Meghan Fry
Social Justice and Its War on Violence “Social Justice” is often considered a vague or indefinite term which lends itself to be interpreted many ways. Philosophers and theologians, both past and present, have given their interpretations of what social justice means and though they may argue over the “true” meaning of social justice, there is always the undertone of a certain fairness across humanity with regard to human rights. The arguments over what is fair and who determines fairness is often the dividing line amongst intellectuals attempting to define social justice. In the end, all interpretations agree that social injustice is often more likely than social justice and only action by society as a whole can cure it. Health issues for persons living with injustice include malnutrition, disease, environmental decay, lack of occupational safety and access to medical care (1). One health issue, in particular, that afflicts every society is violence. Whether it is violence against oneself, another individual, or an entire group, causing physical or mental harm for any purpose robs people of their basic human rights of life, liberty and security of person (2). Public Health workers can, and must be, a driving force for changes in society to prevent and remedy the injustice of violence. Whether changes come from education, governmental laws, or efforts to build community relationships, the public health sector must be readily involved. Social justice can be described as justice in terms of the distribution of economic, political, and social rights and opportunities within a society (3). Societal demands, needs, wants, and rights vary considerably around the globe and therefore so does their understanding of social justice. The problem of measuring social justice lies in the debate as to what is fair or equitable in a given society. Is there a universal level of justice humanity should be striving for? Is there ever a “right” amount of violence that needs to be used for certain purposes? These questions have been pondered by many individuals over the course of human history, and by combining the shared fundamentals of various discourses it is possible to create a grander definition of “social justice as a state of affairs (either actual or ideal) in which (a) benefits and burdens in society are dispersed in accordance with some allocation principle; (b) procedures, norms, and rules that govern political and other forms of decision making preserve the basic rights, liberties, and entitlements of individuals and groups; and (c) human beings (and perhaps other species) are treated with dignity and respect not only by authorities but also by other relevant social actors, including fellow citizens.” This particular definition looks at three distinct aspects of social justice, distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (4). These aspects sometimes work in conjunction with one another or can stand alone, in the opinion of some writers. The earliest philosophers, such as Aristotle and Socrates, spoke at length of justice and how governments and individuals were mutually responsible for maintaining standards, but the first known usage of “social justice” comes from Italy and a Catholic priest in the 1800’s (5). It was around this time that opinions of the poor and destitute shifted considerably. Many intellectuals of the day considered that maybe no one “deserved” to be poor, and that given the right opportunities could also achieve a standard of living that was more than their original lot in life. It must be mentioned that the original meaning of social justice is quite different from the contemporary understanding and political undertones it now has. The historical usage didn’t involve equitable redistribution of resources or the government at all. In fact, Pope Leo XIII supported this priest’s writings with his own testament that the new world order required a new justice for the people, but that equity was not the manner in achieving it. He, more or less, condemned the idea that equality was an ideal for society. His argument being that all men are created equal in the sight of God, but are gifted different talents and due to that are not equal socially. If all persons were completely equal, than society would not function. The Pope also sent a threat that socialism would be the end to civil society. Rather than a government institution enforcing justice, the Pope suggested the people must be responsible for themselves, their neighbors, and the children raised between them to act justly (5). This concept revolved more around the virtues necessary to be a just individual and society. These virtues, like compassion, integrity, responsibility, and selflessness, were combined to describe social justice as its own virtue. Compare this concept of social justice to that of contemporary philosopher John Rawls’ or theorist David Miller’s thoughts on justice and the differences will be stark. John Rawls, considered by many to be one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century, is most known for his theory of “justice as fairness.” Under this concept Rawls purports two principles of justice; the “Equal Liberty principle” and the “Difference Principle”. The Equal Liberty Principle affirms that each person has an equal set of liberties that are the same as those liberties given to everyone. Rawls provides a list of what he considers are basic liberties which include the freedom of thought, political liberties, rights covered by law, and freedom of association.
