social justice essay conclusion

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Individual and Society — Social Justice

Essays on Social Justice

Prompt samples for crafting a social justice essay.

Starting with the right prompt can set the tone for a powerful social justice essay. Prompts such as "Analyze the impact of systemic racism on education" or "Explore the role of social media in social justice movements" encourage critical thinking and provide a clear direction for your research and argumentation.

Brainstorming and Selecting a Compelling Social Justice Essay Topic

Choosing an impactful topic is crucial for writing an engaging social justice essay. Consider the following points during your brainstorming session:

• Relevance: Select a topic that is timely and resonates with current social justice issues.
• Passion: Choose an issue you are passionate about. Authentic interest will enhance your writing.
• Originality: Aim for a unique angle or perspective to stand out.
• Researchability: Ensure there are ample resources and research available on your chosen topic.

Innovative Social Justice Essay Topics

Avoid common and broad topics by focusing on specific issues. Here are several thought-provoking essay topics:

• The Intersectionality of Gender, Race, and Class in Education Disparities
• Critical Analysis of Environmental Justice in Urban Planning
• The Influence of Art and Culture in Propagating Social Justice Movements
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Restorative Justice in Criminal Justice Reform
• The Role of Technology in Enhancing Accessibility and Advocacy

Inspirational Phrases and Paragraph Samples for Your Social Justice Essay

Here are examples of paragraphs and phrases to inspire your writing and help structure your essay:

Analyzing the Role of Social Media in Amplifying Social Justice Movements

Social media platforms have emerged as powerful tools for social justice advocacy, enabling grassroots movements to gain global attention. This section explores how digital activism transforms public discourse and mobilizes support for social justice causes.

The Critical Impact of Environmental Injustice on Marginalized Communities

Environmental injustice perpetuates inequality, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. This analysis delves into case studies where environmental policies have failed these communities and proposes solutions for equitable environmental governance.

Exploring Intersectionality as a Framework for Social Justice

Intersectionality provides a comprehensive approach to understanding the multifaceted nature of oppression. By examining the intersections of race, gender, and class, this essay highlights the importance of an inclusive social justice movement.

Similarities Between Jacksonian and Whig Parties

Foster homes: providing stability and support for children in need, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Affirmative Action Pros and Cons

A definition of social justice, political and social injustice in america, environment for social justice and equality, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Death Penalty and Social Justice in The United States

Injustice in treatment of disabled people in society, critical analysis of me too movement, social justice: triple talaq and muslim men and women in india, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Biblical Prophets' Teachings on The Love of God in Social Justice

The issues of death penalties and social justice in the united states, social justice orientation and multicultural environment, my attitude towards plato’s republic and the idea of state’s justice, romanticism and realism's approach to social justice, the connection of "station eleven" and other books to concepts of social justice, the importance of resistance to injustice in just mercy, social justice as the elusive goal of the communist manifesto, the issue of american racism in stevenson’s just mercy, importance of rebellion in the world, tension between benevolence and morals, why the approach by richard spencer on white nationalism and social justice is wrong, the topic of eugenics and church's view on social justice, the poverty and social justice folklore in appalachia, a region in the eastern united states of america, the role of canadian charter of rights and freedoms, the major projects, success, and orientation towards social justice of the organization samaritan's purse, overview of advantages and disadvantages of confidentiality, an overview of history and definition of mob lynching, "environmental and social justice movement" in the book blessed unrest by paul hawken, overview of social control theories.

Social justice is justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.

In Western and Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. In the current movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets, and economic justice. Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation.

The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and regulation of markets, to ensure distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity.

The five main principles of social justice include access to resources, equity, participation, diversity, and human rights.

1. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International journal of psychology, 35(2), 117-125. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/002075900399411) 2. Zajda, J., Majhanovich, S., & Rust, V. (2006). Introduction: Education and social justice. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue Internationale de l'Education, 9-22. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/29737064) 3. Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing leaders for social justice. Journal of educational administration. (https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09578230610664814/full/html) 4. Leach, M., Stirling, A. C., & Scoones, I. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: technology, environment, social justice (p. 232). Taylor & Francis. (https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/52748) 5. Kluegel, J. R., Mason, D. S., & Wegener, B. (1995). Social justice and political change. De Gruyter.. (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110868944/html) 6. Duff, W. M., Flinn, A., Suurtamm, K. E., & Wallace, D. A. (2013). Social justice impact of archives: a preliminary investigation. Archival Science, 13, 317-348. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-012-9198-x) 7. McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley, M., ... & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice. Educational administration quarterly, 44(1), 111-138. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013161X07309470?journalCode=eaqa) 8. Nussbaum, M. (2002). Capabilities and social justice. International Studies Review, 4(2), 123-135. (https://academic.oup.com/isr/article-abstract/4/2/123/1794864) 9. Apple, M. W. (2009). Global crises, social justice, and education. In Global crises, social justice, and education (pp. 9-32). Routledge. (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203861448-5/global-crises-social-justice-education-michael-apple) 10. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-03506-030)

Relevant topics

• Discourse Community
• Cultural Appropriation
• Media Analysis
• Sociological Imagination
• Sex, Gender and Sexuality
• American Identity
• Social Media
• Effects of Social Media

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

8 Tips For Writing A Social Justice Essay

Social justice covers a variety of issues involving race, gender, age, sexual orientation, income equality and much more. How do you write an essay on a social justice issue that’s engaging, informative and memorable? Here are eight tips you should take to heart when writing:

When writing a social justice essay, you should brainstorm for ideas, sharpen your focus, identify your purpose, find a story, use a variety of sources, define your terms, provide specific evidence and acknowledge opposing views.

#1. Brainstorm creatively

Before you start writing your social justice essay, you need a topic. Don’t hesitate to look far and wide for inspiration. Read other social justice essays, look at recent news stories, watch movies and talk to people who are also interested in social justice. At this stage, don’t worry about the “trendiness” of your idea or whether a lot of people are already writing about it. Your topic will evolve in response to your research and the arguments you develop. At the brainstorming stage, you’re focused on generating as many ideas as possible, thinking outside the box and identifying what interests you the most. Take a free online course to get a better understanding of social justice.

You can take a creative brainstorming approach! A blog on Hubspot offers 15 creative ideas such as storyboarding, which involves laying out ideas in a narrative form with terms, images and other elements. You can also try freewriting, which is when you choose something you’re interested in. Next, write down everything you already know, what you need to know but don’t already, why the topic matters and anything else that comes to mind. Freewriting is a good exercise because it helps you decide if there’s any substance to a topic or if it’s clear there’s not enough material for a full essay.

#2. Sharpen your topic’s focus

The best essays narrow on a specific social justice topic and sharpen its focus, so it says something meaningful and interesting. This is often challenging, but wrestling with what exactly you want your essay to say is worth the effort. Why? An essay with a narrow, sharp focus has a clearer message. You’re also able to dig deeper into your topic and provide better analysis. If your topic is too broad, you’re forced to skim the surface, which produces a less interesting essay.

How do you sharpen your essay’s focus? Grace Fleming provides several tips on ThoughtCatalog . First, you can tell your topic is too broad if it can be summarized in just 1-2 words. As an example, “health inequity” is way too broad. Fleming suggests applying the questions, “Who, what, where, when, why and how,” to your topic to narrow it down. So, instead of just “health inequity,” you might end up with something like “The impact of health inequity in maternal healthcare systems on Indigenous women.” Your topic’s focus may shift or narrow even further depending on the research you find.

Writing a human rights topic research paper? Here are five of the most useful tips .

#3. Identify your purpose

As you unearth your topic and narrow its focus, it’s important to think about what you want your essay to accomplish. If you’re only thinking about your essay as an assignment, you’ll most likely end up with a product that’s unfocused or unclear. Vague sentiments like “Everyone is writing about social justice” and “Social justice is important” are also not going to produce an essay with a clear purpose. Why are you writing this essay? Are you wanting to raise awareness of a topic that’s been historically ignored? Or do you want to inspire people to take action and change something by giving them concrete how-to strategies? Identifying your purpose as soon as possible directs your research, your essay structure and how you style your writing.

If you’re not sure how to find your purpose, think about who you’re writing for. An essay written for a university class has a different audience than an essay written for a social justice organization’s social media page. If there are specific instructions for your essay (professors often have requirements they’re looking for), always follow them closely. Once you’ve identified your purpose, keep it at the front of your mind. You’ll produce an essay that’s clear, focused and effective.

#4. Find a human story

The best social justice essays don’t only provide compelling arguments and accurate statistics; they show your topic’s real-world impact. Harvard’s Kennedy School’s communications program describes this process as “finding a character.” It’s especially useful when you’re writing something persuasive. Whatever your topic, try to find the human stories behind the ideas and the data. How you do that depends on the nature of your essay. As an example, if you’re writing something more academic, focusing too much on the emotional side of a story may not be appropriate. However, if you’re writing an essay for an NGO’s fundraising campaign, focusing on a few people’s stories helps your reader connect to the topic more deeply.

How do you choose what stories to feature? Harvard suggests choosing someone you have access to either through your research or as an interview subject. If you get the opportunity to interview people, make sure you ask interesting questions that dig beneath the surface. Your subject has a unique perspective; you want to find the information and stories only they can provide.

#5. Rely on a variety of sources

Depending on your essay’s purpose and audience, there might be certain sources you’re required to use. In a piece for Inside Higher Ed, Stephanie Y. Evans describes how her students must use at least 10 source types in their final paper assignment. Most of the time, you’ll have a lot of freedom when it comes to research and choosing your sources. For best results, you want to use a wide variety. There are a few reasons why. The first is that a variety of sources gives you more material for your essay. You’ll access different perspectives you wouldn’t have found if you stuck to just a few books or papers. Reading more sources also helps you ensure your information is accurate; you’re fact-checking sources against one another. Expanding your research helps you address bias, as well. If you rely only on sources that reflect your existing views, your essay will be much less interesting.

While we’re talking about sources, let’s touch on citations. If you’re writing an essay for school, your teacher will most likely tell you what citation method they want you to use. There are several depending on the discipline. As an example, in the United States, social science disciplines like sociology and education tend to use the American Psychological Association (APA) style. Some places are very rigid about citation styles, while others are more relaxed. If you’re writing an essay where your citation won’t be checked, you still need to give credit to any ideas, thoughts, or research that’s not yours. Proper citation builds trust with your reader and boosts your credibility.

Here are more tips on writing a human rights essay!

