What is social justice? I searched the internet to answer this question and the definition I consistently found was that social justice is justice relating to the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect the ideology that is ultimately behind this definition. Many who take up the cause of social justice today understand it in these terms and even operate under this ideology. The ideology, of course, stems from the revolutionary principles of the French Revolution, Communism, Socialism, and Critical Theory. It is the ideology that understands equality to mean "uniformity," and thinks of justice in terms of the radical overturning of oppressive structures and state enforcement of that uniformity.
Thankfully, this is not the only definition of social justice. In fact, the term has a history dating back to the mid-1700s and was used both in the context of enlightenment philosophy and Catholic social thought. The term is even used in the Federalist Papers. Russell Kirk, one of the foremost American Conservative thinkers of the 20th Century also used the term in a positive way but with a definition that differed from the one above.
Justice Defined
How did he understand social justice? First, he defines justice.
Justice Defined
How did he understand social justice? First, he defines justice.
Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own--to the things best suited to their own nature, to the rewards of their ability and integrity, to their property and personality. Civilized society requires that all men and women have equal rights before the law, but that equality should not extend to equality of condition: that is, society is a great partnership, in which all have equal rights--but not to equal things. The just society requires sound leadership, different rewards for abilities, and a sense of respect and duty.
What is the basis for his definition of justice; from where does it come? He writes, "It comes to us from two sources: the Judaic and Christian faith in a just God whom we fear and love, and whose commandments are expressed in unmistakable language; and the teachings of classical philosophy, in particular, the principles expressed in Plato's Republic and incorporated into Roman jurisprudence by Cicero and his successors." In other words, his definition is based upon the best sources that have shaped our understanding of justice. We could say this is the classical view of justice.
Compare his definition to the one in Justinian's Digest of Roman Law: "Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi" (Justice is a constant and perpetual will to render to each one his right; Digest 1.1.10). Or Aristotle who said, "Justice is that in virtue of which the just man is said to be a doer, by choice, of that which is just" (Ethics V.5). Or Aquinas, "Justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will" (ST, SS, 58.1). Above all, however, "the concept of Justice on earth which both these traditions inculcate is, in substance, this: the idea of Justice is implanted in our minds by a Power that is more than human, and our mundane Justice is our attempt to copy a perfect Justice that abides in a realm beyond time and space; and the general rule by which we endeavor to determine just conduct and just reward may be expressed as 'To each man, the things that are his own.'"
Compare his definition to the one in Justinian's Digest of Roman Law: "Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi" (Justice is a constant and perpetual will to render to each one his right; Digest 1.1.10). Or Aristotle who said, "Justice is that in virtue of which the just man is said to be a doer, by choice, of that which is just" (Ethics V.5). Or Aquinas, "Justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will" (ST, SS, 58.1). Above all, however, "the concept of Justice on earth which both these traditions inculcate is, in substance, this: the idea of Justice is implanted in our minds by a Power that is more than human, and our mundane Justice is our attempt to copy a perfect Justice that abides in a realm beyond time and space; and the general rule by which we endeavor to determine just conduct and just reward may be expressed as 'To each man, the things that are his own.'"
Private and Social Justice; Commutative and Distributive Justice
Second, Kirk sees in this classical view of justice several distinctions. The first distinction he finds in Plato, vis., the distinction between justice in private character and justice in society--social justice. Private justice is "attained by that balance and harmony in character" which shines out in the just man. Social justice "is similarly attained by harmony and balance; it is the communal equivalent of that right proportion and government of reason, will, and appetite which the just man displays in his private character." In order to have social justice, we must have private justice. We cannot have a just society without just men. And when we have a society made up of just men, we have a happy society, for, as Kirk notes, "The happy man, Socrates maintains, is the just man; and the happy society is the just society." This understanding of social justice comprehends also the division of labor. Kirk quotes from the Republic, "true justice requires 'the carpenter and the shoemaker and the rest of the citizens to do each his own business, and not another's.'" He continues, "Injustice in society comes when men try to undertake roles for which they are not fitted, and claim rewards to which they are not entitled, and deny other men what really belongs to them."
