of education at St. John’s University. He is
a former Fulbright-Hayes Scholar and author of 65 books. His recent
books Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and The Shrinking Middle
Class (2007), Wealth vs. Work: How 1% Victimize 99% (2012), and
Excellence vs. Equality: Can Society Achieve Both Goals? (2016) deal
with the issues of social justice.
548 Soc (2017) 54:541–548
- Social Justice: History, Purpose and Meaning
The Ancient World
Our Western Heritage: The Greeks and Romans
The Promised Land
The Roots of Social Justice
The Meaning of Social Justice
Conclusion
*
Before we can understand what social justice is today, we need to understand its history…
Long History of Social Justice
For an interesting history of social justice beginning with the Greeks and Romans, please see:
“Social Justice: History, Purpose and Meaning”
by Allan C. Ornstein (2017)
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12115-017-0188-8
On pgs 6-8, there is a comprehensive numbered list of the various meanings of social justice. Check it out!
Social Movements and Progressivism
The following slides are based mostly on the following report:
“Social Movements and Progressivism: Part Three of the Progressive Tradition Series”, John Halpin & Marta Cook (2010) Center for American Progress
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2010/04/14/7593/social-movements-and-progressivism/
Progressivism
“Social Movements and Progressivism”, Halpin & Cook, 2010)
Social justice and social movements are founded in Progressivism
Progressivism as a reform tradition has always focused its moral energy against societal injustice, corruption, and inequality.
Progressivism was built on a vibrant grassroots foundation, from the Social Gospel and labor movements to women’s suffrage and civil rights to environmentalism, antiwar activism, and gay rights.
Progressivism – con’t
Activists and leaders believed deeply in:
empowerment and equality of the less privileged in society
primacy of democracy in American life
the notion that government should safeguard the common good from unchecked individual and commercial greed.
Challenged government to eliminate its own legal injustices
Harnessed the force of government as a vital tool for advancing human freedom and establishing the “more perfect union” envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Progressivism – Con’t
Central to all progressive social movements: people do not have to wait for change from the top down—that people themselves can be catalysts for change from the bottom up.
Activists came from middle- or working-class backgrounds
Possessed the courage and skill to organize others, risking great personal sacrifice and danger.
Nonviolent themselves, many of these activists faced ridicule, violence, and other hardships in efforts to push their citizens toward more enlightened positions in line with the country’s stated values.
Image: Courtesy of the White House
Martin Luther King, Jr. was an activist and fierce advocate for social justice during the Civil Rights Movement in the US in the 1950-60s.
Please read his biography here: https://www.biography.com/people/martin-luther-king-jr-9365086
Martin Luther King, Jr
“Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (1963)
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
Core values of progressivism
freedom in its fullest sense
a commitment to the common good
pragmatic reform
human equality
social justice
democracy
cooperation and interdependence
(Halpin & Cook, 2010)
Struggle
Social movements, by definition, arise from a committed minority of citizens working together to shape larger public consciousness about particular injustices in addition to working for concrete political change.
BUT…they have not always been harmonious and cooperative (i.e. feminist movements. LGBT+ movements)
Early movements:
Two main categories
Early movements developed in response to grave injustices in American life that directly or indirectly affected a significant segment of society:
Formal inequality of women, African Americans, immigrants, and gays and lesbians led to various movements for civil rights, equality and individual rights
Poor working conditions and poverty-level subsistence of wage earners led to the rise of the labor movement for economic justice
1. Social movements for equality
Draw heavily from religious teachings about human dignity and solidarity, Enlightenment thought about human autonomy, and formative political documents such as the Declaration of Independence.
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
Examples of early equality movements:
Abolitionism (to end slavery)
focused on restoring human rights of African Americans; full-blown assault on an American economic system that exploited an entire race of people for the financial benefit of a privileged few
Thomas Paine; John Adams; William Lloyd Garrison; David Walker; Frederick Douglass; Angelina Grimke; Abraham Lincoln
Earliest anti-slavery doc: German Quaker resolution against slavery signed in 1688.
Examples of early equality movements:
Suffrage and Women’s Rights
mid-19th to early 20th century marked first time when women’s rights became a revolutionary movement in American politics.
Catalyzed by the abolitionist movement
The Seneca Falls Convention (1848) – considered the genesis of worldwide women’s equality movements
Leading American feminists and some men – Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Frederick Douglass – came together to chart path for achieving equal political and economic rights for women.
