The ideology of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) is incredibly destructive, and ironically, given its name—incredibly unjust. I will assume that the readers of this are familiar with it, and recognize it as a very serious threat to actual justice, as well as being antithetical to a number of principles that true progressives, liberals, and all fair-minded people embrace. Here I propose an alternative that I believe will be necessary to stop it.
I believe that increasing dissatisfaction with various aspects of modern life is the actual driving force fueling the spread of CSJ. Out of the various problems, growing financial inequality is one of the most easily identifiable. It has grown so extreme, with the resulting actual pain being so widespread and obvious, that most reasonable people think that something must be done. CSJ currently advertises itself as the solution, wrongly treating any situation with unequal outcomes as problematic, regardless of the area—as long as it supports the CSJ narrative.
It’s worth a quick look at how CSJ has gotten as far as it has. In brief, CSJ has taken on the characteristics of a religion or mental virus, and has thrived by:
- taking an existing genuine problem – bad outcomes for significant fractions of the population;
- providing a simple (if wrong and morally flawed) explanation – sexism/racism;
- identifying a group of “oppressors” to blame – straight white males;
- developing/evolving a supporting belief system – postmodern neo-marxism (or feminist/gender/queer/race/whiteness studies);
- providing a righteous sounding (but non-working) “solution” – defeating the oppressors by discriminating against them until equity, as they define it, is achieved.
This explanation of CSJ obviously oversimplifies the views of the Foucaults and DiAngelos of the world, but I argue that this condensed view is in fact more relevant, in that this is what 99% of the adherents of CSJ have condensed all that Theory down to. Even for the Theorists, this is the subtext, and it has a powerful emotional appeal.
The effectiveness of CSJ’s spreading has been vastly furthered by its co-opting of some very important terminology—social justice, diversity, equity, inclusion. CSJ has made its inroads into a variety of unsuspecting institutions by claiming it provides a solution to problems that we all should care about, combined with an incremental strategy of indoctrination.
With respect to the adoption of CSJ, consider the following four groups:
- those who benefit directly from CSJ;
- those who have adopted it because they think the only alternative explanation for unequal outcomes must be biologically based gender/race inferiority;
- those who don’t really know much about CSJ;
- the majority of the readers of this article, who are familiar with CSJ and have rejected it.
Those who directly benefit from CSJ have extra incentive to adopt it because it is in their own self-interest. This group is potentially comprised of anyone who is not a white male, though it should be noted in passing that CSJ has established a caste system with status based on identity distance from the designated oppressor group (so the less white and male you are, the higher your status). Most members of this group will not be swayed by any rational arguments. The fact that it is directly in their self-interest to adopt and promote CSJ will in many cases override all other considerations of fairness and reason.
Another group of people have adopted CSJ because they see it as a clear alternative explanation for inequality, and CSJ claims to provide a path towards remedying it. Reason may change some minds here, but may not always be effective due to the emotional satisfaction that CSJ provides by identifying a group of people to blame.
A third group, the majority of people so far, don’t know much about social justice at all, other than that the name sounds good. These people have yet to be indoctrinated, but—in the absence of a competing ideology—the majority of them are likely to adopt CSJ. This is due to CSJ’s positive branding as a form of “social justice,” which results in a maxim of “when in doubt, go with social justice,” thus driving this situation and letting CSJ get away with its bullying.
A final group is comprised of those who have become familiar with CSJ, and reject it because they recognize it for the hate-fueled ideology that it is. We need to provide an ideology that will counter CSJ, so that those who haven’t adopted it have an alternative solution (and if we’re lucky, some of those who have already adopted CSJ might be starting to recognize how toxic it is, and be looking for an alternative).
I propose we call this alternative “Universal Social Justice” (USJ). CSJ has so far insulated itself very effectively from criticism by making people who are against it have to say they are “against Social Justice.” It’s worth thinking for a moment about how that sounds to someone who doesn’t know anything about CSJ yet. Making it clear that you are definitely in favor of a form of social justice that actually improves all people’s lives—a Universal Social Justice—but that you are against a destructive and hate-filled ideology—Critical Social Justice—allows you to start a discussion without instantly alienating the other party.
