A Stupefying Vanity
The ideal of social justice does not complement the ideal of education. The ideal of social justice replaces the ideal of education.
Lifted from the comments, David Randall on academia’s “social justice” infestation:
“Social justice” was everywhere in higher education. It was the slogan of student activists, the raison d’etre of many academic programmes, the research focus of scholars in many fields, part of the formal mission statements of many colleges, and a phrase that rolled off the tongues of sophomores as the smug answer to virtually any question about public policy. Looking for a definition of the term that fit its ten thousand applications proved futile. “Social justice” may have meant particular things to particular people, but in general it signified only an emotional disposition… When someone says “social justice,” he need not spell out the underlying propositions. The ideas and the temperament are taken for granted. By contrast, any critique of the social justice ideology will be familiar to hardly any students and very few faculty members.
It’s a long read, but one with much to chew.
My own attempt to define “social justice,” the contortions it entails, and the kinds of behaviour to which it gives license, is reposted below:
“Social justice” entails treating people not as individuals but as mascots and categories. And judging a person and their actions based on which Designated Victim Group they supposedly belong to and then assigning various exemptions and indulgences depending on that notional group identity and whatever presumptuous baggage can be attached to it, with varying degrees of perversity. And conversely, assigning imaginary sins and “privilege” to someone else based on whatever Designated Oppressor Group they can be said to belong to, however fatuously, and regardless of the particulars of the actual person.
Which is to say, “social justice” is largely about judging people tribally, cartoonishly, and by different and contradictory standards, based on some supposed group identity, which apparently – and conveniently – overrides all else. It’s glib, question-begging and pernicious. Cargo-cult morality. Viewed with a cool eye, it’s something close to the opposite of justice. And yet, among our self-imagined betters, it’s the latest must-have.
In much the same way, “diversity” seems to be the belief that the less we have in common, and feel we have in common, the happier we will be. An unobvious proposition, to say the least. And then there’s “equity” – another word favoured by both educators and campus activists – and which is defined, if at all, only in the woolliest and most evasive of terms. And which, when used by those same educators and activists, seems to mean something like “equality of outcome regardless of inputs.” Inputs including diligence and punctuality. And that isn’t fair either.
Above all, “social justice” seems to function as a kind of cheap grace, a shortcut to imagined moral status, and thereby leverage:
If I regurgitate these attitudes and incantations, and if I stipulate my pronouns, then I become A Very Good Person Indeed, and therefore statusful. Which saves a lot of time and effort, frankly. And being instantly transformed into A Very Good Person Indeed, I am entitled to defame and browbeat and bully, to denounce books that I haven’t read, and to remind others of my Very Good Person status in all kinds of exciting ways. Say, with fits of mob coercion and practised hysteria, and putting polite and elderly scholars in fear of their safety. And if anyone hurts my feelings – say, by drawing attention to my ignorance, hypocrisy and pretension – my basic moral emptiness – then I can denounce them as opposing all of the glorious causes that I now pretend to embody. Or failing that, just hit them.
I’m paraphrasing, of course. But not, I think, wildly.
Update:
In the comments, WTP adds,
Social justice is the very same bigotry it pretends not to be. It’s projection.
Well, it’s not obvious how gleefully humiliating random white students, harassing them, obstructing them and making them walk through mud – for instance – could foster warm feelings. And “social justice” theatrics do seem to appeal to people with quite spiteful inclinations, and who want the rest of us to believe that they’re much more pious and benevolent than they evidently are.
It’s interesting just how often “social justice” posturing entails something that looks an awful lot like spite or petty malice, or an attempt to harass and dominate, or some other obnoxious behaviour. Behaviour that, without a “social justice” pretext, might get you called a wanker or a bitch.
A coincidence, I’m sure. 
Also, this:
And Heather Mac Donald on the same.
I think of it as a way for pasty university affiliated geezers to separate the impressionable from their undergarments.
Viewed with a cool eye, it’s something close to the opposite of justice.
I would say that by definition it is the opposite of justice. Justice is the codified set of legal rules and regulations we follow. Social “Justice” by its nature is arbitrary and capricious. If it was regulated and systematized then it would just be called “justice”.
Social “Justice” by its nature is arbitrary and capricious.
And opportunistic. It’s catnip for self-dramatising narcissists who like to play dominance games.
Fair to say it would be less easy to take advantage if everyone knew the rules.
Fair to say it would be less easy to take advantage if everyone knew the rules.
As noted previously, “social justice” posturing – wokeness – is competitive and has a ratcheting dynamic – the rules have to keep changing. The goal posts keep moving in order to maintain the drama. And so the pretence entails ever greater contrivance, ever more rarefied and improbable forms of oppression. New sins to catch people out with and thereby assert status or some attempt to cow and dominate.
Social justice is the very same bigotry it pretends not to be. It’s a projection, no surprise there. And when it comes from certain people on the right, it’s often an over compensation for past sins. And personally quite amusing to see in people I’ve known for nearly half a century. So at least there’s that.
anti-social, unjust.
Social justice is neither.
It is literally the idea that, in the hands of the Justified, two wrongs *do* make a right.
Heh.
To reiterate the observation of a friend of mine when discussing marketing, “any adjective means ‘not’.”
When I was at college “Social Justice” meant John Rawls but of course we got Robert Nozick on the book list too, even if he was barely mentioned.
As such I think Social Justice lends itself to identity politics but they are not one and the same.