#6. Define your key terms

To make your essay as clear and effective as possible, you want every reader on the same page right at the beginning. Defining your key terms is an important step. As Ian Johnston writes, creating an effective argument requires “the establishment of clear, precise, and effective definitions for key terms in the arguments.” You may have to adapt an existing definition or write your own. Johnston offers principles such as adjusting a definition based on the knowledge of who you’re writing for, focusing on what a term is and not just on its effects, and expanding a definition so it covers everything a reader needs to know.

How do you decide which terms are important in your essay? First, never assume a reader understands a term because it’s “obvious.” The most obvious terms are often the ones that need the clearest definitions. If your reader doesn’t know exactly what you’re talking about when you use a term like “health equity,” your essay won’t be as effective. In general, you want to define any terms relevant to your topic, terms that are used frequently and terms with distinct meanings in the context of your essay.

#7. Provide specific evidence and examples

Social justice issues are grounded in reality, so an essay should reflect that. Don’t spend your whole paper being philosophical or hypothetical. As an example, let’s say you’re writing an essay about desertification in Mali. Don’t discuss desertification as an abstract concept. Include real statistics and case studies on desertification in Mali, who it’s affecting the most and what is being done about it. For every argument you make, present supporting evidence and examples.

The strength of your evidence determines the strength of your arguments. How do you find strong evidence? Cite This For Me lists a handful of examples , such as studies, statistics, quotes from subject matter experts and/or reports, and case studies. Good evidence also needs to be accurate and in support of your argument. Depending on your essay topic, how current a piece of evidence is also matters. If you’re not relying on the most current evidence available, it can weaken your overall argument. Evidence should also be as specific as possible to your topic. Referring back to our desertification in Mali essay, that means locating examples of how desertification affects people in Mali , not in Chad or Russia.

Academic essay writing requires specific skills. Here’s an online introductory course on academic writing .

#8. Acknowledge your critics

Not every social justice essay requires an acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints, but addressing critics can strengthen your essay. How? It lets you confront your critics head-on and refute their arguments. It also shows you’ve researched your topic from every angle and you’re willing to be open-minded. Some people worry that introducing counterarguments will weaken the essay, but when you do the work to truly dissect your critic’s views and reaffirm your own, it makes your essay stronger.

The University of Pittsburgh offers a four-step strategy for refuting an argument. First, you need to identify the claim you’re responding to. This is often the trickiest part. Some writers misrepresent the claims of their critics to make them easier to refute, but that’s an intellectually dishonest method. Do your best to understand what exactly the opposing argument is claiming. Next, make your claim. You might need to provide specific evidence, which you may or may not have already included in your essay. Depending on the claim, your own thoughts may be a strong enough argument. Lastly, summarize what your claim implies about your critics, so your reader is left with a clear understanding of why your argument is the stronger one.

You may also like

Apply Now for the United Nations The Hague Immersion Programme

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Apply now: Essex Human Rights Summer School (Fully Online)

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

10 Courses to Prepare for Your Human Rights Job

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples
• Social Justice

Essays on Social Justice

One of the most important concepts that regulate human relations is the concept of justice, so make sure the social justice essay reflects upon the meaning of justice for people. Justice, along with good, is the most ancient social ideals. The idea of justice is fundamental in the legislation of modern democratic society, in which law is considered as a normative embodiment of justice. Many samples of social justice essays below will help you understand the correlation between law and justice better. Social justice, however, stands for fair relationships between the individual and society and involves the equal distribution of wealth, equal opportunities in society, and equal social privileges. Copious essays on social justice explore this topic in further detail. Look through the social justice essay samples we prepared if you want your essay to be top-notch.

Social Justice: Promoting Equality and Well-being Social justice may be looked at as a reflection of equal and fair distribution of basic human rights, political freedom, fair living conditions, and distributive economic resources among the societal members. In essence, it is basically aimed at promoting equality and societal well-being. For example,...

Social justice and Human rights are interrelated, and they are working together towards a common goal of promoting the well being of all human beings.  Human rights are essential to the social justice advocacy because they both foster compliance with attributes like dignity, respect, and self-determination.  Just like human rights...

Words: 1818

Through the perspective of social justice, the study examines the subject of Huck Finn from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The protagonist of Mark Twain's book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is Huckleberry. The book takes place in a period of racism and slavery. Huckleberry's journey is one of societal...

The right to a fair trial The right to a fair trial is the first basic justice principle. According to this right, a fair and certain procedure must be followed when a person is being tried. Priority should be given to the proper administering of justice before, during, and after a...

Equality and Marriage Equality is a topic that has received a lot of attention recently. This is one of several concepts that characterize social justice and its relevance to people's desire of a happy life. Murkowski, one of Alaska's senators, wrote an article about the necessity of equality in marriage. Murkowski...

The Problem of Global Justice Thomas Nagel argues in his paper The Problem of Global Justice that global socioeconomic justice assumes a sovereign world state. The purpose of this dissertation is to question his thesis and to give specific voice to a frequent tendency in political philosophy to assign disproportionate weight...

Words: 1677

Found a perfect essay sample but want a unique one?

Request writing help from expert writer in you feed!

Human rights theories appeared as early as after World War II (Rawls 1999). The debates centered on inequities among people of the same country. However, a strong emphasis on social justice began to emerge in the nineteenth century. John Rawl made significant contributions to ideas of social injustice. Recently, a...

Words: 2652

The Criminal Justice System in the United States The criminal justice system in the United States is a complex structure designed to punish and prevent criminal criminals while also ensuring victims receive justice. The trials, prosecutors, convicts, and suspects are all part of an interconnected network that makes up the scheme....

Words: 1052

Criminal Justice and Reconciliation Criminal justice authorities are responsible for ensuring social control by reducing violence and punishing criminals. However, the organizations struggle to ensure societal stability by establishing mechanisms for reconciliation between the survivor and the accused. As a result, the mechanisms of justice provision foster hatred between the two...

Some social injustices ranging from racial inequality to pay equality have been faced by the US. The current paper will concentrate on pay equality as social inequality, evaluating the essence of the gender pay gap in the US. Research reveals that in the US, a woman receives 80 percent of...

Economic Disparity Impacts Communities A high degree of economic inequality is characterized by the current economy, with most citizens falling at the base of the continuum, the lower and middle classes. Economic Disparities and Factors in Social Terms Economic disparity has an impact on numerous social factors, such as access to healthcare and...

Unity and instability are known to be significant causes of the fall of civilizations and states across the globe. Civilians end up losing their lives and wealth because of the consequences of these struggles. Yugoslavia is no longer a democracy after many shocks from local and foreign sources, and the...

Words: 1609

Related topic to Social Justice

You might also like.

Lifting the Veil of Ignorance: A Social Justice Perspective

By april jones.

About the Author

Dr. April Jones, LMSW, is a licensed social worker, researcher, instructional designer, organizational psychologist, and currently works as an Associate Professor/Department Chair of Social Work at Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama. She has published articles in domestic and international peer reviewed journals presenting her studies in over ten countries. I participate in practitioner-research as a person with high interest in social well-being through practice and evaluation via action, teaching, and self-study research. Learn more about the Social Work Department at https://www.tuskegee.edu/socialwork

• Visit April Jones's website
• Connect with April Jones on LinkedIn

The “Lifting the Veil of Ignorance” series of student social justice essays, which were developed from the students’ social work research proposals, is an anthology of undergraduate authors’ viewpoints on various topics related to social justice using a social work perspective to approach addressing injustices. It is important to hear from undergraduate students, particularly those in social work whose education competencies and professional practice values have important implications for social justice. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics (2017) places a value on social justice and calls on social workers to challenge social injustice.  

The essays presented address students’ views on various issues associated with serious societal issues. The overall intent of this compilation of essays is to raise awareness about social justice and how to address injustices from a social work perspective.

A statue of Tuskegee University’s co-founder Booker T. Washington is prominently placed on campus. The inscription on the statue reads, “He lifted the veil of ignorance from his people and pointed the way to progress through education and industry.” Most of us at Tuskegee refer to this fine landmark as “The Lifting the veil statue.” It is the inspiration for this essay series.

The theoretical framework associated with this compilation is John Rawls (1971) Theory of Justice. Rawls (1921-2002) was an American political philosopher whose ideas on Justice as fairness were at the center of his theory of justice for a liberal society. Similarly, University co-founder Booker T. Washington suggested that “lifting the veil of ignorance” from those previously enslaved by providing formal education and encouraging entrepreneurship could contribute significantly to creating social and economic justice for minorities and vulnerable populations.

As a scholar and a social work educator, I am enthusiastic about social justice and equality for diverse individuals and organizations. As a licensed social worker, associate professor/Department Chair of Social Work, and researcher, I enjoy sharing with students the influence of research and teaching them how to use data for real-world solutions. The Department of Social Work at Tuskegee University features a course sequence in which students in internship take the research methods course concurrently to assist them with preparing a proposal for research about their population of interest or a topic related to their internship field placement that can be conducted during internship or post-graduation.

The students’ papers are relevant to social work education, practice, and wellness and healthcare in general. They have a heightened relevance in the current times of turmoil, with social justice issues having been brought to the forefront of the nation and social workers being called to action in response to social injustices through using ethical social work values, principles, and competencies to make positive social change.

The Tuskegee University Department of Social Work intends to publish with Social Publishers Foundation ( https://socialpublishersfoundation.org/ ) a series of essays on topics focused on distributive social justice, which involves the ways in which resources are allocated in society and is closely related to the social work profession’s mission of promoting human rights, and social and economic justice. The Lifting the Veil of Ignorance: A Social Justice Perspective series of essays may empower others in the social work profession or those interested in advocacy with new ideas or may point towards the discovery of new knowledge in relation to addressing social injustices.

Lifting the Veil of Ignorance:  Social Justice Perspectives

Social Justice is a core social work value in the professional practice of social work. While social work’s focus is to achieve the goals of clients and colleagues, social justice for all is one of the six core values of practice in the NASW Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics preamble states, “Social Workers promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of clients… Social Workers are sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice” (NASW Code of Ethics, 2018). Barker (2021) defines social justice as “an ideal condition in which all of the members of the society have the same basic rights, protections, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits.” (Social Work Dictionary, pp. 404-405). The forthcoming series of social justice essays is a collection from an undergraduate Historically Black College and University (HBCU) social work course. Authors will include students enrolled in the SOWK 301 Research Methods in Human Services course at Tuskegee University College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Social Work.

Social Work education is competency-based, and the course essay assignment utilized the 2022 Educational Policy Accreditation Standards (EPAS) by Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) that address two competencies in the conceptual framework: Competency 2 : Advance Human Rights and Social, Racial, Economic, and Environmental Justice and Competency 4: Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-Informed Practice . 