Susan B Anthony and Lucy Stone –voting rights
Examples of early equality movements:
Civil Rights Movement
Formally begins 1909 – founding of NAACP
Fueled by Social Darwinism, pseudoscientific theories about racial intelligence and hereditary breeding, Jim Crow Laws, segregation, KKK
W.E.B. Du Bois’s groundbreaking book, The Souls of Black Folk
Niagara Movement (precursor to the NAACP) recommended a aggressive steps to secure political power and civil rights for blacks
called for freedom of speech, universal suffrage, the abolition of all racial distinctions based on race and color, the importance of work, the principal of human brotherhood
Later leaders: Thurgood Marshall, MLK, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks,
Examples of early equality movements:
Other Early Civil Rights Movements
Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers used nonviolent protests and labor strikes to fight for decent wages and living standards for Latino agricultural workers; National Council of La Raza were formed to extend the civil rights advances of the 1960s to Hispanic Americans.
Stonewall Uprising – 1969 – LGBT Rights (we’ll talk about this in depth later in the term)
King started the Poor People’s Campaign to secure adequate employment, housing, and guaranteed incomes for the least well-off Americans, black and white.
2. Movements for economic justice
At the turn of the 20th century, the nation began to experience unprecedented increases in prosperity with the advent of industrial capitalism, a rising class of wage earners, and shifts in agricultural production.
But the many people left out of this growth and opportunity experienced widespread hardship.
Examples of early economic justice efforts:
Grangers and Farmers’ Alliances sought easier access to credit and new markets.
Greenbackers and Silverites proposed monetary reforms to increase purchasing power and reduce debts for laborers and farmers.
Single Taxers like Henry George argued for progressive taxation on speculative land ownership.
Utopian writers like Edward Bellamy called for a “cooperative commonwealth” to replace competitive capitalism.
Social Gospel proponents argued for the application of Christian values throughout government and the economy.
Examples of early economic justice efforts:
Labor Movement: unions sought collective bargaining power, arbitration, and the selective use of strikes to get better wages and working conditions.
Populists of various stripes called for social protections, municipal ownership of utilities, and railroad reforms.
Settlement house founders like Jane Addams sought to uplift immigrants and the lower classes through education, art, and basic services.
Middle-class progressive reformers aimed to fight corruption in politics and promote greater democratic control over government
Questions to think about moving forward
Do we believe that government plays a vital role in promoting human freedom and opportunity or do we think people should be left alone without protections or support?
Should markets and corporations be free to do as they please or do they require effective management and regulation to maximize both private and public gain?
Are all of our people deserving of individual rights, life opportunities, and personal dignity or do we accept inequalities and differences as inevitable?
Do we have obligations to one another and to a shared purpose within our society or should we focus on our own well-being and let others do the same?
How do we begin to dismantle oppression?
Strategies for Dismantling the “Imperialist White Supremacist Capitalist Cisgender Heteropatriarchy”
White
Supremacy and Patriarchal Cisgenderism in US Nation-Building and Resistance by Transgender and Non-Binary People of Colour – by Lyra McKee
How to address institutional racism:
Book: Towards the Other America – Anti-Racist Resources by Chris Crass
Racial Inequality ToolKit
How to End Institutional Racism
Help End Institutional Racism
Ending Structural Racism in America
How to address sexism:
12
Steps Men Can Take to End Sexism
Take Action Against Sexism
How to address sexual prejudice:
Responding
to Sexism, Homophobia and Transphobia
Tackling Homophobic Language
Open Letter to My Homophobic Friends
How to be more intersectional in our thinking:
“
The Imperative of Intersectional Feminism” by Emilie Aries
6 Ways to be More Intersectional
Ten Tips for Putting Intersectionality into Practice
Examples of contemporary social justice movements
For the Discussion Board
Pick a contemporary social justice movement or group!
Research and present:
How/why/when the group/movement started
Issues/campaigns they are working on today
How to get involved
EXTRA CREDIT
Watch and write a reaction paper to Just Belonging: Finding the Courage to Interrupt Bias – Kori Carew TedTalk
*OR*
The Standing Rock resistance and our fight for indigenous rights – Tara Houska TedTalk
*OR*
Read and write a reaction paper to: – Dr Hoefinger’s article “
At Risk or Socially Deviant: Conflicting Narratives and Grassroots Organizing of Sex Workers and LGBT in Cambodia”
*