Fully developing USJ will take the work of many, but I’ll attempt an imperfect start with a quick outline here. To begin with, I propose we follow the approach taken by CSJ, but in a positive way. Let’s:
- acknowledge a genuine problem – bad outcomes for a significant fraction of the population;
- tease these apart from a different, sometimes concerning (and sometimes not) issue – financial inequality;
- identify the real explanations for differing outcomes – systemic issues with our current economic system and cultural variations between groups;
- identify the real explanations for other types of differences in results (e.g. STEM gender balance) – biology, preference, culture;
- accept that differences in results in some areas are okay – preference-driven differences don’t need to be fixed;
- explicitly reject oppression as the primary explanation for existing inequality – reject victimhood;
- reaffirm our commitment to equality of opportunity and legal status – reject discrimination;
- propose potentially workable solutions – UBI, promotion of intergroup mixing, providing better educational opportunities.
Financial inequality exists, and is becoming worse in ways that are patently obvious to everyone. Any ideology that attempts to sugar-coat or ignore this problem is doomed to failure, because the problem is now great enough so that no amount of spin can justify where we presently are. Harmful examples of this could fill a book; I’ll limit myself here to the observation that economics overlay laws, so that no democracy can exist where wealth disparities are too great. By way of example, having no income threatens your ability to find food and shelter; satisfying these needs requires you to take a job, and accept the conditions your employer chooses in the process. Though legally you may have the right to move around and wear any clothing you like, your employer can require you to stand still on a corner wearing a clown nose eighty hours per week, and you will do so if no other jobs are available. The control of employees outside the working hours is expanding as well, where an employee’s failure to exercise, on their own time, may result in a denial of health insurance benefits. As jobs become scarcer this level of control—off the job as well as on—becomes more pronounced.
Where USJ differs from CSJ regarding this is that USJ recognizes that the root of the problem is not directly attributable to any particular group of people/oppressors. It stems instead from the complex economic system we have jointly created, with corresponding emergent behavior that is only loosely predictable. Right now that system is behaving in a way that is overly concentrating wealth.
A core principle of USJ must thus be a recognition of the existence of objective reality, and its effects on all of us. CSJ denies the existence of this reality because it has to—otherwise numerous aspects of its claims become demonstrably falsifiable. This denial of reality is also why its solutions won’t work; problems are rarely solved if their causes are incorrectly identified.
One example of this denial is that of biology with respect to gender. If some psychological differences between the genders due to biology are present on a statistical basis, corresponding differences in the statistics of STEM representation by gender can be (and are) explained without appealing to oppression. This totally defeats the oppressor narrative, and thus biology cannot be allowed by CSJ. (The flip-side is also a feature of CSJ: if such differences exist, acknowledging them could potentially be misused to justify oppression, so they cannot be allowed by CSJ.)
Another example is that of effects of cultural variation on income levels. If we acknowledge that the culture of one group results, on average, in half as much time spent studying as that of another, then this is sufficient to explain statistical differences in financial outcomes. This explanation also runs counter to the CSJ narrative, and thus the importance of cultural differences on outcomes must be denied. Recognizing objective reality thus allows USJ to reject the oppressor/victim mentality, which is key to actually making progress.
A Universal Social Justice also must reaffirm our commitment to some of the principles that have resulted in the incredible progress that actually has been made. We need to reaffirm that everyone must be treated equally without regard to any non-behavioral characteristics (e.g. race/gender/sexual orientation), and explicitly reject discrimination. Critical Social Justice seeks to create a new caste system with preferential behavior towards those of higher status legally enshrined in it; this must be stopped. We must also explicitly support freedom of speech, having faith that good ideas will overcome bad ones in the marketplace of ideas. We must also address solutions towards financial inequality, admitting there’s an issue and experimenting with ways to ameliorate it, such as Universal Basic Income, or other changes in our economic system. Finally, we must work against tribalism, minimizing that which divides us and reaffirming the common characteristics shared by all humanity.
Universal Social Justice—applicable to all—needs to be developed. Let’s build it, so that institutions (and individuals) have a concrete alternative to Critical Social Justice that will help us get back on the track to making progress for everyone.
13 comments
When I look at the unequal outcomes, I don’t blame “systemic racism,” and I also don’t need to believe or disbelieve in the racial inferiority of anybody. I just deal with individuals. Idiots of any race are idiots, geniuses are geniuses. Deal with them as such. It could be that genius genes are more prevalent in some groups and stupid genes occur more often in others. So what? If you deal with people as individuals it doesn’t matter.
