Defining Social Justice

The phrase “social justice” is increasingly prominent in the public discourse, especially in discussions about race, the justice system, and education (my field). A loaded phrase, the mention of social justice can provoke anger, resistance, and apathy. Those supporting social justice may see it as a call to action.

So what does it actually mean? An informal Google search yields a torrent of scornful blogs and videos mocking so-called snowflakes,We safe spaces, political correctness, and all else disparaging of so-called “social justice warriors.” I’m venturing a guess that the hysteria is intended to deflect attention away from oppression--the opposite of social justice. So let’s start there.

Briefly, prejudice and bias are negative beliefs and attitudes, and stereotypes are simplistic generalizations. Prejudicial beliefs and stereotypes can lead to discrimination, the act of denying access to goods, resources, respect, and services to people based on their membership (real or perceived) in a particular social group (Stephan, 1999). Oppression goes beyond individual acts of discrimination and weaves discrimination into the structures of everyday life, including schools, the judicial system, housing, and more. That’s why we’ll also use terms such as institutional discrimination to describe the structural, systemic barriers it presents.

Oppression is characterized by hierarchies of races, genders, etc., created and maintained by unequal distribution of power. Historically (and as this book will argue, at present), these hierarchies place, for example, whites over people of color, and upper-class groups over other socioeconomic classes. Adams, Bell, & Griffin (1997) shed light on four ways oppression manifests itself among the dominant- and non-dominant groups in the hierarchy:

●      The dominant group has the power to projects its culture and norms so thoroughly that they become the prevailing definition of “regular” and “correct.”

●      The hierarchy confers benefits and advantages to the dominant group, yet denies them to subordinate groups. Such inequality is “business as usual.”

●      The dominant group misrepresents the subordinate group through, for example, stereotypes, distorting history, or stifling the voices can threaten the arrangement or demand its restructuring.

●      Members of the subordinate group may internalize the narratives of inferiority imposed by the dominant group (i.e., internalized oppression) (Delgado, 1989; Ladson-Billings, 1998).

In short, oppression is “power + prejudice” in which dominant groups—consciously or unconsciously—enjoy advantages while subordinate groups are systematically disadvantaged.

Note the use of the word group. Oppressions distinguishes between (1) individuals acts of discrimination and (2) unfair systems. While bigoted acts are of course wrong, oppression looks to the structural level. This brings us to another term: privilege.         

What is privilege?

Privilege refers to the unearned benefits the dominant group receive simply by being in the group. As Swalwell (2013) notes, privileged groups are “positioned by power relations within systems of supremacy . . . that are made stronger when rendered invisible, consciously or not, to those who benefit from them most” (pp. 5-6). Because individuals in the dominant group see their way as normal, they can easily stay blind to the structures that hold their position in place. Even privileged individual who actively work against oppression reap the benefits. A white educator can devote a career to anti-racism, but is still unlikely to be pulled over, followed in a store loan, or assumed to be less capable due to skin color. Thus, privilege does not require intentionally seeking gain.

Privilege does not brush away the value of hard work. Many people rightfully pride themselves on their individual efforts; however, as the book will explore, members of non-privileged groups are more likely to face barriers to educational- and economic opportunities. Moreover, members of privileged groups enjoy the benefit of the doubt that their position is due to initiative alone. A white male who gets an executive position is less likely to be suspected of being a “token” hire than is a woman of color. For a more thorough analysis of privilege, readers may consult Adams, & Bell (2016); McIntosh (1988), and Swalwell (2013).

If you’re in a dominant group, maybe you’re thinking, “What privilege? I know a [person from non-dominant group] who has it better than me.” This brings us to intersectionality, the idea that we have multiple, overlapping identities that can grant advantages in one category and disadvantages in another (Crenshaw; 1991). For example, a former student, a white female who grew up in poverty, initially resisted the idea of “white privilege.” But when students of color from the same socioeconomic situation shared the discrimination they faced when seeking a job and a loan, the women realized that her race got her in the door more easily. The point is not to “keep score” in a contest of oppression, but rather to recognize that our complex identities reflect interconnected hierarchies.   

To counter oppression, social justice aims to dismantle unjust systems and structures. Social justice aims for an outcome—“full and equitable participation” by members of all social group (Bell, 2016, p.1)—through an inclusive process that’s “mutually shaped” to meet everyone’s needs. From this perspective, society is not a fixed hierarchy, but rather a circle that can grow larger and provide opportunities to all (Clegg, 1992).

Interested in learning more? Check out my book and its free Facilitator Guide (available without purchase).

And stay tuned: In upcoming posts, I’ll be taking readers inside my social justice course at the University of Michigan. You’ll find overviews, key questions, suggestions for readings, and even assignments.