In the legal and political realms, justice is believed to be one of the most fundamental moral ideals. Law and order are essential, but they can only be achieved if justice is also established. In many facets of the community, social justice fosters consistency and fairness. Equal economic, cultural, and professional possibilities, for instance, are promoted. In addition, it is critical for individual and community protection and wellbeing. The theory of transformative justice can bend the arc of the universe towards justice by discussing the necessity of attaining social order.
In a culture, social justice refers to the equitable distribution of money, opportunities, and advantages. The term “social justice” relates to the procedure of ensuring that people perform their societal obligations and obtain what they are owed by society. The objective of social justice is fair and effective involvement of individuals from all social identification sections of the community that is jointly molded to satisfy their needs (Adams 26). The process of achieving social equality should be transparent and inclusive, and it should take into account human variety and group distinctions (Adams 26). In addition, it is tolerant and supportive of personal interaction and the ability to collaborate with others to effect change (Adams 26). Equality as it emerges in the community, such as in healthcare, work, or accommodation, is referred to as social justice. Social justice encompasses all facets of society, particularly sex and ethnicity, and is intertwined with human rights. Racial injustice is considered to be one of the extremely frequent social justice challenges, and most governments have a background of racial discrimination and oppression.
Inequality can emerge as a consequence of unfair biases or policies, and social justice concerns can arise in almost every element of society. In terms of economics, initiatives to transfer wealth, revenue, or employment prosperity from advantaged individuals to poor groups are commonly referred to as social justice. Social injustice has many origins, including racism, income disparity, and class prejudice, but it may harm anybody. Courts exist to administer justice, preserve liberty, promote social order, settle conflicts, uphold the rule of law, offer constitutional protection, and enforce due process. They function so that individual and state fairness is a practice rather than simply ideology. Justice is decided by the elites in the political, economic, and social areas through policy, social conditions, and antagonisms that are created.
It is Dr. Martin Luther King that is coined the phrase “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” (Elllis). Although this was just as much as an exclamation of faith, it also indicates that the path towards what is perceived as justice, meaning equality, fairness, nondiscriminatory institutions, a policy that creates equal opportunities, and others – it is possible through change, but it is a long process. Change in the US occurs through advocacy, policy, Supreme Court rulings, and social views, and oftentimes the path is long-lasting and full of errors, but with effort, it does arrive at more justice achieved with time as civilization progresses.
Distributive justice calls for the fair distribution of resources, benefits, and burdens. While that is something that society should strive for, it avoids the underlying problems. Furthermore, there is significant pushback against a distributive approach, as many people feel that their hard work is being used to compensate for the poor decisions of others. While that view is incomplete and discriminatory in a way, it is not entirely incorrect. Distributive justice is a micro-targeted approach. Fair allocation of resources takes into account the total amount of resources, the distributing procedure, and the resulting distribution pattern.
Rawls, in Theory of Justice, claims that where one is born, social status and other unpredictable factors are a matter of luck, with distributive justice being the means to limit the influence of luck to distribute goods more fairly, affecting the outcome. Meanwhile, Robert Nozick argued that distributive justice is about the process which should set rules and standards based on which individuals can be provided resources. He argues it is not about the outcome but the fairness of the process (Maiese). Ultimately distributive justice is less effective in attaining long-term sustainable justice because it relies on attempting to equalize outcomes and conditions, which is realistically impossible because the world is dynamic and justice as a concept is not static.
Meanwhile, transformative justice seeks to embrace systemic change at the macro level. The theoretical perspective argues that if the imbalance in society is recognized and corrected, the systems of power and inequality to equality will be inherently fairer. Gready and Robins define transformative justice as one that “emphasizes local agency and resources, the prioritization of process rather than preconceived outcomes, and the challenging of unequal and intersecting power relationships and structures of exclusion” (31). The inequalities recognized in communities, such as political, economic, and social, can be transformed if the society accepts responsibilities and takes an introspective on what was the cause of these injustices and disbalance. In turn, there is remediation and transformation of the structural forms of injustices ranging from institutions to general perspectives of society, such as racism. While transformative justice does respond to the immediate needs as well as distributive justice, it attempts to situate the context within broader frameworks with a holistic approach to socio-structural, cultural, and institutional arrangements.
As emphasized earlier, injustice is commonly based on the cycle of disadvantage and oppression stemming from socio-economic and political factors along with access to opportunities (in education, business). Transformative justice seeks to change that from within, with transformative persons at the micro-level, systems within communities at the meso level, and finally, national policy and societal approach as a macro goal. Transformative justice aims to utilize decision-makers of justice in order to transform the means into advantages and elimination of antagonism.
For example, privilege is an antagonism which leads disadvantage of certain social groups and the advantage of others, often leading to the dominance of ideology and practical aspects such as socioeconomic class. Transformative justice through policy and other means would seek to establish a system of meritocracy and social egalitarianism. In a meritocracy, there is the belief that everyone should be treated the same regardless of personal characteristics, while egalitarianism denies the concept of a fixed or presumed social rank or precedence. Therefore, people are given the same opportunities to earn positions and wealth in order to attain privilege and advantages. Inequality will continue to exist to some extent because not all people are equal, some are stronger, smarter, and more talented. However, these inequalities will not be so substantially drastic and will not depend on factors that an individual cannot change.
Transformative justice is not commonly a result of a top-down approach to legal frameworks or institutional templates but a bottom-up comprehension of the lives and needs of the different populations that are facing social injustice and inequality. Transformative approaches differ from the emancipatory or distributive methods but focus on holistic peacebuilding and conflict resolution to antagonisms. National change is inherently a prerequisite for transformation within the various contexts and processes which emerge in such transition. However, conflict transformation allows for the comprehensive approach which focuses on the many dimensions (micro to macro, local to national and global, grassroots to elites) necessary to develop the capacity for structural change and facilitate outcomes that represent a moral arc and true justice.
Works Cited
Adams, Maurianne. Readings for Diversity and Social Justice. Routledge, 2013.
Ellis, Deborah. “The Arc of the Moral Universe is Long, But it Bends Toward Justice.” The White House Archives, Web.
Gready, Paul, and Simon Robins. From Transitional to Transformative Justice. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Maise, Michelle. “Distributive Justice.” Beyond Intractability, Web.