True justice is if random people can own ten palaces for no reason
and 99% of the population just have a small house or apartment.
Justice is not about money,poverty, poverty
is just whatever you want, wherever you want it.
If we are all economically equals then life has no meaning,
Life is void of all meaning if the government is looking after you
and if you are constantly helped or controlled by a benevolent authority.
What makes life worth living is the opposite of being surrounded by manipulative SJW
who wants to control everything to make it more moral.
What makes life worth having is good art, beautiful cities, intelligent and interesting friends,
freedom of association and discrimination by having social cliques,
the value of youth, beauty, age, gender and other things that are baked into good taste,
The idea of an ethical society is an ugly creative society where nobody posses
any personality traits at all.
Ethical issues cannot create anything worth having, moralists only look at existing
technologies and complain about how they are used
but ethics is always bad for art.
I don’t care how big the gap between rich and poor is. The billionaire can have 10 mansions with solid gold toilets, as long as he didn’t rob me to get them, I don’t care.
What bothers me is crony capitalism. What bothers me is earning “enough” only to have the government rob me through taxes.
Historically, poor people starved. In this country, poor people are fat.
As far as not being able to afford housing, look at rent control and zoning laws. People don’t invest in building affordable housing if they can’t collect enough rent to justify the investment. And zoning laws prevent housing from being built – NIMBY helps to keep housing expensive.
I don’t see UBI as a solution. That’s just printing money and handing it out. We did that in the pandemic and now we have runaway inflation.
The issue of income disparity is quite a thorny one. On the one hand are the completely outrageous and, generally undeserved, compensations paid to senior execs relative to the average worker (I prefer “median worker ” but that’s a detail) and the excessive “rents” demanded by and paid to investors and shareholders. On the other hand are persons who become wealthy because of scalable activities. If a singer manages to sell 10₩ million copies of a song at $0.05 each, they still make $5 million for a few hours work but is that the same as the over paid CEO ? How do we decide that an “in demand” exec is “gouging” if a BoDs is willing to pay them $100 million. Is Joe Rogan a gouging gifted because Spotify was willing to pay him $100 million to get exclusivity in hosting his podcast ? I don’t have any answers, just a LOT of questions.
“Economic Inequality” as a problem is a pathos-laden envy-trap. It also implies a default class of solutions.
“Insufficiency” might be a better label for the problem. Where there’s real plundering, call that out. Where all groups are suffering an obesity epidemic, and needs involve services that didn’t exist a hundred years ago, we have something complex to talk about.
I respectfully disagree that focusing on income inequality is a problem that results in mere envy. We cannot have a system based on true justice if a tiny handful are allowed to own ten palaces while the vast majority can barely afford a one-bedroom apartment, and control the media, when a few billion other hard-working people are beneath them working to make this few wealthy. That isn’t envy, it’s righteous indignation. All work is valuable, and no one works literally millions of times harder than others to actually justify such disparities of access to the wealth we as a civilization collectively produce. The fact that some jobs pay so much more than others is also a serious problem within the context of the working class, because not everyone is capable of working every type of job, and all jobs are very important in their own way. We should place more emphasis on seeing that everyone has a job they are good at and suited for personally instead of arguing over which job is more important than others. Let us also note that some high-paying jobs, such as corporate law and debt collection, are parasitic, anti-social jobs that do not benefit society as a whole. This is why when i rejected “woke” ideology I did not turn to conservatism or Libertarianism as an alternative, but to classic Left.
“the vast majority can barely afford a one-bedroom apartment”
This simply isn’t the case. While there has been a slight trend in the past decade of a shrinking Middle Class, the fact remains, the Middle Class is extraordinarily healthy. There are some who can’t afford a one-bedroom apartment (particularly on the coasts) while the large majority own houses (64%). The rate of ownership has dropped among younger adults as they are more frequently turning to the flexibility and mobility that comes from renting, but they wouldn’t be categorized as poverty.
You say billionaires are “allowed” to own…obviously in a our constitutional society nobody “allows” us to own anything, we simply can. Many societies have tried the concept of allocating ownership (or not). Why can we not see how this actually plays out?
What does “true justice” mean? I’m not sure how true justice would actually function from this context.