I think the latter is best expressed as the reversal of MLK’s injunction viz “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin.” That reversal could apply equally to today’s SJW or the KKK.
The former boils down to a ethical standard.
This being the time of year for giving and such, here’s some social justice submitted for your consideration. I’ll spare you the usual bash the rich for their charitable giving preamble ramble (though please do RTWT…if you have the stomach for it) and cut right to the chase:
https://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2019/12/06/philanthropy/
The goal posts keep moving in order to maintain the drama.
Social Justice has no end objective. It is a perpetual 2 Minute Hate Ritual. It eats everything that comes in its path including itself.
I was first exposed to “Social Justice” back in about 1990. First, a modest size natural-gas-fired electric power plant was proposed for the south Santa Clara county area. (The borderland between the south of Silicon Valley, and the agricultural / rural areas farther south.) The argument was made that the plant would benefit the wealthier areas to the north, but impose siting and pollution costs on the poorer areas to the south (Arguably true, since the prevailing winds are north to south.) Opposition was framed around the term “social injustice”.
Second, low-cost housing developments proposed for the China Basin area of San Francisco (the east / south side of the SF peninsula). The issue there was that it was a derelict WW2 shipyard area, hence supposedly contaminated with industrial wastes. It was “unjust” to expect the poor to live in such a hazardous area, merely because they were poor.
Both of these arguments made a certain amount of sense, especially in the case of the power plant, where the burdens and benefits were clearly separated. I thought the term “social injustice” was suitable. However, like “affirmative action”, “social justice” proved to be a convenient catch-all over the next several decades. I think it’s a general characteristic of political movements: to attach themselves to an arguable good, and then take over for other purposes. We certainly see this in the case of the climate change disputes. Various political persons have even stated publicly that the “movement” is more about socialist politics than it is about environmental security.
Back in 2015, the satirical blogger Dave Burge wrote about this process:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
Somewhat related:
Heather Mac Donald, here.
It’s much easier to understand if you clarify the meaning of the second word:
Social
JusticeVengeanceRather than raising minority performance, however, this new influx of diverse students lowers it, since the school has had to dig deeper into the applicant pool.
This hints at how the train went off the tracks in the first place. Early on, the students brought on board to fill the school’s racial quota were pretty good students by any colourblind measure. (Left unspoken is that these students were mostly the product of bourgeois two-parent households, who were likely to succeed with or without special treatment.)
Since the first affirmative-action students were pretty successful, it only follows that expanding the effort will be even more successful! Perfectly obvious conclusion, if you’re a university bureaucrat incapable of understanding any system beyond the most superficial level. Thus did the snowball start its descent down the mountainside.
Funny you should say “creep”. I’ve seen a great many social justice warriors over the years and they’re pretty much all creeps.
Gov Squid, let us not forget that to make snowballs one needs plenty of snow a/k/a federally guaranteed student loans. The ascent of Social Justice can be directly tied to the changes made by Obama to the student loan industry.
All of this craziness is guaranteed by the tax payers and the staggering amount of money flowing into the coffers of universities.
The spigot must be turned off for any real change to occur.
Oh my goodness! SJW’s actually held responsible!
/extreme.sarcasm
I’ve seen a great many social justice warriors over the years and they’re pretty much all creeps.
As an ideology, it does seem to attract a high concentration of spiteful and obnoxious individuals, to say nothing of thugs, bedlamites, the hopelessly neurotic, and people with what appear to be quite serious personality disorders.
More than chance alone would seem to allow.
SJW’s actually held responsible!
5 hours of community service. Ooh, that’ll hurt. Is not climate activism a form of community service? Time served!
The clown ‘quarter’ of academia has pretty much taken over our justice system insofar as anything that the left cares about (at the moment) is concerned. Isn’t it rich?
Oh my goodness!
Yale, an “elite” school, just ask ’em.
The general public created a professional law enforcement complex because mob justice is crude, violent, and often misdirected. Once again, the professional law enforcement complex is trying its damnedest to convince the general public that this was a stupid idea, and that we should go back to the old ways as quickly as we can.
Not sure why they’re working so hard to put themselves out of a job, but there you have it.
“And judging a person and their actions based on which Designated Victim Group they supposedly belong to and then assigning various exemptions and indulgences depending on that notional group identity and whatever presumptuous baggage can be attached to it, with varying degrees of perversity. And conversely, assigning imaginary sins and “privilege” to someone else based on whatever Designated Oppressor Group they can be said to belong to, however fatuously, and regardless of the particulars of the actual person.”
It is just an expansion of Marxist classes. Oppressors and Victims, Exploiters and exploited.
In much the same way, “diversity” seems to be the belief that the less we have in common, and feel we have in common, the happier we will be. An unobvious proposition, to say the least.
That.
Social justice is the very same bigotry it pretends not to be. It’s a projection
Well, it’s not obvious how gleefully humiliating random white students, harassing them, obstructing them and making them walk through mud – for instance – could foster warm feelings. And “social justice” theatrics do seem to appeal to people with quite spiteful inclinations, and who want you to believe that they’re much more pious and benevolent than they evidently are.
As noted previously,
A coincidence, I’m sure.
Much like “politically correct” and “hate crime”, the unironic use of “social justice” should have set off the Orwellian alarm bells decades ago but were met with mostly a shrug and ‘ok’. They’re not smart enough for subterfuge but we’re not tenacious enough to resist them.
‘Social justice’ is a toxic brew of vanity, conceit, & condescension sufficient to make a Waldensian recoil.