Social justice in a broader sense, includes distributive principle relating to social opportunities in all its aspects—economic, political, cultural and intellectual. Social justice amounts to presence of equal social opportunities for all to seek the best of their personality and moral and intellectual development. As such, social justice aims at securing those conditions and opportunities, which are necessary for all individuals to attain intellectual and moral freedom, human dignity, human rights and basic human equality irrespective of social differentiations. Unequal social opportunities arise from social differentiations on various grounds and by assigning status and privileges to all of them. The common basis of social differentiation for assigning status and privileges include birth, caste, class, colour/race, gender, religion, etc. When legal, economic and political power and privileges are distributed differently amongst different sections of the society according to social differentiation, social justice is founding lacking.
During the demand of the rising capitalist class against the decaying feudal aristocracy and nobility, demand for social equality and abolition of social privileges was paramount. To achieve social equality, legal equality was invoked. Social justice is closely a function of social equality. Social equality does not mean social uniformity or social homogeneity. It means absence of artificial differentiations based on social distinctions for the purpose of distribution in a society of resources, economic and material benefits, public employment and offices, and social, political, economic, educational and other opportunities. For example, gender-based unequal distribution of work and employment opportunities, caste-based unequal distribution of not only social dignity but also access to intellectual, moral and material opportunities, race-based discrimination, etc.
Thinkers such as Marx, Tocqueville, Weber, have commented on the changes that occurred with the coming of the capitalist system and democracy. Marx felt that capitalist and market based system helped in removing privilege-based distinction of the feudal system and introduced contract based equality, though in a class divided society. Weber, Barker and others have also pointed out that contract based socio-economic interaction provides the basis for social justice in liberal–capitalist order. Tocqueville had mentioned that democracy introduced a passion for social equality. It appears that the principle of social justice finds wider acceptance with the emergence of liberal ideas, democratic principles, contract-based markets and a wide range introduction of legal and political justice. Constitutional democracies generally recognize its citizens equally, irrespective of social backgrounds, and confer equal political, social and economic rights. In fact, the modern concept of citizenship in defining state–individual relationship has contributed to the cause of social justice. Concept of social justice has been also strengthened with the emphasis on human rights. Concept of human rights identifies individuals as repository of human dignity, inherent rights of development and self-realization and intellectual and moral freedom. It recognizes cultural and intellectual freedom based on different practices but that too to enhance overall the basic human dignity and moral development.
Social justice has become a basis of, what Heywood calls, ‘who should get what’. This relates the concept of social justice with that of distributive justice. David Miller in his book Social Justice (1976) has identified three main contesting principles of social justice.51 These are based on the distributive principle and include: (i) social justice as distribution according to needs, (ii) social justice as distribution according to rights, and (iii) social justice as distribution according to deserts. As we have discussed above, Marx, Rawls and Chapman support needs-based social justice; Nozick advocates rights or entitlement-based social justice; and deserts-based social justice involves distribution as per what one deserves or what a person is due. THE Needs-based social justice principle implies equality as the basis of distribution (Marx and Rawls) and is generally associated with socialist and welfarist principle. On the other hand, both rights- and deserts-based social justice principles reject equality presumption and argue for the differential distributive principle. Entitlement- and rights-based social justice principle is generally identified with defence of liberal–capitalist order and with Nozick it is a defence of minimalist laissez faire order. The deserts-based social justice principle closely resembles rights-based principle but is more conservative.
It will not be out of place to mention that functionalist theorists such as Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, Wilbert Moore and others in the 1960s supported social stratification as functionally required.52 As part of their argument, they advocated that difference in distribution of material rewards in society arise from difference in performing functionally important works. Functionally important means those works which are unique compared to similar others, for example, a doctor being unique over the nurse because while the former can perform what the latter can do, the vice versa may not be true. Due this functional priority or uniqueness of the one over the other, distribution of material rewards in society differ, and they insist, differ it must. We can infer that rights, entitlements, deserts and functional importance are some of the criteria that have been invoked to justify and defend unequal distribution of rewards and resources in society.
In the Indian context, the Preamble of the Constitution of India declares to secure to all its citizens ‘JUSTICE, social, economic and political’ as a goal. Dr Ambedkar argued that social justice should be based on the principle of basic human equality. He stressed that social justice was a precondition for a stable and successful democracy. Dr Ambedkar was particularly concerned with caste-based social inequality and especially the practice of untouchability. His forceful struggle and realization of the importance of social equality in post-independent India resulted in abolition of the practice of untouchability. The Indian Constitution abolished this practice and made it punishable. The Indian Constitution provides basic equal opportunities to all citizens irrespective of social differentiations. Social justice has been recognized as a principle for bringing social equality, removing historical caste injustice and discrimination. Although caste-based reservations in public employment and public offices as a component of social justice in India have provoked sharp reactions and protests from sections of society, they raise objections on the basis that policies followed under social justice are violative of merits and deserts-based distribution of rewards. In brief, the operation of social justice in India has been severely and forcefully contested.
Leave a Reply