social justice essay introduction

Essay on Social Justice

Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Justice in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Social Justice

Understanding social justice.

Social justice is the fair treatment of all people in society. It’s about making sure everyone has equal opportunities, irrespective of their background or status.

Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is important because it promotes equality. It helps to reduce disparities in wealth, access to resources, and social privileges.

Role of Individuals

Every person can contribute to social justice. By treating others fairly, respecting diversity, and standing against discrimination, we can promote social justice.

In conclusion, social justice is vital for a balanced society. It ensures everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life.

Also check:

• Paragraph on Social Justice

250 Words Essay on Social Justice

Social justice, a multifaceted concept, is the fair distribution of opportunities, privileges, and resources within a society. It encompasses dimensions like economic parity, gender equality, environmental justice, and human rights. The core of social justice is the belief that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social opportunities irrespective of race, gender, or religion.

The Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is pivotal in fostering a harmonious society. It ensures that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life and can exercise their rights without discrimination. It is the cornerstone of peace and stability in any society. Without social justice, the divide between different socio-economic classes widens, leading to social unrest.

Challenges to Social Justice

Despite its importance, achieving social justice is fraught with challenges. Systemic issues like discrimination, poverty, and lack of access to quality education and healthcare are significant roadblocks. These challenges are deeply ingrained in societal structures and require collective efforts to overcome.

The Role of Individuals in Promoting Social Justice

Every individual plays a crucial role in promoting social justice. Through conscious efforts like advocating for equal rights, supporting policies that promote equality, and standing against discrimination, individuals can contribute to building a just society.

In conclusion, social justice is a fundamental principle for peaceful coexistence within societies. Despite the challenges, each individual’s conscious effort can contribute significantly to achieving this noble goal. The journey towards social justice is long and arduous, but it is a path worth treading for the betterment of humanity.

500 Words Essay on Social Justice

Introduction to social justice.

Social justice, a multifaceted concept, is often described as the fair and equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, where outside factors that categorize people into social strata are irrelevant. It encompasses the idea that all individuals should have equal access to wealth, health, well-being, justice, privileges, and opportunity irrespective of their legal, political, economic, or other circumstances.

Origins and Evolution of Social Justice

The concept of social justice emerged during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions as a counter to the vast disparities in wealth and social capital. It was a call for societal and structural changes, aiming to minimize socio-economic differences. The term was first used by Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli in the mid-19th century, influenced by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Since then, the concept has evolved and expanded, encompassing issues like environmental justice, health equity, and human rights.

The Pillars of Social Justice

Social justice rests on four essential pillars: human rights, access, participation, and equity. Human rights are the fundamental rights and freedoms to which all individuals are entitled. Access involves equal opportunities in terms of resources, rights, goods, and services. Participation emphasizes the importance of all individuals contributing to and benefiting from economic, social, political, and cultural life. Equity ensures the fair distribution of resources and opportunities.

Social Justice in Today’s World

In the 21st century, social justice takes many forms and intersects with various areas such as race, gender, sexuality, and class. It is increasingly associated with the fight against systemic issues like racism, sexism, and classism. The Black Lives Matter movement, for instance, is a social justice movement fighting against systemic racism and violence towards black people. Similarly, the #MeToo movement is a fight for gender justice, aiming to end sexual harassment and assault.

Despite the progress, numerous challenges to social justice persist. Systemic and structural discrimination, political disenfranchisement, economic inequality, and social stratification are just a few. Moreover, the rise of populism and nationalism worldwide has further complicated the fight for social justice, as these ideologies often thrive on division and inequality.

Promoting social justice requires collective action. Individuals can contribute by becoming more aware of the injustices around them, advocating for policies that promote equity, and standing up against discrimination. Education plays a crucial role in this process, as it can foster a deeper understanding of social justice issues and equip individuals with the tools to effect change.

In conclusion, social justice is a powerful concept that advocates for a fairer, more equitable society. While significant strides have been made, numerous challenges remain, necessitating a continued commitment to promoting social justice. Through education and advocacy, individuals can play a crucial role in this ongoing effort. The pursuit of social justice, therefore, is not just a societal or institutional responsibility, but an individual one as well.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Justice
• Essay on Journalism
• Essay on Job Experience

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

8 Tips For Writing A Social Justice Essay

Social justice covers a variety of issues involving race, gender, age, sexual orientation, income equality and much more. How do you write an essay on a social justice issue that’s engaging, informative and memorable? Here are eight tips you should take to heart when writing:

When writing a social justice essay, you should brainstorm for ideas, sharpen your focus, identify your purpose, find a story, use a variety of sources, define your terms, provide specific evidence and acknowledge opposing views.