Kirk sees real meaning in the term "social justice." It is not some abstract concept that cannot be born out in the practical day to day living, but, rather, it merges with the reality of both the unity of and diversity within society. He writes,
He sees this misrepresentation of distributive justice as "the callous repudiation of the classical and Christian idea of justice." "True justice," Kirk maintains, "secures every man in the possession of what is his own, and provides that he will receive the reward of his talents; but true justice also ensures that no man shall seize the property and the rights that belong to other classes and persons, on the pretext of an abstract equality." True justice respects the diversity found within society and does not seek to suppress it through an artificial and state-enforced equality. "The just man," he writes, "knows that men differ in strength, in intelligence, in energy, in beauty, in dexterity, in discipline, in inheritance, in particular talents; and he sets his face, therefore, against any scheme of pretended 'social justice' which would treat all men alike. There could be no greater injustice to society than to give the good, the industrious, and the frugal the same rewards as the vicious, the indolent, and the spendthrift." Such a view of social justice that demands the goods of others be distributed to all, he says, is "a vice--the vice of covetousness."
Diversity not only applies to labor and conditions, but to rewards as well. Kirk writes,
We must understand that inequality does not necessarily imply injustice. Kirk writes, "There is not injustice in inequality, as such; the only unjust inequality is that in which a man is denied the things for which his nature is suited in favor of a man whose claims to those things is inferior. And precisely this latter sort of inequality is what the radicals would establish, depriving a great many men of the occupations and rewards to which their nature entitles them, for the ridiculous division of all things among all men." This statement ought to be read as a rebuke to many who have taken up the cause of an illegitimate form of social justice.
Diversity Not At the Cost of Unity
Fourth, Kirk is not so concerned with individuality and diversity that he wants to set up a radical political ideology of individualism. He is, by no means, a proponent of the kind of individualism espoused by Ayn Rand. Rather, he sees true social justice as maintaining the proper balance between unity and diversity. If everyone was the same, he says, that would be boring, but those who have greater gifts must not use them to trample on those with lesser gifts. There exists in the world a diversity of people and a diversity of gifts, and justice maintains that we ought to protect that diversity for the good of the whole. He writes,
Kirk finds in the concept of Christian charity the answer to those who proclaim that an artificial equality is the only way to benefit the poor. "Now the Christian concept of charity," he writes, "enjoins constant endeavor to improve the lot of the poor; but the Christian faith...does not command the sacrifice of the welfare of one class to that of another class; instead, Christian teaching looks upon the rich and powerful as the elder brothers of the poor and weak, given their privileges that they may help to improve the character and the condition of all humanity." The Christian view of justice does not prescribe the abolition of class and private rights in the name of an artifical equality. "Christian thinkers," he says, "hope to employ commutative and distributive justice for the realization of the peculiar talents and hopes of each individual, not the confounding of all personality in one collective monotony."
Conclusion
No doubt, one can nit-pick their way through Russell Kirk's view of social justice. There is nothing stated about racial injustice or the plight of Native Americans. Nothing about the alleged systemic oppression or discrimination caused by the overlap of various social identities. I could add, too, that, from my own perspective, I think he lacks a fulsome discussion of the source of injustice in original sin, how everyone has fallen short of the glorious standard of God's justice, or how through the power of the gospel a person can become truly just, though I don't think he is entirely neglectful of these things. Is his view of social justice, then, too simplistic, too naive? I don't believe Kirk to be beyond criticism, and his proposal of the classical, Christian view of social justice can, admittedly, be applied in a simplistic and naive way to social injustices, but I would maintain that it, nevertheless, is still based upon the best undestanding of social justice. It understands that everyone has an equal right to order and justice, but that not everyone is equal in ability, condition, inheritance, ambition, etc. There is no need to force an artificial equality upon everyone for the sake of emancipation from some imagined oppression of inequality. The idea of rendering to each his due means that the unjust man will be punished and the just man will be rewarded. Those who seek to live peaceable lives in this world will be allowed to continue their lives and livelihoods without fear of repression. Those who have granted much have the duty to have compassion on those with little. Those who have been dealt with unjustly can expect to see punishment meted out to the one who has acted unjustly. The government is not in power to micromanage us under a forced and artificial equality. It exists to make sure that each one is rendered his due. In this way, we have the makings, I believe, of a happier society.