In addition, when viewing social work advocacy as it relates to social justice, Competency 3: Engage Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) in Practice is a part of addressing forms of social injustice with individuals, groups, families, communities, organizations, research, policy, and globally. In keeping with NASW’s social justice priorities, various initiatives seek to strengthen and empower those within impoverished and indigent communities with a commitment to economic and social justice ideals, including fairness, equity, and equality through areas of service such as outreach, grassroots mobilization, lobbying, community development, and public awareness efforts. The course assignment for a research proposal in an essay format helps students develop attitudes and skills that can contribute to strengthening public awareness about social justice issues and addressing social injustices from a social work perspective. In the long run, it is my hope that the student essays will provide a narrative about social justice through the lens of social work education and practice.

As a part of their coursework, students were asked to develop an essay on a topic by introducing a problem, providing a rationale for research based on a review of literature, and discussing their social work perspectives on social justice as it relates to their selected topic. In addition, the essay explores how research might address the relevant social injustice and be applied to social work practice.

During the course, reflections on possible solutions for social injustices are encouraged. Some of the prompts for these reflections include: what arguments are made for the duty to pursue social justice? What is required by the NASW Code of Ethics? Are there alternative concepts of social justice? Could there be a non-utopian conception of social justice for a resolution of differences? How do social workers address the need for mutual respect of diverse worldviews about social justice? Against the background of these, and other, reflections, the student essays set out to address a specific injustice through what we hope is a holistic approach to advocacy and application of social work competencies, values, standards, and principles to enhance the well-being of diverse and vulnerable populations. The student essays in this series represent efforts to begin finding answers to very difficult issues that can be seen all around us. The quest to address social injustices and to lift the veil of ignorance points the way towards a more just world, which social work along with helping professions in general have a responsibility to bring about.

In addition to my brief introductory essay, the first student essay in the series is by Kendahl Brown, now a Senior in Social Work at Tuskegee. Ms. Brown’s paper examines Black maternal mortality rates in the Southern United States. Her paper discusses crucial intersections between social work, healthcare, social injustices and pathways towards social justice. A reader can only hope that this determined student has an opportunity to carry forward the ideas she presents for addressing gaps in healthcare.

Overall, my hope is that readers will find that the students’ essays represent diverse conceptualizations of social justice from popular perspectives about what social justice is or should be through their lenses of social justice and social work practice as they understand it. The essays support the recognition that people’s views of social injustice differ and that there are diverse views of what constitutes justice.

I hope readers will be inspired to a call to action for social justice and be a lifter of the veil by joining a cause, contributing funds to campaigns, joining an advocacy group, attending lobbying events, and researching and writing about ways to address social injustice and contribute to the body of knowledge about social justice.

Barker, R. L. (2021). The social work dictionary (5th ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Council on Social Work Education (2022). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Association of Social Workers. (2017). NASW code of ethics. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English

To cite this work, please use the following reference:

Jones, A. (2024, February 12). Lifting The Veil Of Ignorance: A Social Justice Perspective. Social Publishers Foundation. https://www.socialpublishersfoundation.org/knowledge_base/lifting-the-veil-of-ignorance-a-social-justice-perspective/

Copyrighted by Creative Commons BY-NC-SA

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Essays in Social Justice

• Thomas Nixon Carver
• X / Twitter

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Harvard University Press
• Copyright year: 1915
• Edition: 7th printing 1932. Reprint 2013
• Audience: Professional and scholarly;
• Front matter: 7
• Main content: 429
• Illustrations: 5
• Keywords: Social problems ; Sociology ; Economics
• Published: October 1, 2013
• ISBN: 9780674287907
• Published: February 5, 1915
• ISBN: 9780674287891

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy

Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy , Oxford University Press, 2007, 340pp., $55.00 (hbk), ISBN 0195301412.

Reviewed by Paul Weithman, University of Notre Dame

This book [1] brings together nine papers by the political philosopher Samuel Freeman, seven of them previously published.   Freeman edited the Collected Papers [2] of John Rawls, the Cambridge Companion to Rawls [3] and Rawls's recently published Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy [4] .   The subtitle of the volume under review, together with Freeman's editorial work, might suggest that the nine papers collected here are primarily devoted to explaining Rawls's thought.   But Freeman insists they are not, or not exactly.   He says:

A good deal of the discussion in these chapters is not directly interpretation or defense of Rawls, but rather involves extensions or applications of Rawls's positions. ( JSC , p. 8)

This is why, he adds immediately, "rather than subtitling the book 'Essays on Rawls', I have used 'Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosoph y '".

In fact, Freeman could have subtitled his book "Essays in Rawlsian Political Philosophy", since 'in' would better suit the lingering resonances of the French 'essai' from which the English 'essay' is derived.   For the papers collected in this volume are really trials in or attempts to engage in Rawlsian political philosophy -- attempts, that is, to address a variety of philosophical problems and questions in a way that draws on what Rawls wrote and, as Freeman says, "shares the spirit of [Rawls's] position" ( JSC , p. 8).

Freeman's papers range over some of the most important subjects in liberal political theory:   the nature and varieties of contractarianism, the meaning of the priority of right, the idea of public reason, the problem of stability, the challenge of luck egalitarianism, the democratic character of judicial review, and the demands of international justice.   In taking up these subjects, Freeman partakes of the Rawlsian spirit by drawing on and creatively elaborating Rawls's assumptions and arguments as he understands them, and by posing and dividing questions as he thinks Rawls would.

If Freeman can justifiably claim to have produced work on these subjects that is in "the spirit of [Rawls's] position" -- as I believe he can -- that is because he is so thoroughly acquainted with the letter of Rawls's texts.   The papers in this volume are essais in Rawlsian political philosophy, but they are most definitely not desultory forays into that field.   Freeman seems to have read almost all of the classical philosophical sources on which Rawls drew, to have assimilated large stretches of contemporary and secondary literature, and to have thought deeply about every sentence Rawls ever wrote.

The result is an extraordinarily substantial set of papers.   The shortest of them is 30 pages of small print with narrow margins.   All nine are dense with arguments and exegesis.   Taken together, the nine essays make for very demanding reading.   Students who are looking for an introduction to Rawls would be well advised to start elsewhere.   The readers who will benefit -- and benefit greatly -- are those with a serious interest in contemporary political philosophy, especially those who know Rawls's work and ask what a convinced and thoroughly informed Rawlsian would say about a number of debates and objections that enjoy some currency in the philosophical literature.

It is hard to exaggerate how important a contribution Freeman has made by answering that question.   Rawls rarely addressed objections to his view, and rarely contended with the positions staked out by others in the debates of the day.   Knowing how Rawls might have addressed objections, and knowing what he might have said about the positions of others, are very valuable.   It seems unlikely we will ever see a more faithful and better informed set of replies and interventions than those that Freeman provides here.   The blending of "interpretation or defense" with "extension[]" is so seamless in this book that there are generally good grounds for thinking that Rawls would have said what Freeman does say. 5]

The secondary literature on Rawls is voluminous.   Singling out the best essay on any one subject is, in most cases, virtually impossible.   Every one of the essays Freeman has chosen for this book belongs in the small set of articles that is essential reading to accompany the sections or questions in Rawls with which it deals.   If a graduate seminar or an advanced undergraduate class that deals with Rawls in depth is going to require any books at all beyond the primary texts, then Justice and the Social Contract ought to be among them.

Despite the fact that Justice and the Social Contract is already a long book, it could have been still longer.   Freeman has left out some pieces that would have fit nicely into this collection.   His "Constitutional Democracy and the Legitimacy of Judicial Review," [6 ] would have fit very well into Part II of the book.   His "Original Meaning, Democratic Interpretation and the Constitution" [ 7 ] would have fit in just as well, and is -- for my money -- a terrific paper, one of Freeman's very best.   It would have been good to have included it, even at the expense of lengthening the volume.

Objections to Rawls are generally treated so as to make them more tractable from a Rawlsian point of view.   Some readers will wish that Freeman had developed objections in such a way that they can see why those who offer objections and alternative positions have found them compelling -- especially the objections and alternatives offered by those who Freeman says "reject the entire Rawlsian framework (Joseph Raz, John Finnis, et al.)" (p. 261).   It would be interesting to see how Freeman might have responded on Rawls's behalf to their arguments. [8]

But the complaint that Justice and the Social Contract should have included one or two more essays is a minor one.   And the objections offered to "the entire Rawlsian framework" by philosophers like Raz and Finnis are so fundamental that it might have been impossible for Freeman to have developed the sort of nuanced replies he offers to objections which start closer to home.   There might be little beyond the obvious to be said in response to such basic objections.   And so there may be a good case for not developing the objections after all.

As I have indicated, this is a very valuable book.   The value lies, of course, in what the reader learns by working through it.   That value is most profitably extracted by grappling with its arguments with the rigor that Freeman's own painstaking argument invites.   And so rather than commenting briefly on the essays singly, I want to explore in some depth one question on which I disagree with Freeman's reading: the important but underexplored question of what accounts for the differences between Rawls's two major books, A Theory of Justice [9 ] and Political Liberalism [10] .   There is a great deal to be learned about justice as fairness, and about the appeal of political liberalism, from the answer to that question.   Freeman's attempt to answer it is the best published treatment of it of which I am aware.   While I disagree with Freeman about how the question is to be answered, I cannot overstate how much I have learned from his essay.

Speaking of the differences between TJ and PL , Rawls himself says:

to understand the nature and extent of the differences, one must see them as arising from trying to resolve a serious problem internal to justice as fairness, namely from the fact that the account of stability in part III of Theory is not consistent with the view as a whole.   I believe all differences are consequences of removing that inconsistency. ( PL , pp. xvii-xviii)

In "Congruence and the Good of Justice" (pp. 143-72), Freeman insists that we take Rawls at his word.   He says that the differences between TJ and PL were not introduced in response to communitarian critiques of justice as fairness.   They are to be explained, he thinks, by deficiencies Rawls found in his argument that justice as fairness would be stable -- just as Rawls says.

Somewhat more specifically:   In chapter 8 of TJ , Rawls argues that citizens growing up in a well-ordered society (WOS) would acquire a sense of justice.   That is, they would acquire the desire to act from principles of justice and to treat those principles as regulative of their plans of life.   In chapter 9, Rawls then argues that those citizens would affirm or endorse this desire and its satisfaction as parts of their good -- they would, he says, affirm that justice is "congruent" with their good.   Freeman maintains that the changes between TJ and PL were made because of deficiencies Rawls found in the argument for congruence.   I believe Freeman is correct about this.   I disagree with him about exactly how the congruence argument goes and about what parts of the argument Rawls found deficient. [11]

The congruence argument has to show that the exercise of our capacity for a sense of justice is experienced as a good.   How does the argument for that conclusion go?