#1. Brainstorm creatively

Before you start writing your social justice essay, you need a topic. Don’t hesitate to look far and wide for inspiration. Read other social justice essays, look at recent news stories, watch movies and talk to people who are also interested in social justice. At this stage, don’t worry about the “trendiness” of your idea or whether a lot of people are already writing about it. Your topic will evolve in response to your research and the arguments you develop. At the brainstorming stage, you’re focused on generating as many ideas as possible, thinking outside the box and identifying what interests you the most. Take a free online course to get a better understanding of social justice.

You can take a creative brainstorming approach! A blog on Hubspot offers 15 creative ideas such as storyboarding, which involves laying out ideas in a narrative form with terms, images and other elements. You can also try freewriting, which is when you choose something you’re interested in. Next, write down everything you already know, what you need to know but don’t already, why the topic matters and anything else that comes to mind. Freewriting is a good exercise because it helps you decide if there’s any substance to a topic or if it’s clear there’s not enough material for a full essay.

#2. Sharpen your topic’s focus

The best essays narrow on a specific social justice topic and sharpen its focus, so it says something meaningful and interesting. This is often challenging, but wrestling with what exactly you want your essay to say is worth the effort. Why? An essay with a narrow, sharp focus has a clearer message. You’re also able to dig deeper into your topic and provide better analysis. If your topic is too broad, you’re forced to skim the surface, which produces a less interesting essay.

How do you sharpen your essay’s focus? Grace Fleming provides several tips on ThoughtCatalog . First, you can tell your topic is too broad if it can be summarized in just 1-2 words. As an example, “health inequity” is way too broad. Fleming suggests applying the questions, “Who, what, where, when, why and how,” to your topic to narrow it down. So, instead of just “health inequity,” you might end up with something like “The impact of health inequity in maternal healthcare systems on Indigenous women.” Your topic’s focus may shift or narrow even further depending on the research you find.

Writing a human rights topic research paper? Here are five of the most useful tips .

#3. Identify your purpose

As you unearth your topic and narrow its focus, it’s important to think about what you want your essay to accomplish. If you’re only thinking about your essay as an assignment, you’ll most likely end up with a product that’s unfocused or unclear. Vague sentiments like “Everyone is writing about social justice” and “Social justice is important” are also not going to produce an essay with a clear purpose. Why are you writing this essay? Are you wanting to raise awareness of a topic that’s been historically ignored? Or do you want to inspire people to take action and change something by giving them concrete how-to strategies? Identifying your purpose as soon as possible directs your research, your essay structure and how you style your writing.

If you’re not sure how to find your purpose, think about who you’re writing for. An essay written for a university class has a different audience than an essay written for a social justice organization’s social media page. If there are specific instructions for your essay (professors often have requirements they’re looking for), always follow them closely. Once you’ve identified your purpose, keep it at the front of your mind. You’ll produce an essay that’s clear, focused and effective.

#4. Find a human story

The best social justice essays don’t only provide compelling arguments and accurate statistics; they show your topic’s real-world impact. Harvard’s Kennedy School’s communications program describes this process as “finding a character.” It’s especially useful when you’re writing something persuasive. Whatever your topic, try to find the human stories behind the ideas and the data. How you do that depends on the nature of your essay. As an example, if you’re writing something more academic, focusing too much on the emotional side of a story may not be appropriate. However, if you’re writing an essay for an NGO’s fundraising campaign, focusing on a few people’s stories helps your reader connect to the topic more deeply.

How do you choose what stories to feature? Harvard suggests choosing someone you have access to either through your research or as an interview subject. If you get the opportunity to interview people, make sure you ask interesting questions that dig beneath the surface. Your subject has a unique perspective; you want to find the information and stories only they can provide.

#5. Rely on a variety of sources

Depending on your essay’s purpose and audience, there might be certain sources you’re required to use. In a piece for Inside Higher Ed, Stephanie Y. Evans describes how her students must use at least 10 source types in their final paper assignment. Most of the time, you’ll have a lot of freedom when it comes to research and choosing your sources. For best results, you want to use a wide variety. There are a few reasons why. The first is that a variety of sources gives you more material for your essay. You’ll access different perspectives you wouldn’t have found if you stuck to just a few books or papers. Reading more sources also helps you ensure your information is accurate; you’re fact-checking sources against one another. Expanding your research helps you address bias, as well. If you rely only on sources that reflect your existing views, your essay will be much less interesting.

While we’re talking about sources, let’s touch on citations. If you’re writing an essay for school, your teacher will most likely tell you what citation method they want you to use. There are several depending on the discipline. As an example, in the United States, social science disciplines like sociology and education tend to use the American Psychological Association (APA) style. Some places are very rigid about citation styles, while others are more relaxed. If you’re writing an essay where your citation won’t be checked, you still need to give credit to any ideas, thoughts, or research that’s not yours. Proper citation builds trust with your reader and boosts your credibility.