Sources:
Russell Kirk, Russell Kirk's Concise Guide to Conservativism. Washington DC, Regnery Gateway, 2019.
Russell Kirk, A Program for Conservatives. Chicago: Regnery, 1954.
Kirk sees real meaning in the term "social justice." It is not some abstract concept that cannot be born out in the practical day to day living, but, rather, it merges with the reality of both the unity of and diversity within society. He writes,
The Christian concepts of charity and obedience are bound up with the Christian idea of a just society; while for the Platonic and Ciceronian philosopher, no government is righteous unless it conforms to the same standards of conduct as those which the just man respects. We all have real obligations toward our fellow-men, for it was ordained by Omniscience that men should live together in charity and brotherhood. A just society, guided by these lights, will endeavor to provide that every man be free to do the work for which he is best suited, and that he receive the rewards which that work deserves, and that no one will meddle with him. Thus cooperation, not strife, will be the governing influence in the state; class will not turn against class, but all men will realize, instead, that a variety of occupations, duties, and rewards is necessary to civilization and the rule of law.The second distinction is that between commutative and distributive justice. Commutative justice is "that righteous relationship by which one gives his goods or services to another man and receives an equivalent benefit, to the betterment of both. Distributive justice is "that arrangement in society by which each man obtains what his nature and his labor entitle him to, without oppression or evasion." Distributive justice is concerned with how wealth and opportunity are distributed. But, according to the classical, Christian view, these things are distributed to the one to whom it is due. Both concepts, he says, have been badly misunderstood, especially distributive justice. Recall the definition of social justice as concerned with the distribution of wealth, privileges, and opportunities within society. This is based upon the misunderstanding that distributive justice means an equal distribution, not of justice and order only, but of wealth and conditions. This misunderstanding of distributive justice "consists in treating every man as if he were a cog in a social machine, with precisely the same qualities and hopes as his neighbor." It wants justice to mean "uniformity of existence," and to achieve this uniformity we must "depress the better to help the worse; and thus we will deliberately treat the strong, the energetic, and the intelligent unfairly, that we may make their natural inferiors their equals in condition."
He sees this misrepresentation of distributive justice as "the callous repudiation of the classical and Christian idea of justice." "True justice," Kirk maintains, "secures every man in the possession of what is his own, and provides that he will receive the reward of his talents; but true justice also ensures that no man shall seize the property and the rights that belong to other classes and persons, on the pretext of an abstract equality." True justice respects the diversity found within society and does not seek to suppress it through an artificial and state-enforced equality. "The just man," he writes, "knows that men differ in strength, in intelligence, in energy, in beauty, in dexterity, in discipline, in inheritance, in particular talents; and he sets his face, therefore, against any scheme of pretended 'social justice' which would treat all men alike. There could be no greater injustice to society than to give the good, the industrious, and the frugal the same rewards as the vicious, the indolent, and the spendthrift." Such a view of social justice that demands the goods of others be distributed to all, he says, is "a vice--the vice of covetousness."
Diversity not only applies to labor and conditions, but to rewards as well. Kirk writes,
Different types of character deserve different types of reward. The best reward of the scholar is contemplative leisure; the best reward of the soldier is public honor; the best reward of the quiet man is the secure routine of domestic existence; the best reward of the statesman is just power; the best reward of skilled craftsman is the opportunity to make fine things; the best reward of the farmer is decent rural competence; the best reward of the industrialist is the sight of what his own industry has built; the best reward of the good wife is the goodness of her children. To reduce all these varieties of talent and aspiration, with many more, to the dull nexus of cash payment, is the act of a dull and envious mind; and then to make that cash payment the same for every individual is an act calculated to make society one everlasting frustration for the best men and women.The classical, Christian idea of rendering to each his due goes beyond the idea of capital. There are intangible rewards as well. But when an artificial equality is forced upon society, these intangible rewards will become scarce.