The Difference Principle states that social and economic inequalities do exist but that they should be organized so that the greatest benefit is given to the least-advantaged members of society and that all “offices and positions be open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity” (6). In short, Rawls’ theory of social justice declares the protection of equal liberties and assisting the least advantaged in a society is just. Rawls’ concept is developed around the idea of a social contract where society members enter into an agreement to follow certain rules for the betterment of everyone, and that a rational individual would enter this contract as long as it is fair because they will understand it is necessary for societal justice. David Miller, a political theorist and professor at Oxford University, posited his own theory of social justice with some contrast to Rawls’. Miller argues that modern society is complex, and so social justice is also complex, and understanding his principles within certain situations changes the relevance of them. His concept focuses on the three principles of desert, need, and equality. Miller considers these three elements as outcomes of the system, rather than a means to an end. Desert refers to a recognition or reward duly earned, a need is something basic for life someone lacks, and equality refers to those rights that should be equitably distributed (7). Since Miller’s theory is dependent on circumstances he also details three “modes of human relationship” to further describe how the three principles relate to one another. The modes are Solidaristic Community, Instrumental Associations, and Citizenship. The modes are used to give interpretation and focus to the principles above. For example, in Citizenship mode equality is the most relevant principle for distribution of rights and liberties as a citizen of a state. Using Rawls and Miller as examples of current western ideas on social justice it is clear that no one idea has a complete grasp on what is the “correct” understanding of social justice and its implementation. Both do agree however that equality of opportunities is critical and the government plays a role in ensuring a socially just constituency. Though some of the ideas presented are difficult to calculate, governments are acting to report national progress towards improving certain social injustices that are a constant problem. The Social Inclusion Monitor is one such report used by the European Union to report on that status of all member states in six areas of social concern. They are; poverty prevention, equitable education, labor market inclusion, social cohesion and non-discrimination, health, and intergenerational justice. Data for this report uses both quantitative and qualitative information gathered from EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, as well as the evaluations completed by 100 experts responding to a survey. This type of report clearly details where member nations are falling short in the social justice index. It not only puts nations on report, but also affords members the knowledge of potential areas they can assist in since part of the intent of the EU is to be more than just an economic agreement. The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) is another organization aimed at improving the wellbeing of citizens in democratically backed governments and end poverty. Whether privately or publicly funded, organizations designed to improve social justice are a considerable benefit to the present and future of humanity. Understanding what “social justice” is allows public health workers to better realize and remedy social injustices. Reports, like the Social Inclusion Monitor, shine much needed light on some of the root causes of other health issues that breed from injustice. Violence is one such issue that plagues every nation. Violence was, and still is a tool, used by governments, groups, or individuals to establish power over others or keep current injustices in place. It is only recently that violence has been classified as a threat to public health (1). Traditionally, violence was considered an issue for the criminal justice system, those responsible for public safety. Acts of violence, or crimes, were to be handled by the police, courts and penal system to ensure the rest of the population could live unencumbered. It wasn’t until violence was also classified as a public health issue that research into prevention was looked at seriously and healthcare professionals were set on the problem. In 1979, the Surgeon General’s report, “Healthy People”, identified 15 priority areas for action, one of those being violent behavior. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.” The WHO further describes four modes in which violence can be inflicted: physical, sexual, psychological and deprivation. This definition covers a wide array of violent acts that an individual or group can enact on others; from acts of war to domestic abuse, from rape to slavery. These modes of violence are further divided into sub-groups based on the victim-perpetrator relationship: self-directed violence, interpersonal violence, and collective violence (8). Violence, like other health issues, can be prevented and through the efforts of professionals, like behavioral psychologists, its severity has been further detailed to aid in prevention tactics. Self-directed violence refers to when the victim and assailant are the same person. These are actions that either result in suicide or harm of oneself. From 1950 to 1990 suicide rates among young adults 15 to 24 almost tripled and is a top ten cause of death in the United States (9). Interpersonal violence consists of any violent action between individuals. This is further broken down into family, intimate partner, and community violence. This includes assault by strangers, gang wars, child maltreatment, and elder abuse for example. Collective violence refers to violence committed by larger groups and can be divided further into social, political, and economic violence. These include acts of terrorism or war (8). Violence may have many ways of being asserted, but it is ultimately it is preserved by and propagates social injustice by denying opportunities and equality. Violence takes a critical toll on the rest of the population in a number