Here are more tips on writing a human rights essay!

#6. Define your key terms

To make your essay as clear and effective as possible, you want every reader on the same page right at the beginning. Defining your key terms is an important step. As Ian Johnston writes, creating an effective argument requires “the establishment of clear, precise, and effective definitions for key terms in the arguments.” You may have to adapt an existing definition or write your own. Johnston offers principles such as adjusting a definition based on the knowledge of who you’re writing for, focusing on what a term is and not just on its effects, and expanding a definition so it covers everything a reader needs to know.

How do you decide which terms are important in your essay? First, never assume a reader understands a term because it’s “obvious.” The most obvious terms are often the ones that need the clearest definitions. If your reader doesn’t know exactly what you’re talking about when you use a term like “health equity,” your essay won’t be as effective. In general, you want to define any terms relevant to your topic, terms that are used frequently and terms with distinct meanings in the context of your essay.

#7. Provide specific evidence and examples

Social justice issues are grounded in reality, so an essay should reflect that. Don’t spend your whole paper being philosophical or hypothetical. As an example, let’s say you’re writing an essay about desertification in Mali. Don’t discuss desertification as an abstract concept. Include real statistics and case studies on desertification in Mali, who it’s affecting the most and what is being done about it. For every argument you make, present supporting evidence and examples.

The strength of your evidence determines the strength of your arguments. How do you find strong evidence? Cite This For Me lists a handful of examples , such as studies, statistics, quotes from subject matter experts and/or reports, and case studies. Good evidence also needs to be accurate and in support of your argument. Depending on your essay topic, how current a piece of evidence is also matters. If you’re not relying on the most current evidence available, it can weaken your overall argument. Evidence should also be as specific as possible to your topic. Referring back to our desertification in Mali essay, that means locating examples of how desertification affects people in Mali , not in Chad or Russia.

Academic essay writing requires specific skills. Here’s an online introductory course on academic writing .

#8. Acknowledge your critics

Not every social justice essay requires an acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints, but addressing critics can strengthen your essay. How? It lets you confront your critics head-on and refute their arguments. It also shows you’ve researched your topic from every angle and you’re willing to be open-minded. Some people worry that introducing counterarguments will weaken the essay, but when you do the work to truly dissect your critic’s views and reaffirm your own, it makes your essay stronger.

The University of Pittsburgh offers a four-step strategy for refuting an argument. First, you need to identify the claim you’re responding to. This is often the trickiest part. Some writers misrepresent the claims of their critics to make them easier to refute, but that’s an intellectually dishonest method. Do your best to understand what exactly the opposing argument is claiming. Next, make your claim. You might need to provide specific evidence, which you may or may not have already included in your essay. Depending on the claim, your own thoughts may be a strong enough argument. Lastly, summarize what your claim implies about your critics, so your reader is left with a clear understanding of why your argument is the stronger one.

You may also like

Apply Now for the United Nations The Hague Immersion Programme

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Apply now: Essex Human Rights Summer School (Fully Online)

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

10 Courses to Prepare for Your Human Rights Job

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Social Justice - Essay Samples And Topic Ideas For Free

Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities. Essays could explore the various theories of social justice, historical and contemporary social justice movements, and the ongoing challenges in achieving social justice globally. They might also discuss the role of individuals, communities, and nations in promoting social justice and addressing systemic inequalities. We’ve gathered an extensive assortment of free essay samples on the topic of Social Justice you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

How to Achieve Social Justice

We are all one in this world. There is no race, sexual orientation, gender, rich or poor, or even prejudice against all. But that would give the world a utopian atmosphere, and quite frankly, we are not there yet. This would be best defined as social justice. Social Justice is a concept of a society in which every human being is treated fair and equal, without any form of discrimination. It is in my belief, that how the system is […]

Catholic Social Justice Community Service Reflection

Catholic Social Justice is the call to help one another as well as the world in general. It is a commitment that arises from experiencing Christ in the Eucharist. These catholic social justices that we all must commit to are as follows: life and dignity of the human person, call to family, community, and participation, rights and responsibilities, option for the poor and vulnerable, the dignity of work and the right of workers, solidarity, and care for God’s creation. All […]

The Era of Social Injustice

"Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children" (King 1). Back during the Civil Rights Movement African Americans were penalized due to their skin color and were not offered the same rights as people with white skin. African Americans were treated with no respect and were given the impression that they had no place […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Social Justice System

Most of the complaints have different applications of the death penalty, police brutality, racial profiling, sentencing disparity, and different treatment of minorities by the Criminal justice system. Everything that happens in court is suppose to be lawful and took into consideration, that your life could be on the line and how many years being spent could affect you and the people around you. The color of someone skin shouldn't be a reason to put them in jail but the supreme […]