Rawls provides what Freeman takes to be a promising clue when he remarks in PL : "the exercise of the two moral powers is experienced as a good.   This is a consequence of the moral psychology used in justice as fairness.   … In Theory this psychology uses the so-called Aristotelian Principle" ( PL, p. 203).   Because the capacity for a sense of justice is one of the two moral powers, Freeman says of this passage: "This makes it seem as if the congruence argument involves a straightforward appeal to the Aristotelian Principle" ( JSC , pp. 156-7).   He continues:

The idea here would be that the capacity for a sense of justice is among our higher capacities.   It involves the ability to understand, apply, and act from requirements of justice.   This capacity admits of complex development and refinement.   Since all have a sense of justice in a well-ordered society, it is rational for each to develop it as part of his or her plan of life. ( JSC , p. 157)

The Aristotelian Principle enters into this argument, on Freeman's read, because the Principle states that the development and exercise of complex capacities is experienced as a good.   That is why it is rational for each "to develop [the sense of justice] as part of his or her plan of life" (cf. also TJ , p. 390).

Freeman offers two objections to this argument.   First, it does not show why it is rational for everyone in a WOS to develop this complex capacity rather than some other.   Second, the simplified argument does not support the conclusion that it is rational to make justice "supremely regulative of all our pursuits" ( JSC , p. 157). [12 ]   Freeman concludes:

The simplified argument from the Aristotelian Principle is not Rawls's argument for congruence.   But it is extremely difficult to piece together what his argument is.   The best way to uncover his argument is by seeing how he would respond to the two objections just stated. ( JSC , p. 157)

The argument to be uncovered in this way is what Freeman refers to as "the Kantian congruence argument".   The differences between TJ and PL are to be explained, Freeman says, by Rawls's attempts to remedy the deficiencies he found in this argument.

I think Freeman is mistaken about how best to "uncover [Rawls's] argument", if "uncover his argument" for congruence is meant as "uncover how Rawls's argument for congruence actually goes".   Attending to the two objections can bring to light important features of the arguments Rawls offers for congruence.   But it can also mislead about the place of the Kantian congruence argument in the treatment of congruence, about the relationship between that argument and the other arguments Rawls offers, about the sequence of each argument, about the deficiencies Rawls found in them and hence about how the differences between TJ and PL are to be explained.

Freeman presents the Kantian congruence argument in twelve steps ( JSC , pp. 158-59).   For my purposes, the most important are (1) and (2):

(1) "on the basis of the Kantian interpretation, persons regarded as moral agents are by their nature free and equal rational beings.   Rational agents in a well ordered society conceive of themselves in this way 'as primarily moral persons'";

(2) "rational members of a WOS 'desire to express their nature as free and equal moral persons'";

together with (8) through (11):

(8) "Thus, for individuals in the WOS to achieve their desire to realize their nature as free and equal moral persons entails that they act from their sense of justice and as the principles require";

(9) "By the Aristotelian Principle, it is rational to realize one's nature by affirming the sense of justice";

(10) "The sense of justice is, by virtue of its content (what it is a desire for), a supremely regulative disposition: it requires giving first priority to the principles of right and justice in deliberation and action";

(11) "To affirm the sense of justice is to recognize and accept it as supreme by adopting it as a highest-order regulative desire in one's rational plan".

As we saw, Freeman says that the Aristotelian Principle plays an important role in the congruence argument.   Freeman introduces the principle at (9), and (9) does indeed play a pivotal role in answering the two objections Freeman introduces.   Together with (8), (9) implies that it is rational for each member of the well-ordered society to affirm his sense of justice.   This answers the first objection.   When conjoined with (11), (9) gets us to the claim that "it is rational to realize one's nature by … adopting [the sense of justice] as a highest-order regulative desire in one's rational plan".   This answers the second objection.

Of course, (9) can play this pivotal role only because Rawls supposes that people have the desire referred to in (8), the desire postulated in (2).   Of this desire, Freeman writes "Rawls evidently sees this as a nonarbitrary rational desire" ( JSC , p. 158).   Freeman says that the problem with the argument is that, under circumstances of ethical pluralism, not everyone will regard it as a good to express his nature as free -- where freedom is understood as autonomy.   So, though Freeman does not put it exactly this way, either there will be people who lack the desire (2) asserts or there will be people who have the desire but will not find sufficient satisfaction in its fulfillment.   If this is so, then what Freeman takes to be Rawls's most important argument for congruence fails.   Since Rawls's argument for the stability of justice as fairness depends upon congruence, the failure of the most important argument for congruence spells the failure of the stability argument as well.   Thus according to Freeman, the deficiency Rawls came to see in his treatment of stability is a deficiency in the Kantian congruence argument ( JSC , p. 168).

One difficulty with Freeman's discussion is that the twelve-step argument Freeman presents is not the argument Rawls actually offers for congruence.   To see how Rawls's argument goes, recall that in introducing Freeman's discussion, I said the congruence argument has to show that citizens of the WOS experience being just as a good.   But showing that is not enough.   For what Rawls needs to show is not merely that each person would experience being just as a good, but also that -- from her own point of view -- she would affirm that the good of being just normally outweighs competing goods.   But what does 'outweigh' mean here, and how can Rawls show what needs to be shown?

To see the answer, consider a passage Freeman introduces when asking how Rawls would reply to the second objection.   Rawls says:

The real problem of congruence is what happens if we imagine someone to give weight to his sense of justice only to the extent that it satisfies other descriptions which connect it with reasons specified by the thin theory of the good. ( TJ , p. 499)

The person Rawls asks us to imagine is a citizen C of a WOS who (i) has acquired a sense of justice, (ii) sees acting on his sense of justice as coincident with other ends he has reason to pursue, and (iii) takes his reasons to act justly to be just exactly as weighty as the reasons he has to pursue those other ends. [13]

Somewhat more crudely: Rawls asks us to imagine a citizen C who realizes various goods by acting justly and whose reasons for acting justly are exactly as weighty as the reasons he has to realize those other goods.   If C's reasons for realizing those other goods normally outweigh his reasons for acting unjustly, then he can affirm his sense of justice as part of his overall good.   Thus whether C will find justice congruent with his overall good depends upon whether the reasons he has to realize those goods are weighty enough to tip the balance of reasons in favor of being a just person.   That, in turn, depends upon what the ends are with which acting justly is coincident -- it depends, that is, upon what other "descriptions" the desire to act justly satisfies.

Consider first the other ends with which acting justly is coincident or, as I shall say -- following Rawls -- with which it is "practically identical" (cf. TJ , p. 501).   "The theory of justice," Rawls says, "supplies other descriptions of what the sense of justice is a desire for"   ( TJ , p. 499).   Rawls cites four.   Roughly stated, the descriptions are:

(a) To avoid the psychological costs of hypocrisy and deception, which will be especially high in a just society because citizens will want to appear just to those they care about, and because ties of affection extend so widely. ( TJ , p. 499)

(b) To "protect[] in a natural and simple way the institutions and persons we care for."     Since in the WOS, "effective bonds are extensive to both persons and social forms, and we cannot select who is to lose by our defections", we can do this if and only if we are just persons. ( TJ , pp. 499-500)

(c) To participate in a social union of social unions, which "bring[s] to fruition our latent powers" so that "each enjoys the greater richness and diversity of the collective activity.   Because of this enjoyment, the social union of social unions "extends the ties of identification over the whole community".   We can be participants in such a union, Rawls says, if and only if we are just persons. ( TJ , pp. 500-501)

(d) To satisfy the desire to "express our nature as free moral persons" ( TJ , p. 501) -- which, as Freeman notes, Rawls assumes we all have a desire to do.   Let's call the identity of a desire to be just with desire (d) the Kantian Practical Identity .   Why does this identity hold?   Because, Rawls says, the desire to act justly is a desire to act on mutually justifiable principles [14]   -- on principles which would be chosen in the Original Position (OP).   And because of the conditions of the OP, the principles chosen there are such that, by acting on them, we express our nature.

Because in a WOS, the desire to be just is practically identical with the desires to attain the ends these four descriptions pick out, the reasons C has for pursuing these ends "are the chief reasons (or typical thereof)" ( TJ , p. 501) that C has for maintaining his sense of justice.   The reasons C has for maintaining and acting from his sense of justice are just exactly as weighty as the reasons he has for pursuing those ends.

To establish congruence, we need to see whether the reasons C has to pursue these ends are weighty enough, or whether they are outweighed by the reasons that C has to pursue other, countervailing ends.   "Here," Rawls says, "we confront the familiar problem of the balance of motives" ( TJ , p. 501).   And so Rawls offers three arguments that the reasons to pursue the four ends are sufficiently weighty.

One argument is for the modest conclusion that "however improbable the congruence of the right and the good in justice as fairness, it is surely more probable than on the utilitarian view."   It follows from this that the WOS of justice as fairness is more likely to be stable than a utilitarian society.   So we have an argument from congruence for the relative stability of justice as fairness (cf. TJ , p. 436 for a statement of the question of relative stability).

The second argument is, I believe, the primary argument for congruence.   It is far more complex and interesting than the first.   It draws on all four practical identities established by the theory to show that maintaining our sense of justice is coincident with maintaining a wide system of affective ties.   Thus according to identities (a), (b) and (c), citizens of a WOS have reason to be just because doing so is coincident with avoiding deception in their relations with others, with protecting those they care about and with participating in a social union of social unions -- all of which they are presumed to want to do.   Furthermore, because of the Kantian Practical Identity , upholding the institutions that make all these ties possible is coincident with expressing their human nature and so is experienced as good in itself (see TJ , pp. 462-63).

But maintaining ties to others in a WOS may prove costly, for maintaining them is coincident with being just and being just can be costly.   C may ask whether the reasons he has for maintaining these ties are compelling enough to outweigh the risk the hazards pose.   Thus Rawls says that the "question is on a par with the hazards of love; indeed it is simply a special case" ( TJ , p. 502).   But clearly in the world as it is, Rawls says, the reasons we have to love outweigh the liability to loss to which love opens us.   In the WOS, in which all others are just, C would not be liable to betrayal or treachery by others.   The risk of loss by being just in the WOS would therefore be less than the risk to which love opens us in our world.   And so Rawls concludes, "Taking as a bench mark the balance of reasons that leads us to affirm our loves as things are, it seems that we should be ready once we come of age to maintain our sense of justice in the more favorable conditions of a just society" ( TJ , pp. 502-3).