of ways. These include financially, psychologically, or culturally. An example of the severe monetary cost of violence to the public is “in 2008, violence and abuse constituted up to 37.5% of total healthcare costs, or up to $750 billion” (10). Many people consider violence as crimes committed by adults for unsavory purposes, but the data shows youth violence is a very large and expensive problem in the United States all by itself. “Youth violence resulting in deaths and injuries has direct and indirect costs in excess of $158 billion each year. Only accidental injury (frequently auto accidents) consistently leads homicide as the cause of death of U.S. youths between one and twenty-four years of age. For youths between the ages of ten and twenty-four, homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans, the second leading cause for Hispanics” (9). This data can be related to other social injustices plaguing these demographic groups like lack of educational opportunities, community structure, or income availability. The sheer expense is not the only reason to prevent violence, but when the argument arises that given an extra $15 billion the United States could prevent starvation within its borders the financial consequences of violence are felt even sharper (1). Social injustice can only perpetuate further injustices. Experiencing, exposure to, and fear of violence have known emotional and mental health consequences. These consequences are often lifelong, require extensive treatment, and can, in turn, affect physical health as well as bring stress and consequences to others. Research has identified the following health conditions as significantly more common among those exposed to violence either directly or indirectly: depression, risk of suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and aggressive and/or violent behavior disorders (11). “77% of children exposed to a school shooting and 35% of urban youth exposed to community violence develop PTSD as compared to 20% of soldiers deployed to combat areas in the last six years” (12). This by no means is meant to undermine the PTSD suffered by veterans, but to shine light on the greater impact of violence experienced by children or youths. The cultural consequences of violence refer to either the already culturally accepted forms of violence or those habits that are being reinforced today with youths. Through socialization and cultural norms some nations, like Zimbabwe and many other African nations, have a high percentage of domestic abuse that goes unreported and unaccounted for. Women in the culture have been taught they are in the wrong and will submit to abuse for survival purposes because of awful economic conditions (13). Without education for both sexes on how to change their lifestyles for the better, these conditions will persist as children grow up experiencing these actions as normal events. Another type of culturally driven violence is often seen between two cultures with a historical hatred for one another. This occurs throughout the world and can be one of the more difficult types of violence to control. Culturally fueled hate and aggression will have strong ties to an individual’s community and even if someone does not necessarily want to commit an act of violence, they will to maintain their connection to their community (14). This has manifested into gangs, terrorist groups, or state-sanctioned groups in several countries. The death totals from this type of violence are countless. In the current war waging in Syria alone the number of dead has already risen above 190,000 (15). The International Rescue Committee reported 5.4 million Congolese had died of war-related causes between 1998 and 2007. The causes for both of these significant losses has included starvation, disease, and combat. State-sanctioned violence in the form of militaries is hotly debated. Can violence be just if it used to end an injustice injuring others? Philosophers will argue that violence begets violence and that doing harm to one individual for the sake of another is not just. In the eternal words of Mahatma Ghandi, “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment” (16). The “law of nonviolence” is an end game public health personnel need to be working towards. The field of public health is not solely tasked with eradicating violence from our societies, but they can play a substantial role in both local communities and on the global level. Violence is often a learned behavior, or result of previous trauma, and the root causes must be dealt for this health issue to abate. Starting on the smallest scale of violence within a community, public health workers can look at violence as any other disease that can be cured with the right treatment. Cure Violence, an antiviolence non-governmental organization created in 2000, has developed a three-prong approach of disease-control methods to prevent violence: 1) interrupt transmission, 2) identify and change the thinking of the highest potential transmitters and 3) change group norms (17). This scientific perspective seeks to cut down the disease before it spreads and to eventually remove it from the environment. Public health workers must invest in a great deal of community outreach and education programs to best utilize disease-control methods. Educating all public health workers and community members on the symptoms of violent behavior and proper mediating procedures to prevent violent actions will help towards interrupting the transmission of the disease. This enabling of community members fosters strong relational and civic ties. Successful societies are bound to each through some shared ideals and goals. Making nonviolence a community goal provides a great motivation for a group to join as one in a concerted effort. Building hope and optimism within a community will protect individuals from the other effects, not just violence, of chronic stressors (1). Seeking and responding to high at-risk individuals relates to the second step mentioned by Cure Violence. Social workers, directly involved with children and families that have been afflicted by domestic violence can be some of the first responders in stopping the growth of violence. Through state and national programs and policies, help can be delivered to those individuals most likely to exert violence based