Understanding of the Social Justice

When people hear social justice, they may not really understand what the term means and may assume it is just a form of freedom and our rights. According to the Oxford dictionary, Social Justice is justice regarding the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. However, I do not believe that definition is completely correct. What it fails to acknowledge is that the distribution should be equal among individuals of a society. If it is not equal for […]

Michael Walzer’s Theory of Justice

Promp: Michael Walzer's theory of justice provides us with the means of greatly reducing domination within, as well as between, the spheres of life upon which he focuses? Michael Walzer is a prominent American political theorist and a pioneer of moral philosophy. He has written many influential essays and books on which are all-encompassing to many prevalent issues. His questions are centered around the ethics of distributive justice within particular frames of social reference. Most notably, his book Spheres of Justice […]

A Problem of Social Justice in World

Multiple people are discriminated for their race, their religion, or their sexuality. The idea of entitlement has been an issue in the United States for centuries. Even before the United States became a country in 1776, racial prejudice existed. At first it was the Native Americans' who were looked down on and forced to do the new white settlers dirty work. Then it became African Americans. Whites have been seen to be superior to African Americans for many years, more […]

Social Justice for African American Women

Are African American women not being treated fairly? Are Black women being discriminated against more without holding a high school diploma or some degree? Does slavery play a part in how Black women are treated today? Racial discrimination plays a part in the crime and social justice of gender inequality on African American women. Since slavery is over, African American women have the same rights as White people. However, discrimination still takes place today. Authors such as Areva Martin, Guest […]

A Social Workers in the United States

On February 14th 2011, twins Nubia and Victor Barahona fell victim to their abusive father. The children were found locked in their father’s truck in West Palm Beach, Florida. Nubia was dead and Victor has severe chemical burns all over his tiny body. An anonymous tip was called into the child abuse hotline but the social worker Andrea Fleary was so backlogged with cases that it took her 4 days to conduct a welfare check. That was precious time taken […]

Mental Illness and Social Justice

Mental illness has a history in the United States since colonial times, possibly even before. The first hospital specializing in mental health opened in 1773 in the United States. Prior to 1773, individuals were left to care for themselves or be cared for by family members or they were placed in jail for criminal behavior. In the mid-1800s, Dorothea Dix noticed the inhumane treatment of prisoners and the mentally ill in prisons and institutions. Patients were often living in deplorable […]

Crime and Social Justice on Gender Inequality

I'm using these five sources to talk about crime and social justice on gender inequality. Gender inequality is more of a social injustice because gender inequality is an unfair practice between men and women being carried out in the society. Within discussing this topic, I talk about racism and sexism. My topic is towards African Americans and women in the workplace. How come African American women or women, in general, are not seen as an equal to men? Cheeks, Maura. […]

A Problem of Social Injustices

There have been many unjust systems when it comes to the law providing help for the people and social injustice throughout times when it came to gender for many years, women have come along way throughout the years to become a significant role in what goes on in the law system and empowering women to be able to be in most careers that were thought before to not be suitable for women. And, an issue we still in America is […]

Social Justice, Race, and Gender Issues in American Society

Although known for its ancient history, large population, and incredible beauty; Africa also holds record numbers for its staggering amounts of child slavery and poverty stricken lands. Aside from AIDS, one of Africa’s major social problems is in fact, child labor and slavery. At the heart of Africa’s economic boom, the need for youth to actively become laborers on farms, in fields, workshops and factories is prevalent. Africa, being successful in producing rich, delicious cocoa, seeks young boys whose ages […]

Social Justice in Public Schools

Principals leading for social justice in 21st Century public schools will require a change in their preparation programs from that of a traditional role to one that is ready to lead diverse schools. It is projected that by 2025, 55% of all students enrolled in United States public schools will be a member of today's minority racial/ethnic group (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). The enrollment in Texas public schools today is represented with 52% Hispanic, 13% Black, 29% White, […]

Social Justice in Healthcare: Bridging Disparities and Fostering Equity

Relevance and Meaning Social justice in healthcare refer to the equitable distribution of medical resources that ensures everyone has fair access to medical care regardless of financial background, color, or ethnicity. It stands for the notion that everyone is naturally entitled to the highest physical and mental health levels. The importance of this justice stretches beyond the immediate health implications. When healthcare is distributed equitably, it provides the following points: Societies flourish when every member can contribute productively. Economic burdens […]

What does Social Justice Mean to You: Personal Reflections

Feminism and social justice have been a sidestream topic for as long as I’ve known about it. I have always heard different things from different people and was never sure which was the right assumption. I originally came to this course with the premise that feminism was working to actively change the traditional roles placed on women and replace patriarchy with equality for all. But because of this, I also saw feminism as a violent act towards men. This assumption […]