The third argument is the one Freeman refers to as the "Kantian Congruence Argument" and reconstructs in twelve steps.   Rawls says that this argument "strengthens th[e] conclusion" of the second argument ( TJ , p. 503).   To see how Rawls intends the Kantian Congruence Argument to go, it is important to see what he means by this, and to see just what the conclusion of the second argument is that is being strengthened.   It would be easy to suppose that that conclusion is

KC:   It is rational for C to "adopt [his sense of justice] as a highest-order regulative desire in [his] rational plan".

This is what Freeman's twelve-step reconstruction of the argument may suggest.   But I do not think KC is the conclusion to be strengthened; rather, I think KC follows from that conclusion.   The conclusion to be strengthened is, I believe,

KC':   The balance of reasons tells in favor of C's pursuing ends which are coincident with "adopt[ing his sense of justice] as a highest-order regulative desire in [his] rational plan".

What does Rawls mean by saying that the third argument strengthens KC'?

According to the second argument, the balance of reasons tells in favor of members of the WOS avoiding deception and hypocrisy, protecting those they care about and participating in wider society.   And so that balance tells in favor of C's incorporating these ends into his plans of life in some form.   But honoring the balance is compatible with, say, pursuing a partial and unsystematic policy of deception.   This is because C can fulfill his desire not to deceive by being truthful and just toward some people, while dealing unjustly in other circumstances and deceiving others about his injustice.   And so even if C wants to avoid deception, protect those close to him and participate in a social union of social unions, honoring the balance of reasons is compatible with his not treating his sense of justice as completely regulative.   Rawls presented the second argument as if this were not so "for simplicity" ( TJ , p. 503).   But once the simplifying assumption is dropped, the part of the second argument which appeals to (a), (b) and (c) has an obvious weakness.

At the heart of the Kantian Congruence Argument is Rawls's claim that the desire to express our nature differs from the other three "inclinations of the self" appealed to in the second argument.   It differs because the theory of justice shows that this desire is practically identical with the desire to act from principles chosen in the OP, and principles chosen in the OP are subject to the finality condition.   Someone can act from principles subject to this condition only if he treats those principles as regulative.   So C can satisfy his desire to express his nature only if he treats the principles that way.   What Rawls is doing in the third argument is therefore drawing attention to a special feature of one of the practical identities appealed to in the second argument, and arguing that -- because of that feature -- a worrisome possibility is foreclosed which the second argument seemed to leave open.

My summary of the Kantian Congruence Argument requires a great deal of unpacking.   I cannot explicate it here.   Instead, I want to highlight some of my differences with Freeman that the survey of Rawls's three arguments brings to light.

First, I have stressed, as Freeman does not, that Rawls's arguments for congruence are "balance of reasons" arguments. [15]   Crudely put: showing that justice is congruent with C's good is a matter of showing that the goods C can achieve by being a just person in WOS outweigh goods he can realize by being just only some of the time.   It is for this reason that I think the conclusion of the second argument is KC' rather than KC.

Second, apparently unlike Freeman, I take the second congruence argument to be the most important one, and I think that in that argument, Rawls tacitly appeals to the Kantian Practical Identity as well as to the identities which depend on (a), (b) and (c).   And so I think, as Freeman apparently does not, that we can see what Rawls was up to in the third argument -- the Kantian Congruence Argument -- only by seeing the weakness in part of the second argument for KC' and the way in which the third argument "strengthens this conclusion".

These differences would be relatively minor if Freeman were correct that the differences between TJ and PL are to be explained just by the problems Rawls found in the Kantian Congruence Argument.   But I do not think this is so.   This brings me to another and more important disagreement.   I do not doubt that Rawls came to see deficiencies in the Kantian Congruence Argument, though I differ with Freeman on where that argument goes wrong.   But I also think that Rawls came to see much more extensive problems in the second congruence argument as well -- problems not implied by the failure of the Kantian Congruence Argument.

If my thesis is correct, then it has important consequences.

The failure of the Kantian Congruence Argument would raise the question of whether the possibility that that argument was intended to foreclose could still be foreclosed by some other argument instead.   It would raise the question, for example, of whether citizens of a WOS would find full participation in a social union of social unions so irresistibly satisfying that their reasons for full participation would be sufficient to establish KC' after all.   If they would, then Rawls could salvage the congruence and stability arguments of TJ with only modest changes -- a possibility Freeman does not address.   Given the modesty of the first congruence argument, however, the failure of the second argument as well as the third would imply that there were serious difficulties and would force revisions of great magnitude -- perhaps changes of the same magnitude as those Rawls in fact made.

Moreover, a great deal of Part III of TJ , including the important section on a "Social Union of Social Unions", is intended to lay the groundwork for the practical identities that depend on descriptions (a), (b) and (c).   These practical identities are appealed to in the second argument. [16]   If the second argument fails, it forces us squarely to confront the question of how much of that groundwork remains essential to political liberalism.

What deficiencies might Rawls have seen in the second argument?

That argument depends upon the claim that citizens in a WOS want to express their nature as free moral persons.   The problems Freeman sees with this claim will therefore, as he would quite rightly point out [17] , tell against the second congruence argument as well as the third.   But the second argument also depends on the claim that citizens of a WOS want to preserve extensive ties to individuals and institutions, and to "enjoy[] the greater richness and diversity of the collective activity" in a social union of social unions (p. 500).   To see what Rawls might have found deficient about the argument, it is useful to ask why Rawls would have endorsed this claim in the first place.

Part of the answer, I believe, is that in a social union of social unions, each member sees others realizing the diverse powers which are latent in our nature, but which -- given various constraints -- no one person can realize herself.   According to what Rawls calls the "companion effect" of the Aristotelian Principle, we find enjoyment in seeing and appreciating this ( TJ , p. 376).   And so Rawls thought that we want to preserve extensive ties and take part in a social union of social unions because we find it satisfying or enjoyable to see others realizing the powers of human nature that we cannot exercise, and to be part of a society that makes that realization possible.   But if we find such enjoyment or satisfaction, then it must be because there is some desire or interest which is satisfied by seeing others realizing human nature in ways that we cannot.

Thus as Freeman thought that the Aristotelian Principle itself was crucial to the Kantian Congruence Argument because of the pivotal role of his step (9), so I think the companion effect to that Principle is crucial to the second -- and main -- argument for congruence.   Appeal to the Aristotelian Principle in the Kantian Congruence Argument presupposes that we have a desire to express our nature as free rational beings -- the desire postulated in Freeman's step (2).   I believe appeal to the companion effect presupposes that we have a desire to see the powers of human nature realized in free or autonomous activity.

But in a pluralistic society, citizens may not take satisfaction or pleasure in all the diverse activities freely engaged in by just persons.   Some they may regard as not especially worthwhile or admirable, even if they are permissible by the best standards of political justice.   Some they may even regard as blasphemous or depraved.   If this is so, then in the kind of pluralistic society a WOS would be, there may be some who lack a desire which the second congruence argument presupposes or who have the desire but do not find its fulfillment sufficiently satisfying.   For such people, the balance of reasons will not tell decisively in favor of participating fully in a social union of social unions or of maintaining an extensive range of affective ties.   In that case, not only can Rawls not foreclose the possibility that the second congruence argument leaves open, but the whole of that argument for KC' fails.

Crudely put, the problem with Rawls's argument for congruence is not just with what it assumes about the value members of the WOS attach to their own autonomous activity or to their own expression of their nature.   The problem also lies with what the argument assumes about the value they attach to the autonomous activity of others and to the realization of human nature in the "richness and diversity of the collective activity" in a WOS.   It is the failure of the primary congruence argument, and not just the Kantian Congruence Argument, that led Rawls to think that TJ 's treatment of congruence -- and hence of stability -- needed to be rethought.   Hence it is the difficulties Rawls saw with the main argument, and not just with the Kantian Congruence Argument, that explains the differences between TJ and PL . [18]   It is on this significant point that I most profoundly disagree with Freeman's magisterial treatment.

Why did Rawls use the idea of an overlapping consensus to respond to the problems with his earlier treatment of congruence?   Though Freeman does not pose this question, I think he and I would agree on the answer.

I said earlier that to establish congruence, Rawls needed to show that each person would, from her own point of view, affirm that the good of being just outweighs competing goods.   To show this, the Rawls of TJ appealed to desires he thinks all members of the WOS would have regardless of their point of view.   Rawls thought all members of the WOS would have those desires, I believe, because he thought the institutions of a WOS would normally encourage those desires in its members.   Encouraging those desires is one of the ways the Rawls of TJ thought just institutions engender their own support.

Rawls came to realize that just institutions, because they are free institutions, would encourage reasonable pluralism about the good.   Reasonable pluralism implies that some people's good may not include the satisfaction of the desires and interests that the congruence arguments of TJ assume they have. [19]   Thus Rawls came to realize, not just that the congruence arguments of TJ failed, but that TJ 's strategy of demonstrating congruence failed.   The strategy failed because it depended upon the assumption that just institutions would make all points of view -- all conceptions of the good -- converge in respects that were essential for Rawls's argument.   Once he came fully to appreciate that free institutions would encourage divergence rather than convergence, Rawls realized that congruence could be achieved only if each member of the WOS located sufficiently weighty reasons to be just within his own reasonable conception of the good.   It could be achieved, that is, only by an overlapping consensus.

I have tried to indicate just how deeply I and other readers of Rawls are indebted to Freeman for this collection of essays.   But Rawls, too, would be in Freeman's debt, for Freeman has done Rawls's legacy a real service by having worked in the Rawlsian spirit so carefully and so well.   Justice and the Social Contract closes with two moving tributes to Rawls written by Freeman at the time of Rawls's death.   These tributes show clearly that the essays in this book were labors of love by an accomplished scholar who was Rawls's friend as well as his student.   In a biographical essay on Rawls, Thomas Pogge remarks that Rawls had a lifelong feeling of having been "terribly lucky " [20] .   In having a student as creative and acute as Freeman -- and a friend as devoted -- Rawls's luck held. [21]

[1 ] I shall hereafter refer to Freeman's book in citations as ' JSC '; page references will be given parenthetically in the body of the text.

[2] John Rawls, Collected Papers (Harvard University Press, 1999), ed. Freeman.

[3] The Cambridge Companion to Rawls (Cambridge University Press, 2002), ed. Freeman.

[4] John Rawls, Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy (Harvard University Press, 2007) ed. Freeman.

[5] Indeed, so pervasively does Rawlsian spirit animate Freeman's work that the distinction he draws between "interpretation or defense" on the one hand, and "extension[] or application" on the other is practically erased.   I sometimes suspect that Freeman draws the distinction in the first place less to clarify his own methodology than to insulate Rawls from criticism for some of the positions Freeman himself develops.   Having drawn the distinction, Freeman can then deflect criticism to himself, saying that problems and over-simplifications are his responsibility rather than Rawls's (cf. p. 186, note 27).

