Social Justice Activism

Reisch • Defining Social Justice in a Socially Unjust World
recognizing clients’ strengths, an awareness of the role of
power in professional relationships, and a focus on positionality.
Like Wakefield (1988a, 1988b), Mullaly (1997),
and others, Swenson argues that clinical social workers can
also engage in social justice work through the elimination
of oppressive practices in their agencies, the development
of new client-centered programs, and the education of
colleagues and members of related disciplines about social
justice principles.
In the macro arena, authors have applied broadly defined
concepts of social justice to the formation of alliances
in support of civil rights, affirmative action, a clarification of
laws regarding sexual harassment, and “a society that truly
values human worth and dignity” (Schreiber, 1995; Beck &
Eichler, 2000; Brawley & Martinez-Brawley, 1999; Gibelman,
2000; Gould, 2000). Other writers have linked social
justice to the principle of social responsibility, opposition to
oppression and domination, the eradication of racism and
poverty, and the emancipation of “people from the restrictive
social arrangements that make both instrumental and
substantively rational action difficult” (Gottschalk &
Witkin, 1991; Haynes & White, 1999; Gould, 2000; Rose,
2000; Witkin, 2000). Some authors have adopted a global
perspective and connected social justice with antiwar sentiments,
opposition to economic globalization and its consequences,
or the need to reorder national priorities (Verschelden,
1993; Prigoff, 2000; Van Soest, 1994).
These scholars, however, express significant differences
in their definition of social justice. Some equate
the profession’s commitment to human rights and social
justice and question “whether social justice goals can be
met without redistribution” (Beck & Eichler, 2000).
Others appear to define social justice as the pursuit of social
change or service to disadvantaged and vulnerable
groups, particularly people living in poverty (Witkin,
1998; 1999; 2000). Van Soest (1994) argues that the
three different justice theories—libertarianism, utilitarianism,
and egalitarianism—could all be used as the basis
for reordering national priorities and support people’s
“valid claim for a share of the resources needed to ensure
the provision of adequate food, clothing, and shelter.”
Gibelman (2000) sees the roots of injustice in discrimination
and maintains that “social justice refers to conditions
in which all members of society have the same basic
rights, protections, opportunities, obligations, and social
benefits.” Using Rawls’ conception of justice, Figueira-
McDonough (1993) emphasizes the importance of equality
in the distribution of social goods. Reflecting the 200-
year-old tension between individual liberty and social
equality, she questions, however, whether social work has
been able to attain its dual goals of self-determination and
social justice.
Gal (2001) elaborates on this issue through an exploration
of the different notions of social justice implied in
the concept of compensatory social welfare policies. Gal
maintains that social justice is defined in two fundamental
ways. One definition reflects efforts to reward individuals
for past services or contributions, or as a redress for “injuries
or losses inflicted unjustly on individuals or groups.”
This definition is often in conflict with the view of social
justice that emphasizes equality. Gal suggests that a way of
reconciling this conflict is to use the social welfare system
to ensure horizontal equality in meeting needs, while allowing
the market to reward people for their efforts by
“providing them with their just deserts.”
Influenced by Etzioni (1993), McNutt (1997) takes a
communitarian perspective that seeks to balance individual
rights and responsibilities in articulating a definition of
social justice. He asserts that social workers today primarily
rely upon the definitions of social justice formulated by
Rawls (1971, 2001), Beverly and McSweeny (1987), or
Goulet (1971) that are based more on individual rights.
As alternatives, McNutt suggests four possible positions
on social justice along a continuum from individual to
community hegemony:
• The Community Reigns Supreme. Social justice involves
individual sacrifice to the common good.
• The Community and the Community Good Position. This
view (embraced by communitarians) attempts to link
individual rights with community rights.
• The Individual Need Community Position. This is the
traditional liberal position in which social justice is assured
by state action and the common good is “defined in terms
of what will benefit all individuals and that the market
cannot deliver.”
• The Individual Reigns Supreme Position. The conception
of social justice “equates individual self-interest with the
common good.”
The absence of conceptual or historical clarity or
agreement among scholars, however, has not deterred
some authors from urging the profession to embrace its
social justice responsibilities more fully, as required by the
revised Code of Ethics (Brill, 2001; NASW, ), or to pursue
professional unity as a means of reviving the field’s interest
in social justice goals (Haynes & White, 1999). This
author would argue, however, that without this conceptual
clarity it is difficult to understand how the Council on
Social Work Education can require all social work
349