The Role of Education and Critical Literacy

The role of education in a democracy is that an education can provide someone with the knowledge of past occurrences of oppression that can be used to fight current social injustices, while the role of critical literacy is that it can help one recognize social issues that continue to affect society. If someone lacks an education or critical literacy skills, than he or she may be unaware that injustices are occurring, or will lack knowledge on how these injustices can […]

Female Comics and Social Justice

"In a similar vein, ideas expressed by women who identify as feminists are often dismissed under the idea that they are angry and unable to take a joke. Thus, the stand-up stage is a space where homophobic, sexist, and all together insensitive jokes not only occur, but thrive. The comedy business is hard and unforgiving to queer audiences, fueling anxiety and self-hatred, as has been pointed out by queer comedians such as Hannah Gatsby. In her standup special Nanette, Gatsby […]

Marxism is the Arrangement of Communism

Karl Max is a German philosopher and socialist. He work has everlastingly affected the field of human science in that his perspectives opened the way to the investigation of how one's social class impacts one's beneficial encounters and life shots. His work additionally opened the entryway for some contrasting points of view on the issue of the well off and the poor in the public eye. Karl is the man behind the theory Marxism. Marxism is the focus on social […]

Catholic School and the Common Good

Statement of the Problem Social justice is not voluntary; it is essential so that students learn to understand that particular rights are inalienable and exist within oneself and within others (Denig, 2014). Catholic education shapes boys and girls to be good citizens, loving God and neighbor and impacting society with Gospel values (Miller, 2006). Unfortunately, this mission of Catholic school has become an endangered species in the 21st century. Declining enrollments, increasing financial pressures, and church scandals are threatening the […]

Importance of the Elderly Community

The Community Meeting Paper: Core Principles and the Council on Aging Meeting Due to COVID -19 the Tewksbury council on aging meeting was hold on virtually to present via video conference and via telephone. The council on aging community in Tewksbury is to provide and identify the senior needs. The national council on aging is a nonprofit organization that to help senior and elderly people get benefit to improve they retired life and get them to involve the local senior […]

Understanding Equal Educational Opportunity

In “Understanding Equal Educational Opportunity; Social Justice, Democracy, and Schooling”, Howe (1997) Dug deeply into the complex idea of equality of educational opportunity. He revealed many restraints and problems that need to be understood if that basic democratic principle is to serve us in our quest to provide an education that keeps the future open for our kids. He argued for the necessity of distributing justice and democracy. Where, justice gives everyone an active voice in looking for their needs. […]

Understanding of Responsibility for Social and Economic Justice

Barbara Ehrenreich, a prolific writer, found herself having wandered into the topic of poverty during lunch with an editor. The topic was especially current. In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed into law, the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act," welfare-reform legislation that radically restructured welfare programs, reduced federal spending on welfare, and required many to work in order to receive limited social benefits (Kirst-Ashman, 205). Ehrenreich, challenged by of her own idea that "someone ought to […]

Should Capital Punishment be Reintroduced in the UK: a Deep Dive into the Moral Labyrinth and Societal Repercussions

Imagine this: the eerie chamber of death, where whispers mingle with the resonant thud of a gavel against the wood. Capital punishment, the solemn act of ending human life as retribution for heinous crimes, is a complex puzzle that has sparked debate over centuries. The United Kingdom, once entangled in this extreme penal practice, abolished capital punishment in 1965. However, the vexing question of its potential revival lingers in society's corridors. The essay embarks on a journey through the intricate […]

What does the Constitution Mean to Me? a Deep Dive into its Complex Tapestry

The Constitution - those words etched upon the pages of history, a beacon of governance transcending time and guiding nations. In my contemplation, I invite you to delve into the intricate corridors of this foundational document. Throughout this journey, we'll ponder its nuances and decipher the threads of thought it weaves across the tapestry of our society. As I traverse its provisions, I invite you to join me in solving the echoes of the Constitution's wisdom, as its words, like […]

Florence Kelley: Pioneering Social Justice Crusader

Within the intricate tapestry of American history, Florence Kelley emerges as a formidable force whose unwavering dedication to social justice reshaped the contours of society. Born in 1859 into a family steeped in progressive ideals, Kelley's life unfolded against the backdrop of a nation undergoing profound transformations during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Kelley's formative years were shaped by the intellectual currents and reformist fervor of her upbringing. The daughter of William D. Kelley, a resolute abolitionist and […]

Caroline Heldman: Trailblazing Advocacy in Social Justice and Equality

Caroline Heldman stands as an influential force, dedicating her career to challenging societal norms and championing social justice, gender equality, and political consciousness. Her extensive journey encompasses academia, activism, and media, passionately amplifying marginalized voices and dismantling entrenched inequalities. As an academic, Heldman delves into critical social justice themes, focusing on gender and race studies. Armed with a Ph.D. in Political Science from Rutgers University, her research explores power dynamics, media representation, and societal movements. Her impact echoes through numerous […]

Additional Example Essays

• Rosa Parks Vs. Harriet Tubman
• Why Gun Control Won’t Work
• Why Are the Army Values Important
• A Dream To Become A Lawyer
• Two main strengths and weaknesses of international law
• Tracey Thurman and Her Impact on Domestic Violence Law
• Events that Influenced on Declaration of Independence

How to Write an Essay About Social Justice

Understanding social justice.

