Social justice is a notion that shapes norms, values and practices of individuals and groups within societies, by highlighting social harms, injustices, inequalities and discrimination experienced by individuals and groups a mobilising force is created which challenges and contests pre-existing ideas of what is considered to be just.
Through mobilising new ideas of social justice new social welfare and crime control policies are created to regulated and enforced, and resources can be redistributed.There are often ambiguities and entanglements between social welfare, to improve capabilities and well being, and crime control policies and issues, to regulate and enforce. I will be drawing upon examples of social ham and creating social justice from the UK and America, past and present, to illustrate the connections between social harms and social justice.The idea of what is socially just is based on what is considered to be morally right, political legitimacy and economics. These ideas are seen as generally socially acceptable ways to behave individually and the treatment and behaviour towards other members/groups within society, which are regulated and enforced by laws policies, institutions and organisations.Ideas of what are considered to be acceptable, morally right or the ‘natural order’ of things is changeable over time through personal experiences and beliefs.
The ideas of what is (un)just can act as a mobilising force, to make social harms visible, which can lead to creating changes to widely held beliefs and force changes to social policies and laws and become the normative view held within the society.One example of how beliefs of the ‘natural order’ has changed is by the civil rights movement, ‘coloureds’ used to be treated as second class citizens, were not allowed or refused entry into certain places, these, now racist and discriminatory, beliefs where upheld and enforced by laws, such as the ‘Jim Crow’ law, this, at the time, legal segregation caused oppression, exclusion from society and poverty and punitive measures and against and criminalisation of anyone who disobeyed the laws of the time, which are now considered to be racist and discriminatory.In the 1950’s and 1960’s widely held beliefs began to change, society became aware of the social harm, caused by racial inequalities and the unjust treatment, laws changed to criminalise discrimination and colour bars, social welfare policies created to protect ‘coloureds’ rights and inclusion and active participation within society (Newman and Yeates, 2008, p8). The collective mobilisation of individuals to form groups can give greater power to vulnerable, powerless groups to fight against causes of social harm and injustice and to create change.
The Civil Rights Movement also led to change and opened up opportunities for other vulnerable groups such as women and the disabled, which provided greater protection, rights and inclusion from the welfare state and legislation. What was thought of as ‘the natural order’ 60 years ago is now illegal in contemporary western society and punitive measures are part of the legal and institutional framework, such as anti-discrimination laws, and racially invoked ‘hate’ crimes.It is now realised that exclusion from actively participating in society doesn’t just harm those excluded but the society as a whole. One of the cornerstones of the notion of social justice is the affect of poverty and the harm this can cause on individuals, groups and on society as a whole. People who live in poverty are seen as a ‘problem’ population who live in ‘problem’ places and are viewed as being deviant from mainstream society, a source of social harms, such as crime and social disorder and the people are seen as dysfunctional, lazy and criminally minded.Social divisions are created which can cause exclusion from actively participating within ‘normal’ or mainstream society.
Welfare states, social policies and organisations have been created to redistributed resources in attempt to reduce the affects of poverty, such as poor education, health, sanitation and living conditions, and to increase employment, training, independence, well being, capacity building and inclusion within society.The welfare states also police societies, for example through the use of health visitors and social services to ensure that appropriate behaviour is followed (The Open University, 2008, DVD 1), and use coercion and punitive measures if deviated from by for example, by not assuming personal and social rights and responsibilities (Newman and Yeates, 2008, p67).Despite interventions and redistribution of resources from the state people who live in poverty still face exclusion from ‘mainstream’ society, and inequalities and reduced life chances due to, for example, the stigma and the attitudes attached to living in a ‘problem’ place, which are recreated and remobilised by the media and politicians (Newman and Yeates, 2008, p115), by highlighting negative aspects of ‘problem’ places.The stigma that is attached to areas such as council estates, in the UK, and ghettos, in America, causes social division, inequality and psychosocial harm to the individuals who live in them which Hanley (cited in Newman and Yeates, 2008, p116 – 117) describes as “an inherent sense of inferiority” and the stigma stays with you so that “even if you leave a council estate it never leaves you”.Very little attention is paid to the positives and the capabilities of the people who live in ‘problem’ places such as the resourcefulness, community strategies, collective mobilisation and organisation and the fight against the stigma that they face, despite their lack of resources and respect from wider society (Newman and Yeates, 2008, P121). The social devaluation and exclusion from society experienced by those in poverty creates social problems and devalues society as a whole.
Welfare policies and crime control policies are often entangled, especially in disasters; the victim can also become a threat. Economic and racial inequalities can affect abilities to cope; an example of this is Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, this was a natural disaster which caused Levees to give way and 80% of New Orleans was covered with toxic flood water, but Hurricane Katrina was seen as a social disaster as well as a natural disaster.The economic and racial inequalities and discrimination were drawn to the front, while the affluent and/or white people had the economic power and social mobility to evacuate and able to claim insurance for damage or loss of property; the poor and/or black, with less economic power and social mobility, without insurance, stayed to protect their home and belongings. It was claimed by the media that there was political indifference and a failure to respond and to provide aide by the government and welfare state to those who were left behind.
Those from the ghettos, who tried to escape or when trying to find help experienced difficulties, because they were seen to be criminally minded and a threat, instead of a victim, where refused entry into white affluent areas, while the affluent white did not experience racial discrimination and where seen as dangerous just as victims (Newman and Yeates, 2008, p104). The social and political emphasis was on crime control, not welfare for the vulnerable, the media epresentation of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina highlighted looting and breaking into properties, which may have been an attempt to seek food and shelter for themselves, especially due to the slow response for aid, this media portrayal reinforced negative attitudes, inequalities and perceptions of poor and black through wider society, and highlighted the racial, economic and class inequalities and injustices that still exist in contemporary western societies. Social divisions can cause inequalities and injustices not just for individuals or small groups but is felt by and causes harm to society as a whole.Ideas of what is (un)just are changeable and contested as personal experiences and attitudes change and inequalities experienced by some groups can lead to social mobilisation by other groups. Well being, inclusion and active participation, by all members, in society are vital to a political and economically stable society, and it is seen as morally right that every member is can and does to the best of there capabilities, it is seen as being deviant if the ‘social rules’ and ‘norms’ are not followed.
There is no clear cut division of social welfare policies and crime control policies they are entwined together by the need to enforce and regulate each other and members of society. When discussing the notion of social justice and social harms it is important to remember that it is continually changing, what was viewed as legitimately, economically and morally just in the past might not be just now and what we consider in contemporary society to be just might not be in the future.