[6] Samuel Freeman, "Constitutional Democracy and the Legitimacy of Judicial Review," Law and Philosophy 9 (1990): 327-70.

[7] Samuel Freeman, "Original Meaning, Democratic Interpretation and the Constitution", Philosophy and Public Affairs 21 (1992): 3-42.

[8] Speaking for myself, I would especially have liked an elaboration of the response to Raz that Freeman offers at p. 194, note 43.

[9] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1999).   I shall hereafter refer to this work as ' TJ ' and cite it parenthetically in the body of the text.   All page references are to the revised edition of 1999, rather than to the original 1971 edition.

[10] John Rawls, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, 1996).   I shall hereafter refer to this work as ' PL ' and cite it parenthetically in the body of the text.

[11] Unfortunately I cannot go into these matters in the detail that I would like.   I go into this matter in much greater detail in Why Political Liberalism (in progress).

[12] Showing the rationality of treating a sense of justice as regulative -- roughly, of treating the principles of justice as "final" -- is supposed to be one of the advantages the contract doctrine enjoys over other accounts of the characteristic motive of justice.   This is clear from Rawls's critique of the intuitionist doctrine of the purely conscientious act, according to which the motive to do what is right is simply a desire to do the right the thing for its own sake "no other description being appropriate" ( TJ , p. 418).

Freeman very usefully discusses that critique ( JSC , pp. 147-9).   But Freeman's discussion suggests that the problem with this doctrine, from Rawls's point of view, is that it ignores the existence of an alternative "description" of that desire: namely, that it can be described as a desire to act from mutually justifiable principles (see pp. 148-9).   In fact, the real difficulty with the doctrine lies elsewhere.  

In a very important passage Rawls says of the doctrine:

But on this interpretation the sense of right lacks any apparent reason; it resembles a preference for tea rather than coffee.   Although such a preference might exist, to make it regulative of the basic structure of society is utterly capricious [.] ( TJ , p. 418, emphasis added)

One advantage the contract doctrine enjoys over intuitionism, according to Rawls, is that it shows that making the sense of right regulative is perfectly rational rather than "utterly capricious".   He continues: "In light of the theory of justice we understand how moral sentiments can be regulative in our life and have the role attributed to them by the formal conditions on moral principles" ( TJ , p. 418) -- including the finality condition.   Freeman is clearly interested in showing the rationality of each individual's taking the principles as regulative.   It is surprising that he does not refer to these passages in his discussion of intuitionism.

[13] Freeman interprets the passage somewhat differently; see JSC , p. 163.

[14] See above, note 12.   On my reading, the arguments for congruence show how Rawls can make good on his promise cited there: "In light of the theory of justice we understand how moral sentiments can be regulative in our life and have the role attributed to them by the formal conditions on moral principles [chosen in the OP]" ( TJ , p. 418; for the formal conditions, see TJ , pp. 112ff.).

[15] Somewhat more precisely, the first and second congruence arguments are conditional balance of reasons arguments, for they are conditional on what Rawls calls the "benchmarks".

[16] Indeed, I think Part III would be much better appreciated if readers were generally aware of how intricately the theoretical apparatus of Part III is contrived for this purpose.   Consider, for example, one of the critical claims in the second congruence argument -- Rawls's remark that the liability to loss that C would incur by maintaining his sense of justice "is on a par with the hazards of love; indeed it is simply a special case " ( TJ , p. 502, emphasis added).   I believe that this claim is supposed to follow from Rawls's earlier claim that "the sense of justice is continuous with the love of mankind" ( TJ , p. 417).   This latter claim, in turn, presupposes a great deal of complicated reasoning, one of the ultimate points of which is, I believe, to establish a premise of the second congruence argument.

[17] I am grateful to him for helpful correspondence on this point.

[18] Did Rawls also come to have doubts about the first congruence argument, the one I have described as modest?   I cannot take up this question here, but I explore it in Why Political Liberalism? .

[19] This is why Rawls says "the account of stability in part III of Theory is not consistent with the view as a whole"? ( PL , pp. xvii-xviii , emphasis added).

[20] Thomas Pogge, "A Brief Sketch of Rawls's Life", Philosophy of Rawls (Garland, 1999) volume 1, ed. Richardson and Weithman, p. 4.

Assimilation: the Cultural Kaleidoscope

This essay about the multifaceted nature of assimilation, exploring its dynamic interplay within various spheres of society such as culture, education, politics, and the arts. It emphasizes assimilation as a complex process of cultural exchange and adaptation, weaving together diverse traditions and experiences. Through the lens of literature, academia, and governance, it underscores the importance of inclusive dialogue and social justice in navigating the complexities of globalization and multiculturalism. Ultimately, it advocates for embracing cultural diversity while fostering empathy and understanding, charting a path towards a more equitable and inclusive society.

How it works

Assimilation, akin to a subtle dance between cultures, holds within its embrace the essence of social transformation and identity negotiation. Like threads intricately woven into the fabric of society, it embodies the dynamic interplay between tradition and modernity, diversity and unity. Yet, its nuances transcend mere adaptation, unfolding a narrative of cultural fusion and resilience that shapes the contours of our shared human experience.

At its heart, assimilation unfolds as a journey of discovery, as individuals traverse the terrain of cultural exchange and adaptation.

From the bustling streets of cosmopolitan cities to the tranquil corners of remote villages, this journey manifests in myriad forms, each imbued with its unique tapestry of customs, languages, and rituals. Yet, beneath the surface diversity lies a common thread—a quest for belonging and connection that transcends geographical boundaries and temporal divides.

Within the realm of literature and the arts, assimilation finds expression as a poignant reflection of the human condition. Through the brushstrokes of a painter or the verses of a poet, it unveils the kaleidoscope of human emotions and experiences, bridging the chasm between disparate worlds. In the fusion of cultural motifs and motifs, we witness not only the beauty of diversity but also the resilience of the human spirit—a testament to our capacity for empathy and understanding.

Moreover, assimilation resonates deeply within the realm of education and academia, shaping the contours of knowledge production and dissemination. As scholars grapple with the complexities of globalization and multiculturalism, they confront questions that transcend disciplinary boundaries, challenging conventional paradigms and fostering interdisciplinary dialogue. From the corridors of Ivy League universities to the bustling halls of community colleges, this intellectual journey unfolds as a collaborative endeavor, enriching our collective understanding of the world we inhabit.

Yet, assimilation is not without its complexities and contradictions, as it navigates the murky waters of power dynamics and cultural hegemony. In the shadows of colonial legacies and postcolonial realities, it often entails the erasure of indigenous knowledge and the marginalization of minority voices—a reminder of the enduring legacy of historical injustices. Thus, the quest for genuine inclusivity and social justice emerges as a central imperative, calling upon us to confront the shadows of our past and forge a path towards a more equitable future.

Furthermore, assimilation extends its reach into the realm of politics and governance, shaping the contours of national identity and belonging. From debates over immigration policy to struggles for cultural recognition and autonomy, it permeates the corridors of power, influencing policies and shaping destinies. Yet, amidst the cacophony of political rhetoric and partisan divides, the voices of those on the margins often remain unheard, underscoring the need for inclusive governance structures that amplify diverse perspectives and foster genuine dialogue.

In conclusion, assimilation emerges as a multifaceted phenomenon that defies simplistic categorizations, embodying the intricate interplay between culture, identity, and power. As we navigate the complexities of an increasingly interconnected world, a nuanced understanding of assimilation becomes indispensable, guiding our efforts to foster inclusive societies that celebrate diversity while nurturing a sense of shared humanity. Ultimately, it is through embracing the richness of cultural hybridity and promoting intercultural dialogue that we can chart a path towards a more just and equitable world for all.

Cite this page

Assimilation: The Cultural Kaleidoscope. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/assimilation-the-cultural-kaleidoscope/

"Assimilation: The Cultural Kaleidoscope." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/assimilation-the-cultural-kaleidoscope/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Assimilation: The Cultural Kaleidoscope . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/assimilation-the-cultural-kaleidoscope/ [Accessed: 15 May. 2024]

"Assimilation: The Cultural Kaleidoscope." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/assimilation-the-cultural-kaleidoscope/

"Assimilation: The Cultural Kaleidoscope," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/assimilation-the-cultural-kaleidoscope/. [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Assimilation: The Cultural Kaleidoscope . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/assimilation-the-cultural-kaleidoscope/ [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Search type

University Wide

Faculty / School Portals

PhD candidate Daniela Zuzunaga Zegarra wins the 2024 Professor Frank Pearce Essay Prize

May 14, 2024

PhD candidate Daniela Zuzunaga Zegarra has won the 2024 Professor Frank Pearce Essay Prize, an award for graduate students who submit the best essay on the topic of radical critical theory and social justice.

Daniela’s paper, Racism in the Platformized Cultural Industries: Precarity, Visibility & Harassment, examines how racialized content creators experience racism multilaterally, which works to produce barriers that limit creators ability to materially gain, build meaningful narratives of belonging, and feel safe within these environments. 

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Happiness Gap Between Left and Right Isn’t Closing

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

Why is it that a substantial body of social science research finds that conservatives are happier than liberals?

A partial answer: Those on the right are less likely to be angered or upset by social and economic inequities, believing that the system rewards those who work hard, that hierarchies are part of the natural order of things and that market outcomes are fundamentally fair.

Those on the left stand in opposition to each of these assessments of the social order, prompting frustration and discontent with the world around them.

The happiness gap has been with us for at least 50 years, and most research seeking to explain it has focused on conservatives. More recently, however, psychologists and other social scientists have begun to dig deeper into the underpinnings of liberal discontent — not only unhappiness but also depression and other measures of dissatisfaction.

One of the findings emerging from this research is that the decline in happiness and in a sense of agency is concentrated among those on the left who stress matters of identity, social justice and the oppression of marginalized groups.

There is, in addition, a parallel phenomenon taking place on the right as Donald Trump and his MAGA loyalists angrily complain of oppression by liberals who engage in a relentless vendetta to keep Trump out of the White House.

There is a difference in the way the left and right react to frustration and grievance. Instead of despair, the contemporary right has responded with mounting anger, rejecting democratic institutions and norms.

In a 2021 Vox article, “ Trump and the Republican Revolt Against Democracy ,” Zack Beauchamp described in detail the emergence of destructive and aggressive discontent among conservatives.