We must understand that inequality does not necessarily imply injustice. Kirk writes, "There is not injustice in inequality, as such; the only unjust inequality is that in which a man is denied the things for which his nature is suited in favor of a man whose claims to those things is inferior. And precisely this latter sort of inequality is what the radicals would establish, depriving a great many men of the occupations and rewards to which their nature entitles them, for the ridiculous division of all things among all men." This statement ought to be read as a rebuke to many who have taken up the cause of an illegitimate form of social justice.
Diversity Not At the Cost of Unity
Fourth, Kirk is not so concerned with individuality and diversity that he wants to set up a radical political ideology of individualism. He is, by no means, a proponent of the kind of individualism espoused by Ayn Rand. Rather, he sees true social justice as maintaining the proper balance between unity and diversity. If everyone was the same, he says, that would be boring, but those who have greater gifts must not use them to trample on those with lesser gifts. There exists in the world a diversity of people and a diversity of gifts, and justice maintains that we ought to protect that diversity for the good of the whole. He writes,
The wise government, in the conservative's view, tries to insure two great principles relative to human personality. The first of these principles is that the men and women of remarkable minds and abilities ought to be protected in their right to develop and unfold their unusual personalities. The second of these principles is that men and women in the ordinary walks of life, who do not have the ability or the wish to accomplish remarkable things, ought to be protected in their right to proceed in the placid round of their duties and enjoyments, unoppressed by the people with remarkable abilities.This is a view of individuality that rejects a "devil take the hintermost" mentality. "Society," he writes, "ought to foster true individuality, and that the proper checks upon a ruthless individualism are private conscience and good constitutions, not constant and direct political surveillance of our economy and private lives." It is in this way that we can expect real social justice to take fruit. For, Kirk writes, "Each man should have the right to the fruit of his labors, and the right to freedom from being meddled with; and each man should do the work for which his nature and his inheritance best qualify him."
Kirk finds in the concept of Christian charity the answer to those who proclaim that an artificial equality is the only way to benefit the poor. "Now the Christian concept of charity," he writes, "enjoins constant endeavor to improve the lot of the poor; but the Christian faith...does not command the sacrifice of the welfare of one class to that of another class; instead, Christian teaching looks upon the rich and powerful as the elder brothers of the poor and weak, given their privileges that they may help to improve the character and the condition of all humanity." The Christian view of justice does not prescribe the abolition of class and private rights in the name of an artifical equality. "Christian thinkers," he says, "hope to employ commutative and distributive justice for the realization of the peculiar talents and hopes of each individual, not the confounding of all personality in one collective monotony."
Conclusion
No doubt, one can nit-pick their way through Russell Kirk's view of social justice. There is nothing stated about racial injustice or the plight of Native Americans. Nothing about the alleged systemic oppression or discrimination caused by the overlap of various social identities. I could add, too, that, from my own perspective, I think he lacks a fulsome discussion of the source of injustice in original sin, how everyone has fallen short of the glorious standard of God's justice, or how through the power of the gospel a person can become truly just, though I don't think he is entirely neglectful of these things. Is his view of social justice, then, too simplistic, too naive? I don't believe Kirk to be beyond criticism, and his proposal of the classical, Christian view of social justice can, admittedly, be applied in a simplistic and naive way to social injustices, but I would maintain that it, nevertheless, is still based upon the best undestanding of social justice. It understands that everyone has an equal right to order and justice, but that not everyone is equal in ability, condition, inheritance, ambition, etc. There is no need to force an artificial equality upon everyone for the sake of emancipation from some imagined oppression of inequality. The idea of rendering to each his due means that the unjust man will be punished and the just man will be rewarded. Those who seek to live peaceable lives in this world will be allowed to continue their lives and livelihoods without fear of repression. Those who have granted much have the duty to have compassion on those with little. Those who have been dealt with unjustly can expect to see punishment meted out to the one who has acted unjustly. The government is not in power to micromanage us under a forced and artificial equality. It exists to make sure that each one is rendered his due. In this way, we have the makings, I believe, of a happier society.
Sources:
Russell Kirk, Russell Kirk's Concise Guide to Conservativism. Washington DC, Regnery Gateway, 2019.
Russell Kirk, A Program for Conservatives. Chicago: Regnery, 1954.