I’m don’t know if some jobs are more important than others but surely some jobs are more valuable than others. We naturally place ‘value’ on literally everything (you can buy a digital certificate of someone’s actual arm if you want – not joking – google it), how would this not translate to job valuations? Of course there are examples of grossly immoral behavior (should I really be buying this painting for $2M when there are starving children in the world?) but how would humans function in a system that didn’t align with our need to ‘value’ everything? Better question: how would a system built on “true justice” ever function with humans, who at their core, are greedy and selfish? Capitalism (I know this is a loose use of the term) accounts for these characteristics and makes the most of them.
PS – Many frequently point at the wealthiest in the world, the Bezos and Musk’s of the world, and ask “why/how”, but those are anecdotes that only elicit emotion. They’re extreme and don’t even register on the bell curve. There are 640 billionaires in the US which accounts for 0.0000014 of the population. You could make the point that they own a significantly greater portion of the wealth in the US (approx 5% – $5T out of $100T) but how many people work for them and can afford a home because of it? I’m not holding them on a pedestal or saying they should be protected, I’m suggesting when people use them as examples as how our system is failing, they aren’t painting representative pictures.
PPS fine by me if we had a lot less lawyers around…
Great article; I’m in support of this proposed alternative.
Side note: Is “your employer can require you to stand still on a corner wearing a clown nose eighty hours per week, and you will do so if no other jobs are available” a subtle nod to ‘Joker’? Or have I invented this connection myself?
Yuval Harari claims that future bio-engineering will empower human intelligence. Looking through the subjects of spam letters I get everyday, I can confidently say, he is wrong. These letters promise to enlarge… but not an intelligence.
The same I can say about your Universal Basic Income – the result will be the “Universe 25” of John Calhoun.
Steve Jobs said once about television “…The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want…” (very famous quote). Because you work in high tech, I would recommend you to think a bit more about these words of the genius of high tech.
So far, sorry, the difference that I see between Critical Social Justice and Universal Social Justice comes down to recommending to commit suicide with less painful methods.
Interesting and thought-provoking. And amen regarding corporations’ intrusions into employees’ lives.
But I would differ if by “iniquity” one means simple inequality of outcome. Inequality in itself is not a problem at all. Insufficiency is the problem, but may not be present even in a highly unequal system. For example, adding a single billionaire to a population of millionaires instantly produces inequality, but no insufficiency and is therefore not a problem. Inequality is a luxury concept, something people only begin to worry about when the problem of real poverty has largely been solved. It is interesting how the very word “poverty” has largely been replaced by “inequality” in this century.
Jim Berman makes a good point about covetousness. I would take it further and warn of jealousy, which used to be a Deadly Sin but is now a fifth Cardinal Virtue for many. It is all too easy to level down rather than up, to redistribute misery rather than wealth, and to accept without question the baleful Zero Sum Gain theory.
Hi Jim – thanks for the support; I appreciate it.
Regarding prioritization of reduction of key resource deprivation vs reduction of financial inequity, I’m assuming we’re at a point in the development of humanity where (given the cooperative will to do so) we can solve the key resource problem, for everyone. In trying to do so it seems we are on fairly solid ground.
The feasibility/desirability of reducing financial inequity beyond that should be the subject of a much more involved, though still very important, discussion. The start of that discussion should include establishing mutual agreement of what the word “inequity” means, since it’s been (unintentionally?) bifurcated.
Would you be up for helping to further the concept of universal social justice by writing something to flesh out this important question?
Rohan, I love the idea and the positioning of Universal Social Justice. Count me in.
Your article makes me wonder, though, what is it about human nature that elevates reducing financial inequity above reducing deprivation of key resources? Is it covetousness that is not checked in an increasingly secular society, or is it amour-propre? Shouldn’t assuring that all have the needs to sustain life and some free time to pursue self-actualization be a preferred focus of activism?
Maybe we should ask Japan why their average CEO makes 16 times the salary of their average worker, while the average American CEO’s salary has ballooned to more than 300 times that of the average American worker’s. CEO salaries have steadily increased in step with inflation while the spending power of the rank and file has been stagnant since around 1980.
I am definitely no economist and am just passing along what I have read. But if unbridled greed is the culprit behind our huge disparity in wealth, I don’t know what can be done about it. With such wealth comes a lot of power and influence.