Citing a wide range of polling data and academic studies, Beauchamp found:

More than twice as many Republicans (39 percent) as Democrats (17 percent) believed that “if elected leaders won’t protect America, the people must act — even if that means violence.”

Fifty-seven percent of Republicans considered Democrats to be “enemies,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats who viewed Republicans as “enemies.”

Among Republicans, support for “the use of force to defend our way of life,” as well as for the belief that “strong leaders bend rules” and that “sometimes you have to take the law in your own hands,” grows stronger in direct correlation with racial and ethnic hostility.

Trump has repeatedly warned of the potential for political violence. In January he predicted bedlam if the criminal charges filed in federal and state courts against him damaged his presidential campaign:

I think they feel this is the way they’re going to try and win, and that’s not the way it goes. It’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. As we said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box.

Before he was indicted in New York, Trump claimed there would be “potential death and destruction” if he was charged.

At an Ohio campaign rally in March, Trump declared, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole country.”

In other words, Trump and his allies respond to adversity and what they see as attacks from the left with threats and anger, while a segment of the left often but not always responds to adversity and social inequity with dejection and sorrow.

There are significant consequences for this internalization.

Jamin Halberstadt , a professor of psychology at the University of Otago in New Zealand and a co-author of “ Outgroup Threat and the Emergence of Cohesive Groups : A Cross-Cultural Examination,” argued in his emailed reply to my inquiry that because “a focus on injustice and victimhood is, by definition, disempowering (isn’t that why we talk of ‘survivors’ rather than ‘victims’?), loss of control is not good for self-esteem or happiness.”

But, he pointed out:

this focus, while no doubt a part of the most visible and influential side of progressive ideology, is still just a part. Liberalism is a big construct, and I’m reluctant to reduce it to a focus on social justice issues. Some liberals have this view, but I suspect their influence is outsized because (a) they have the social media megaphone and (b) we are in a climate in which freedom of expression and, in particular, challenges to the worldview you characterize have been curtailed.

Expanding on this line of argument, Halberstadt wrote:

I’m sure some self-described liberals have views that are counterproductive to their own happiness. One sub-ideology associated with liberalism is, as you describe, a sense of victimhood and grievance. But there is more than one way to respond to structural barriers. Within that group of the aggrieved, some probably see systemic problems that cannot be overcome, and that’s naturally demoralizing and depressing. But others see systemic problems as a challenge to overcome.

Taking Halberstadt’s assessment of the effects of grievance and victimhood a step farther, Timothy A. Judge , the chairman of the department of management and human resources at Notre Dame, wrote in a 2009 paper, “ Core Self-Evaluations and Work Success ”:

Core self-evaluations (C.S.E.) is a broad, integrative trait indicated by self-esteem, locus of control, generalized self-efficacy and (low) neuroticism (high emotional stability). Individuals with high levels of C.S.E. perform better on their jobs, are more successful in their careers, are more satisfied with their jobs and lives, report lower levels of stress and conflict, cope more effectively with setbacks and better capitalize on advantages and opportunities.

I asked Judge and other scholars a question: Have liberal pessimists fostered an outlook that spawns unhappiness as its adherents believe they face seemingly insurmountable structural barriers?

Judge replied by email:

I do share the perspective that a focus on status, hierarchies and institutions that reinforce privilege contributes to an external locus of control. And the reason is fairly straightforward. We can only change these things through collective and, often, policy initiatives — which tend to be complex, slow, often conflictual and outside our individual control. On the other hand, if I view “life’s chances” (Virginia Woolf’s term) to be mostly dependent on my own agency, this reflects an internal focus, which will often depend on enacting initiatives largely within my control.

Judge elaborated on his argument:

If our predominant focus in how we view the world is social inequities, status hierarchies, societal unfairness conferred by privilege, then everyone would agree that these things are not easy to fix, which means, in a sense, we must accept some unhappy premises: Life isn’t fair; outcomes are outside my control, often at the hands of bad, powerful actors; social change depends on collective action that may be conflictual; an individual may have limited power to control their own destiny, etc. These are not happy thoughts because they cause me to view the world as inherently unfair, oppressive, conflictual, etc. It may or may not be right, but I would argue that these are in fact viewpoints of how we view the world, and our place in it, that would undermine our happiness.

Last year, George Yancey , a professor of sociology at Baylor University, published “ Identity Politics, Political Ideology, and Well-Being : Is Identity Politics Good for Our Well-Being?”

Yancey argued that recent events “suggest that identity politics may correlate to a decrease in well-being, particularly among young progressives, and offer an explanation tied to internal elements within political progressiveness.”

By focusing on “political progressives, rather than political conservatives,” Yancey wrote, “a nuanced approach to understanding the relationship between political ideology and well-being begins to emerge.”

Identity politics, he continued, focuses “on external institutional forces that one cannot immediately alleviate.” It results in what scholars call the externalization of one’s locus of control, or viewing the inequities of society as a result of powerful if not insurmountable outside forces, including structural racism, patriarchy and capitalism, as opposed to believing that individuals can overcome such obstacles through hard work and collective effort.

As a result, Yancey wrote, “identity politics may be an important mechanism by which progressive political ideology can lead to lower levels of well-being.”

Conversely, Yancey pointed out, “a class-based progressive cognitive emphasis may focus less on the group identity, generating less of a need to rely on emotional narratives and dichotomous thinking and may be less likely to be detrimental to the well-being of a political progressive.”

Yancey tested this theory using data collected in the 2021 Baylor Religion Survey of 1,232 respondents.

“Certain types of political progressive ideology can have contrasting effects on well-being,” Yancey wrote. “It is plausible that identity politics may explain the recent increase well-being gap between conservatives and progressives.”

Oskari Lahtinen , a senior researcher in psychology at the University of Turku in Finland, published a study in March, “ Construction and Validation of a Scale for Assessing Critical Social Justice Attitudes ,” that reinforces Yancey’s argument.

Lahtinen conducted two surveys of a total of 5,878 men and women to determine the share of Finnish citizens who held “critical social justice attitudes” and how those who held such views differed from those who did not.

Critical social justice proponents, on Lahtinen’s scale,

point out varieties of oppression that cause privileged people (e.g., male, white, heterosexual, cisgender) to benefit over marginalized people (e.g., woman, Black, gay, transgender). In critical race theory, some of the core tenets include that (1) white supremacy and racism are omnipresent and colorblind policies are not enough to tackle them, (2) people of color have their own unique standpoint and (3) races are social constructs.

What did Lahtinen find?

The critical social justice propositions encountered

strong rejection from men. Women expressed more than twice as much support for the propositions. In both studies, critical social justice was correlated modestly with depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness, but not more so than being on the political left was.

In an email responding to my inquiries about his paper, Lahtinen wrote that one of the key findings in his research was that “there were large differences between genders in critical social justice advocacy: Three out of five women but only one out of seven men expressed support for the critical social justice claims.”

In addition, he pointed out, “there was one variable in the study that closely corresponded to external locus of control: ‘Other people or structures are more responsible for my well-being than I myself am.’”

The correlation between agreement with this statement and unhappiness was among the strongest in the survey:

People on the left endorsed this item (around 2 on a scale of 0 to 4) far more than people on the right (around 0.5). Endorsing the belief was determined by political party preference much more than by gender, for instance.

Such measures as locus of control, self-esteem, a belief in personal agency and optimism all play major roles in daily life.

In a December 2022 paper, “ The Politics of Depression : Diverging Trends in Internalizing Symptoms Among U.S. Adolescents by Political Beliefs,” Catherine Gimbrone , Lisa M. Bates , Seth Prins and Katherine M. Keyes , all at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, noted that “trends in adolescent internalizing symptoms diverged by political beliefs, sex and parental education over time, with female liberal adolescents experiencing the largest increases in depressive symptoms, especially in the context of demographic risk factors, including parental education.”

“These findings,” they added, “indicate a growing mental health disparity between adolescents who identify with certain political beliefs. It is therefore possible that the ideological lenses through which adolescents view the political climate differentially affect their mental well-being.”

Gimbrone and her co-authors based their work on studies of 85,000 teenagers from 2005 to 2018. They found that

while internalizing symptom scores worsened over time for all adolescents, they deteriorated most quickly for female liberal adolescents. Beginning in approximately 2010 and continuing through 2018, female liberal adolescents reported the largest changes in depressive affect, self-esteem, self-derogation and loneliness.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “socially underprivileged liberals reported the worst internalizing symptom scores over time, likely indicating that the experiences and beliefs that inform a liberal political identity are ultimately less protective against poor mental health than those that inform a conservative political identity.”

From another vantage point, Nick Haslam , a professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne, argued in his 2020 paper “ Harm Inflation: Making Sense of Concept Creep ” that recent years have seen “a rising sensitivity to harm within at least some Western cultures, such that previously innocuous or unremarked phenomena were increasingly identified as harmful and that this rising sensitivity reflected a politically liberal moral agenda.”

As examples, Haslam wrote that the definition of “trauma” has been

progressively broadened to include adverse life events of decreasing severity and those experienced vicariously rather than directly. “Mental disorder” came to include a wider range of conditions, so that new forms of psychopathology were added in each revision of diagnostic manuals and the threshold for diagnosing some existing forms was lowered. “Abuse” extended from physical acts to verbal and emotional slights and incorporated forms of passive neglect in addition to active aggression.

Haslam described this process as concept creep and argued that “some examples of concept creep are surely the work of deliberate actors who might be called expansion entrepreneurs.”

Concept expansion, Haslam wrote, “can be used as a tactic to amplify the perceived seriousness of a movement’s chosen social problem.” In addition, “such expansion can be effective means of enhancing the perceived seriousness of a social problem or threat by increasing the perceived prevalence of both ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators.’”

Haslam cited studies showing that strong “correlates of holding expansive concepts of harm were compassion-related trait values, left-liberal political attitudes and forms of morality associated with both.” Holding expansive concepts of harm was also “associated with affective and cognitive empathy orientation and most strongly of all with endorsement of harm- and fairness-based morality.” Many of these characteristics are associated with the political left.

“The expansion of harm-related concepts has implications for acceptable self-expression and free speech,” Haslam wrote. “Creeping concepts enlarge the range of expressions judged to be unacceptably harmful, thereby increasing calls for speech restrictions. Expansion of the harm-related concepts of hate and hate speech exemplifies this possibility.”

While much of the commentary on the progressive left has been critical, Haslam takes a more ambivalent position: “Sometimes concept creep is presented in an exclusively negative frame,” he wrote, but that fails to address the “positive implications. To that end, we offer three positive consequences of the phenomenon.”