on prior life events, like those mentioned above in the violent statistics. The third prong of “changing group norms” demonstrates the cyclical effect the other two prongs can create. Acceptance of violence by a community, in any sense, can only support further violent actions. Constant repetition of a nonviolent message to solve problems is pivotal in shifting mindsets. Strengthening a community to combat violence as a group may have desired outcomes, but must be constantly revaluated for continued success. Strong communities bonds can cure one social injustice while instigating another on a different group. This is seen with the development of some gangs. A group of individuals want to “clean up” their streets and make the community safe for their families, but when violence is used a the tool to accomplish this it is ingrained in that social network that violence is allowable at times (18). Once violence is permitted once, the disease spreads easily. Measuring outcomes of public health outreach and predicting future issues are other important steps in the success of eliminating violence and social injustice. This approach to violence as an infection can be used at all levels of human society; families, local communities, states, nations, and globally. Respect for another human’s rights is central in understanding the injustice of violence and why it is not the correct course of action for resolving disputes. The global community, represented by the WHO, has been outspoken on the topic of violence for years (19). The methods described previously were directed at the United States, but with some adaptation to cultural differences the same ideas can be applied around the world at community levels. The point is to cut down violence at the root. Educate cultures and nations that have accepted violence as a part of normal life that it isn’t necessary, and rather it will only lead to further destruction. On a national level, it can be argued that militaries convey this approval of use of force as a means to an end of injustice to its people. How can governments not use their military when it seems the only option to quell a riot, or uprising, or invasion? There is no easy answer to this question because violence is such a prevalent issue in world culture. A focused effort of the world’s nations to purge violence from the body of humanity is the only cure. Determined national leaders and public health personnel must promote and embody the ideal of nonviolence to encourage community leaders to follow suit and continue educating all individuals on the consequences of violence to their health, and society’s, health. The effects of violence experienced over a lifetime have proven detrimental to communities, nations, and the earth as a whole. Violence can, and should, be prevented as a service to all persons. The injustices levied on individuals and groups throughout history and present day should not be sustained and do not lead to a more just existence. Social justice, no matter the definition, should be a concern and a goal for all persons in a society. Discrimination against anyone based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or other descriptor works against the betterment of humanity. It is clear that social injustice begets social injustice, only through an effective social justice system can everyone have the freedoms and rights afforded them by being human

References:
1. Levy, Barry and Victor Sidel. Social Injustice and Public Health. Oxford Press. 2013.
2. The United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
3. National Association of Social Workers. Social Justice. 2014. https://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/peace.asp
4. Jost, J.T., & Kay, A.C. Social justice: History, theory, and research. In S.T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology (5th edition, Vol. 2, pp. 1122-1165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 2010.
5. Novak, M. Social Justice: Not What you think It Is. Heritage Lectures, no. 1138. 2009.
6. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (first published 1971).Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1999.
7. Robinson, M. What is Social Justice? Appalachian State University. 2014.
8. World Health Organization Violence Prevention Alliance, Definition and Typology of Violence, 2014. http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/ 9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Youth Violence: Fact Sheet,” 2007. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm
10. Dolezal, T. and D. McCollum. Hidden Costs in Healthcare: Economic Impact of Violence and Abuse. Academy on Violence and Abuse (AVA). 2009. http://www.ccasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Economic-Cost-of-VAW.pdf 11. Kilpatrick D., Ruggiero K., Acierno R., Saunders B., Resnick H., Best C. Violence and Risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and comorbidity: results from a national survey of adolescents. J Consulting Clin Psych. 2003.
12. National Center for PTSD. 2014. http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/types/violence/effects-community-violence-children.asp 13. Make Every Woman Count, The Herald, 2011. http://www.makeeverywomancount.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1945:zimbabwe-how-culture-promotes-domestic-violence&catid=37:violence-against-women&Itemid=63 14. Sanders, Williams. Gangbangs and Drive-bys: Grounded Culture and Juvenile Gang Violence. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. 1994
15. Becatoros, Elena. Kobani death toll passes 800 according to activits. Huffington Post. 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/26/kobani-death-toll_n_6050680.html 16. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/357883-an-unjust-law-is-itself-a-species-of-violence-arrest
17. Cure Violence. The Model. 2014. http://cureviolence.org/ 18. AlertID Inc. What you can do to prevent gang violence. https://www.alertid.com/search/gang-violence.asp
19. World Health Organization. Violence against women: a priority health issue. 1997 http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/media/en/154.pdf
20. Miller, D. Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 1999.
21. Jackson, B. The Conceptual History of Social Justice. Political Studies Review: 2005 Vol 3. 2005.