The substantive content of social justice consists of providing for the basic needs of the population, along with equitably rewarding merit and insisting on reciprocity. (Peter Corning)
According to the website of the Morrison School of Social Work at the University of St. Thomas (in St. Paul, Minnesota), working for social justice means working for:
ß Human dignity
ß Community and the common good
ß Rights and responsibilities
ß Priority for the poor and vulnerable
ß Participation
ß Dignity of work and the rights of workers
ß Solidarity
ß Stewardship
ß Governance/subsidiarity
ß Promotion of peace
Those items seem uncontroversial, though any one of them requires interpretation and elaboration—but so, too, do the Ten Commandments. The Morrison School offers this list as guidance for budding social workers, but there is no reason it cannot guide the rest of us as well.
Along the same lines: in his 2011 book The Fair Society, Professor Peter Corning, a Professor of Human Biology by trade, proposes that we update our basic social contract—that is, the expectations, explicit and implicit, that we have of our government, our institutions, our neighbors, and ourselves. He offers for consideration what he terms a “biosocial contract grounded in our growing understanding of human nature and the basic purpose of a human society.”
Aware that there is no widespread agreement about either human nature or the purpose of society, Corning focuses instead on “fairness,” a concept he believes (naively, perhaps) is commonly accepted. Toward that end, he emphasizes the need for inclusiveness:
A biosocial contract is about the rights and duties of all the stakeholders in society, both among themselves and in relation to the "state". It is about defining what constitutes a "fair society." All the stakeholders in the political community are included, and substantive fairness is the focus.
Beyond that, Corning’s “Fair Society” would have as its foundation three essential precepts:
- Goods and services must be distributed to each according to his or her basic needs (in this, there must be equality).
- Surpluses beyond the provisioning of our basic needs must be distributed according to "merit" (there must also be equity).
- In return, each of us is obligated to contribute to the collective survival enterprise proportionately in accordance with our ability (there must be reciprocity).
Professor Corning knows that his first precept (which he calls “our prime directive”) will be equated with communism:
Although this precept may sound socialistic -- an echo of Karl Marx's famous dictum -- it is at once far more specific and more limited. It refers to fourteen basic biological needs domains, which are not a vague, open-ended abstraction, nor a matter of personal preference. They constitute a concrete but ultimately limited agenda, with measurable indicators for assessing outcomes.
At first glance, the “Fair Society” is attainable only by advanced, affluent nations like our own—but what is our affluence for if not to guarantee the basics of life for everyone?
These fourteen basic needs domains include a number of obvious items, like adequate nutrition, fresh water, physical safety, physical and mental health, and waste elimination, as well as some items that we may take for granted like thermo-regulation (which may entail many different technologies, from clothing to heating oil and air conditioning), adequate sleep (about one-third of our lives), mobility, and even healthy respiration, which can't always be assured. Perhaps least obvious but most important are the requisites for reproduction and the nurturance of the next generation. From this perspective, our basic needs cut a broad swath through our economy and our society.
Corning insists that his precepts would better align our public policies with our moral traditions and inclinations:
The idea that there is a "social right" to the necessities of life is not as radical as it may sound. It is implicit in the Golden Rule, the great moral precept that is recognized by every major religion and culture. Furthermore, numerous public opinion surveys over the years have consistently shown that people are far more willing to provide support for the genuinely needy than the Scrooges among us would lead one to believe.
Fairness, of course, must work both ways—or it is not fair. Corning’s agenda requires “reciprocity” among citizens, obligating everyone to make a social contribution of some kind and guaranteeing that no segment of the populace can be denigrated as “takers”:
A greater emphasis on reciprocity in American society would include such things as a more equitable tax code, higher taxes as necessary to support the basic needs of the 30 million (plus) Americans who suffer from extreme poverty, and a lifelong public service obligation beginning with a year of national service for everyone who is able to do so, or two years for those who receive special benefits like educational assistance.
The devilish details, of course, remain to be worked out; Corning is laying down the basic social principles by which he believes we should act.
It is difficult not to respect Professor Corning’s sincerity; it is equally difficult not to suspect that his book presupposes an audience that shares, by and large, his liberal principles. When he concludes “this framework offers our best hope for achieving and maintaining that elusive state of voluntary consent that is the key to a harmonious society,” he is likely preaching to the already converted.
That, however, should be no reason to give up on either fairness or social justice; it should be reason instead to convert others and to bring them into the ranks of the faithful. We need to rehabilitate the concept of “social justice” by linking it not just to Frankfurt School theoreticians but (as Corning said) to the Golden Rule, the Sermon on the Mount, Catholic “social thought,” and religious and ethical traditions worldwide. We need to articulate the meaning of “social justice” in terms free of trendy, impenetrable academic jargon: Corning’s “Fair Society” is a good start at doing just that.
Writing about the search for social justice, Michael Walzer (Exodus and Revolution) reminds us of three important lessons from the biblical Book of Exodus. First, he says, wherever we are is Egypt, a land of bondage; our task is to identify the forms our bondage takes. Second, between us and the Promised Land is a wilderness; we cannot enter the Promised Land without first being tested, tempted, and transformed. And third, the only way through that wilderness is by walking alongside one another, one step at a time; we will reach the Promised Land together or not at all.
Is a “Fair Society” only a utopian dream? The way to find out is to gather our collective resources and start building. Is the search for “social justice” just another well-intentioned highway to Hell? The way to find out is to join hands and start down the road, keeping our eyes open for roadblocks, detours, and potential dead ends. Social justice is too important to be used as a pawn in anyone's ideological game or as the latest bone of contention in academic turf wars. At its most basic, the idea of "social justice" is simply a call to action: in the words of the utopian Marxist, Ernst Bloch, “I am. We are. That is enough. Now we have to start.”
Posted by: |