The first is that expansionary definitions of harm “can be useful in drawing attention to harms previously overlooked. Consider the vertical expansion of abuse to include emotional abuse.”

Second, “concept creep can prevent harmful practices by modifying social norms.” For example, “changing definitions of bullying that include social exclusion and antagonistic acts expressed horizontally rather than only downward in organizational hierarchies may also entrench norms against the commission of destructive behavior.”

And finally:

The expansion of psychology’s negative concepts can motivate interventions aimed at preventing or reducing the harms associated with the newly categorized behaviors. For instance, the conceptual expansion of addiction to include behavioral addictions (e.g., gambling and internet addictions) has prompted a flurry of research into treatment options, which has found that a range of psychosocial treatments can be successfully used to treat gambling, internet and sexual addictions.

Judge suggested an approach to this line of inquiry that he believed might offer a way for liberalism to regain its footing:

I would like to think that there is a version of modern progressivism that accepts many of the premises of the problem and causes of inequality but does so in a way that also celebrates the power of individualism, of consensus and of common cause. I know this is perhaps naïve. But if we give in to cynicism (that consensus can’t be found), that’s self-reinforcing, isn’t it? I think about the progress on how society now views sexual orientation and the success stories. The change was too slow, painful for many, but was there any other way?

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @ edsall

Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice Essay

Introduction, the catholic’s social teachings on justice, the church and formulation of some policies in the government, reference list.

According to Our Lady’s Parish (2012), God, who is regarded as the father of humankind, is just; therefore, the same is expected from His creation. Life is God-given and sacred. In this case, all human beings should strive to avoid activities that bring suffering and oppression to God’s creation.

Imprisonment is a form of oppression when it is not implemented in a right way to correct individuals. To some extent, imprisonment brings sadness and humiliation. It should be the last alternative after other ways of solving a certain crime have failed.

The Catholic Church is concerned with social injustices and has contributed a lot towards curbing crime through alternative ways other than imprisonment. The church also seeks to instill value in the prisoners’ lives through teachings and practices that accept prisoners as people who deserve to be treated with dignity (Windley-Daoust, 2007).

Courts of law should exercise justice

Suspects should be given a chance to prove their innocence. It is sad for people to spend their lives in prison for crimes they did not commit. Judges should be fair in sentencing people by proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

More often than not, people in Australia find themselves in prisons, not for being convicted, but due to delayed trials. This is sad and unfair. The Catholic Church views this as injustice because the prison becomes a place for distress and misery other than rehabilitation.

Such situations will only lead to increased criminal activities because those with morals may end up being corrupted through associating with criminals (Clayton, 2004). The church advocate for fast trials so that if convicted a person does not spend an unnecessary long period in jail.

It also suggests that trivial matters be addressed through other means such as juvenile centers for the underage law breakers and rehabilitation centers for the adults (MacBrien, 1994).

A jail should be a place for restoration of self-worth to prisoners

While serving their terms, prisoners should be engaged in activities that will help them become useful once they are freed. However, it is critical for the prisoners to be taught about God’s perception of sin and what is expected of them as Christians.

The church suggests that every punishment administered to a wrong doer must have a rehabilitative purpose. This can be done through offering trainings and skills that will prove useful and give them a starting point once their terms are over. These skills and technology restore the prisoners’ self-worth because they are able to contribute to the economy (McBrien, 1994).

Issues that lead to criminal activities should be addressed

Some crimes are committed out of sheer carelessness or even brief associations with wrong doers, and we can call them temptations. Nevertheless, these “temptations” see people spend years in prisons, yet if given a chance; they could be corrected through mere dialogues.

In this case, the church has solved by addressing issues that lead to criminal activities like drug abuse that leads to mental instability this is solved by campaigns against drug use.

The church has advocated for equal distribution of employment opportunities to help eradicate poverty which increases crime. Some solutions to criminal activities that the church suggests are like engaging people in prolonged learning activities.

Also, it includes the provision of institutions for mental services and community based projects, as well as economic support to marginalized communities (Our Lady’s Parish, 2012).

Another major cause of crime is the negative influence. In this case, the church offers guidance to offenders and educates them on which aspect to look for in friends and associates.

This helps them not to fall back to their old habits that caused them trouble. Instead, the offenders choose and develop relationships with people who add value to their lives and improve their self-worth.

Forgiveness should be practiced and extended to wrong doers as well

Christians often fall into temptations and break the commandments and ask for forgiveness from God. Therefore, in order to be forgiven, Christians must also forgive. According to the Catholic faith, all humans are equal before God’s eyes.

This is evident during creation as all people were created in God’s own image, and salvation to the world was provided for all people. Christians should have mercy and love to others since all people belong to the same God.

This is a practice that shows that they care about the social well-being of other individuals in the society. The Catholic Church encourages people to opt for forgiving one another, and thus cases of people suing their fellow humankind and exposing them to prison life will be less.

Turning around the situation and addressing the main reason as to why people commit certain crimes and assisting to solve the problem will improve the situation.

This will reduce the number of people suffering in prison as well as improve others’ lives and morals among the societies. Reconciliation brings healing and restores harmony and good social relationships in the society (Massaro, 2000).

Prisoners should be involved in Christian faith during and after their sentences

Christian values should be practiced by all whether in prison or not. The Catholic Church has done this by the foundation of churches in prison and established rehabilitation institutions for them once they are free.

These institutions offer an opportunity for transition from jail into the community by offering jobs, trainings, and accommodation before they can support themselves or re uniting them with their families and counseling (Weigert & Kelley, 2004).

Chaplains have spent time with prisoners offering them spiritual guidance and celebrations through sacraments. This makes the prisoners feel loved, be less remorseful, and restores their dignity. The church views the prison as an avenue for campaigning law and order.

The church encourages families to support their people in prison through visiting them. This also encourages the prison officers to preserve their dignity and promotes brotherly love amongst them. Most important of all is receiving them back into the community and church once they are through with their sentences (Massaro, 2000).

Prisoners should not be perceived as outcasts but treated with compassion

When one is imprisoned, this is not an indication that the individual has chosen to be evil. Prisoners are human beings, and deserve understanding and empathy. We all belong to the same father, and this should bring us closer to become brothers and sisters in Christ.

Therefore, judging other people whether Christians or not is wrong. Christians should learn the needs of prisoners, their loved ones, and the officers who take care of the prisoners. Learning their needs will help Christians know how to approach them.

This will enable Christians to educate the prisoners on Christianity and what do so as to a void getting in prison in the future. If Christians interact with prisoners while helping them, the Christians teach by examples and not theory.

Therefore, this is bound to be effective, as opposed to just preaching to the prisoners (Massaro, 2000). The church urges the society to show such compassion through visiting them in prison and helping them start a fresh on leaving jail.

Christians should preach peace to improve law and order

The rest of the world is complaining about the deterioration of morals and increasing rate of crime. On the other hand, Christians are expected to stand by their values and teach obedience to the state law despite the political environment and economic conditions experienced.

The difference between the human persons’ goodness and a Christian is the dignity whose foundation is Christ. This means that the church’s social mission is connected with the gospel (Whitmore, 2005). A Christian is expected to be just in order to preach the gospel about justice.

Therefore, they should lead by examples by first being law abiding citizens before extending these values to the rest of society. When Christians identify themselves with prisoners, they see Christ through the prisoners and this contributes to obedience because they are likely to practice these values after their sentences.

The church has given Christians the liberty to participate in political and economic activities that aim at improving people’s lives. In turn, this encourages the government to listen to religious views on social justice and give citizens freedom of religion. It results to states that are united and have one goal towards common good and opposing injustice (Pennock, 2007).

Some of the reasons why crime has increased are due to the economic situations and political activities that oppress people. The church looks into issues like the right to job access to people through just employment and wages, freedom to religion, and issues like democracy in politics.

In addition, the church focuses on establishing equity among the various socio-economic classes of people in the society. The church also fights for respect to views founded by religion and influenced by the church. Through this, Christians have been able to identify their social responsibility and influence to the state in maintaining social justice.

This has enabled them to participate in fighting social injustices such as corruption and racism as well as promote human rights. If Christian love binds the nations, then selfish activities evident in hunger for power and exaggerated profits will be minimize.

Also, the poor will get a share if resources are distributed equally, and thus temptations to crime will also be minimal. The church differs with the state’s opinion of making jails brutal and unbearable as a strategy that deprives prisoners of their dignity (De Berri & Hug, 2003).

Social justice is not a responsibility of the state judiciaries, but the whole society. If all people exercised social responsibility and stood together as the body of Christ, the level of criminal activities would be low. This would lead to a better society that pleases Christ.

It helps improve the social well-being because the state is dependent on the society which includes the Christians. According to the church, getting tough on the crime is not the solution.

Creating a long term alternative to imprisonment is usually encouraged. In addition, church suggestions can only be done through concentrating on the causes and prevention of crime. Punishment only results into increased violence and impunity.

Clayton, M. (2004). Social Justice . Malden, Mass. u. a.: Blackwell.

De Berri, E & Hug, J. (2003). Our best kept secret and an evolving social message. In Catholic social teaching: Our best kept secret . Maryknoll: Orbis Books & Washington Center of Concern. Pp. 3-11.

MacBrien, R.P. (1994). Catholicism. New York: Harper SanFrancisco.

Massaro, T. (2000). Nine key themes in Catholic social teaching in Living justice: Catholic social teaching in action Living justice: Catholic social teaching in action. Oxford: Sheed & Ward. pp.113-167.

Massaro, T. (2012). Living justice: Catholic social teaching in action . Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

McBrien, R. (1994). The ongoing development of Catholic social doctrine. In Catholicism. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco. pp. 912-916.

Our Lady’s Parish (2012). Social Justice Statement 2011-2012. Web.

Pennock, M. (2007). Catholic social teaching: Learning & living justice . Notre Dame, Ind: Ave Maria Press.

Weigert, K. M., & Kelley, A. K. (2004). Living the Catholic social tradition: Cases and commentary . Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Whitmore, T.D. (2005). Catholic social teaching: Starting with the common good . In K.M.

Windley-Daoust, J. (2007). Primary source readings in Catholic social justice . Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s Press.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 19). Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-justice/

"Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/social-justice/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice." December 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-justice/.

1. IvyPanda . "Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice." December 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-justice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice." December 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-justice/.

• Jails, Prisons and the US Correctional System
• Soaring Hope: Imagining Life as It Ought to Be
• What Is Jail? History, Administration and Structure
• Concept of Eucharist Curriculum in Education
• Should we be realist or non-realist towards religious claims
• Interpretation of Hebrews 12:6-14
• Christian Counseling for Children
• Biblical Living Water Explained