Before you start writing an essay about social justice, it's essential to have a clear understanding of what social justice entails. Social justice refers to the fair and just relation between the individual and society, measured by the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity, and social privileges. It involves a focus on the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being. Begin your essay by defining social justice and its importance in modern society. Discuss the various dimensions of social justice, which may include issues like racial equality, gender equity, economic fairness, LGBTQ rights, and more.

Developing a Thesis Statement

Your essay on social justice should be centered around a clear, concise thesis statement. This statement should present a specific viewpoint or argument about social justice. For instance, you might explore the effectiveness of current social justice movements, analyze historical social justice issues and their resolution, or argue the need for a specific approach to achieve social justice in a particular context. Your thesis will guide the direction of your essay and provide a structured approach to your analysis.

Gathering Supporting Evidence

To support your thesis, gather evidence from a range of sources, including academic research, case studies, historical examples, or current events. This might include data on social inequality, examples of successful social justice initiatives, or testimonies from individuals or groups affected by social injustice. Use this evidence to support your thesis and build a persuasive argument. It's important to consider different perspectives and address potential counterarguments to your thesis.

Analyzing Social Justice Issues

Dedicate a section of your essay to analyzing specific social justice issues. Discuss the causes and impacts of these issues, the challenges in addressing them, and the strategies employed to overcome these challenges. Consider both the successes and the ongoing struggles in the realm of social justice. This analysis will help illustrate the complexities involved in achieving social justice and the various factors that influence it.

Concluding the Essay

Conclude your essay by summarizing the main points of your discussion and restating your thesis in light of the evidence provided. Your conclusion should tie together your analysis and emphasize the importance of striving for social justice. You might also want to reflect on the broader implications of your findings or suggest future directions for social justice activism or policy.

Reviewing and Refining Your Essay

After completing your essay, take time to review and refine it. Ensure that your arguments are clearly articulated and supported by evidence. Check for grammatical accuracy and ensure that your essay flows logically from one point to the next. Consider seeking feedback from peers, educators, or experts in social justice to further improve your essay. A well-written essay on social justice will not only demonstrate your understanding of the topic but also your ability to engage critically with complex ethical and societal issues.

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL SOCIAL JUSTICE ESSAY

1.    ARCHITECTURE

A successful Social Justice essay depends to a large extent on its architecture: the introduction (1.1), thesis statement (1.2), body (1.3) and conclusion (1.4). Understanding the role that each of these components are meant to play within the essay will hopefully aid you in crafting a strong, argumentative essay.

1.1  A clear introduction       

Your essay should begin with an introductory paragraph or couple of paragraphs, in which you introduce the reader to  the social justice problem  or ethical dilemma you are addressing, lay out  the thesis statement , and provide the reader a  “roadmap”  for how you will defend your thesis. Sometimes, and in addition, authors use introductions to present general background information or provide their own motivation for writing on this subject matter – but this is not always necessary.

• The problem . This is the wider social justice subject or ethical dilemma you are trying to address with your essay. In academic writing, this sometimes takes the form of a misunderstanding common within a certain field, but the larger problem can also refer to a situation in the world or a state of affairs on which your thesis has direct bearing. For example, you might wish to motivate your own essay on legitimacy on the problem posed by the kinds of resistance movements we see in the Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street. Situating your (more specific) argument within a broader problem tells the reader why your paper is relevant.  It is very important in your introduction to accurately and precisely summarize the social justice issue you are writing about. Assume the reader knows nothing about the subject you are writing about.
• The thesis . Explained in more depth below, this is the short (1-2 sentences) statement of what your paper will argue specifically.
• The roadmap . Following the thesis, provide the reader a plan for how you will defend your thesis. This operates like a preview of the paper’s main points, presented in order. The roadmap not only lends clarity to the structure of your argument, but also provides a check for the logical coherence of the points you make.  Example : “First, I will define positive rights using examples of recognized standards of human rights. Next, I will discuss the impact that laws against reproductive freedom have had on women. Here I will argue that etc. Finally, I will address the counter- argument that etc..”

1.2  An argumentative thesis statement        

 A thesis is the main or central claim that you will make in your essay – which means it is the most important part. The thesis tells your reader exactly what the main point of the paper is – what you will argue. Though it is tempting to want to hold the reader in suspense or save something for a big reveal at the end of the essay,  in academic writing the thesis should appear within the first 1-2 paragraphs of your paper .

What a thesis is NOT:

A thesis is not the same as the topic of your paper (“This paper focuses on the idea of individual rights in Locke’s Two Treatises of Government”), nor a statement of fact (“John Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government ten years before the Glorious Revolution”) nor an observation about the text so obvious or general that no one would dispute it (“Central to Locke’s Two Treatises of Government is the importance of consent for legitimate government”).

What a thesis IS:

A thesis is an argument,  which means that it is debatable: it is something about which reasonable, intelligent people might disagree. It is something you have to argue for and defend.

A thesis is a declaration of what you will accomplish in your paper. Typically, a thesis will take the form of 1-2 sentences toward the end of an introduction: Since you will be writing an essay defending an ethical position,  your thesis statement needs to clearly state your ethical position on your social justice issue.

Example 1: ”In my essay I will argue that it is unethical for police to conduct racial profiling.”

Example 2: “In my essay I will argue that it is ethical for women to have the right to not have a child.”

If you are unclear how to write a clear argumentative thesis statement, simply use the formula: “In my essay, I will argue that it is unethical/ethical …”

1.3  A well-organized body        

The body of the paper follows your introduction, and is where you develop your thesis and defend it with evidence and reasons. The structure of your body should follow the roadmap you provided in the introduction. It is most important that this is structured logically, so that each point and paragraph flows from the preceding one. For example, if there are 3 main defenses that you need to make in order to substantiate your thesis, think about what order makes the most sense. How does each proposition relate to the next? What relationship they have to the main thesis? You should know what each paragraph is doing (which point is it related to) and why it is located where it is in your paper.

As a matter of argument and organization, each claim you make in support of your argument should operate as a premise in support of a conclusion, and appear in its own section of the essay. Make it clear to the reader how these claims support your overall argument.

1.4 Counterarguments

In the last section of the body of your paper you need to consider alternative explanations or counter-arguments to your ethical position, which you present and then argue against in further defense of your thesis. It is important that you present these alternative explanations or counter-arguments fairly, (and they are not strawman fallacies) so that your rejection of them is based on reason and not an appeal to emotion.

1.5  A strong conclusion        

Following the body of your paper, the last component is the conclusion. Here, you should sum up what you have argued in your paper: revisit your thesis, and the main points you made in its defense. You may also use this to draw out further implications or applications of your paper, though this should not be too extensive.

2. STYLE & MECHANICS

Architecture and argument are not the only things we look for in good essays, crucial though they are. The other main elements of a successful theory essay are the quality of the writing (2.1), attention to citations (2.2) and originality of thought (2.3).

2.1  Writing        

 Good, clean writing goes a long way. The main things you should keep in mind:

• Do not fear the first-person! Your paper lays out your argument, so be bold and take ownership for it. While you should avoid over-personalizing academic papers, you should not shy away from saying things like “In this paper, I argue…” or “It is my contention that…” This language makes it clear what separates your particular contribution from those of others.
• Avoid the passive voice wherever possible. Passive voice is when there is no specified actor for a verb: e.g. “The book was written in 1793” leaves ambiguous who wrote it. Sometimes using passive voice is necessary, but keep it to a minimum.  
• Write in the present tense where possible. Even for authors who are long-since deceased, it is standard in political theory to write sentences like the following: “In his Two Treatises of Government, John Locke contends that…” While historical details can be written in the past (“Locke wrote before the Glorious Revolution”), everything else should be written in the present.
• Avoid jargon. Overly technical language often only confuses the point you are trying to get across.  But, if a technical term is absolutely needed, be sure that you define it : Remember that most concept terms in political theory – technical or otherwise – are the subject of controversy (e.g. what does “democracy” mean? How is “legitimacy” defined? What is meant by “positive” rights?) and require definition.
• Proof-read before you turn it in!  Spelling and grammatical mistakes distract the reader, and reduce the clarity of your argument and analysis.

2.2 Citations

In academic writing, citations are not just how you avoid accusations of plagiarism; they also situate the writer in a specific conversation between scholars, and help the reader to understand where the author is coming from. It is also the way in which scholars give one another credit for their ideas and writing. We ask that you use MLA style in this course.  A list of all works cited should be appended to the paper.

2.3  Originality        

Originality does not mean that you must present an idea that no one has ever had before in your paper – and it does not mean that you do not rely on the work of others. Rather, the measure of originality in your papers will be how much you are able to move beyond what we have explicitly said in discussions to develop an argument that is your own. There is no recipe for this, but a good rule of thumb is: question as much as possible – every term, every assumption. The more questions you ask of the readings, the more likely it is that you will land on an idea that you genuinely want to write about, and an argument that really reflects your own creative thinking on any given topic.

• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Get New Issue Alerts
• American Academy of Arts 
and Sciences

Introduction: Language & Social Justice in the United States

Walt Wolfram , a Fellow of the American Academy since 2019, is one of the pioneers of sociolinguistics. He is the William C. Friday Distinguished University Professor at North Carolina State University, where he also directs the Language and Life Project. He has published more than twenty books and three hundred articles on language variation, and has served as executive producer of fifteen television documentaries, winning several Emmys. His recent publications include Fine in the World: Lumbee Language in Time and Place (with Clare Dannenberg, Stanley Knick, and Linda Oxendine, 2021) and African American Language: Language Development from Infancy to Adulthood (with Mary Kohn, Charlie Farrington, Jennifer Renn, and Janneke Van Hofwegen, 2021).

Anne H. Charity Hudley is Associate Dean of Educational Affairs and the Bonnie Katz Tenenbaum Professor of Education and African and African-­American Studies and Linguistics, by courtesy, at the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. She is the author of four books: The Indispensable Guide to Undergraduate Research (with Cheryl L. Dickter and Hannah A. Franz, 2017), We Do Language: English Language Variation in the Secondary English Classroom (with Christine Mallinson, 2013), Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools (with Christine Mallinson, James A. Banks, Walt Wolfram, and William Labov, 2010), and Talking College: Making Space for Black Linguistic Practices in Higher Education (with Christine Mallinson and Mary Bucholtz, 2022). She is a Fellow of the Linguistic Society of America and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Guadalupe Valdés , a Fellow of the American Academy since 2020, is the Bonnie Katz Tenenbaum Professor of Education, Emerita, in the Graduate School of Edu­cation at Stanford University. She is also the Founder and Executive Director of the English coaching organization English Together. Her books Con Respeto: Bridging the Distances Between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools: An Ethnographic Portrait (1996) and Learning and Not Learning English: Latino Students in American Schools (2001) have been used in teacher preparation programs for many years. She has recently published in such journals as Journal of Language, Identity, and Education ; Bilingual Research Journal ; and Language and Education .

In recent decades, the United States has witnessed a noteworthy escalation of academic responses to long-standing social and racial inequities in its society. In this process, research, advocacy, and programs supporting diversity and inclusion initiatives have grown. A set of themes and their relevant discourses have now developed in most programs related to diversity and inclusion; for example, current models are typically designed to include a range of groups, particularly reaching people by their race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, gender, and other demographic categories. Unfortunately, one of the themes typically overlooked, dismissed, or even refuted as necessary is language. Furthermore, the role of language subordination in antiracist activities tends to be treated as a secondary factor under the rubric of culture. Many linguists, however, see language inequality as a central or even leading component related to all of the traditional themes included in diversity and inclusion strategies. 1 In fact, writer and researcher Rosina Lippi-Green observes that “Discrimination based on language variation is so commonly accepted, so widely perceived as appropriate, that it must be seen as the last back door to discrimination. And the door stands wide open.” 2

Even academics, one of the groups that should be exposed to issues of comprehensive inclusion, have seemingly decided that language is a low-priority issue. As noted in a 2015 article in The Economist :

The collision of academic prejudice and accent is particularly ironic. Academics tend to the centre-left nearly everywhere, and talk endlessly about class and multiculturalism . . . . And yet accent and dialect are still barely on many people’s minds as deserving respect. 3

As such, as the editors of this collection, we have commissioned thirteen essays that address specific issues of language inequality and discrimination, both in their own right and directly related to traditional themes of diversity and inclusion.

Recent issues of Dædalus have addressed immigration, climate change, access to justice, inequality, and teaching in higher education, all of which relate to language in some way. 4 The theme of the Summer 2022 issue is “The Humanities in American Life: Transforming the Relationship with the Public.” As an extension of that work, the essays in this volume focus on a humanistic social science approach to transforming our relationship with language both in the academy and at large.

There is a growing inventory of research projects and written collections that consider issues of language and social justice, including dimensions such as racio­ linguistics, linguistic profiling, multilingual education, gendered linguistics, and court cases that are linguistically informed. Those materials cover a comprehensive range of language issues related to social justice. The collection of essays in this Dædalus volume is unique in its breadth of coverage and extends from issues including linguistic profiling, raciolinguistics, and institutional linguicism to multi­lingualism, language teaching, migration, and climate change. The authors are experts in their respective areas of scholarship, who combine strong research records with extensive engagement in their topics of inquiry.

The initial goal of this Dædalus issue is to demonstrate the vast array of social and political disparity manifested in language inequality, ranging from ecological conditions such as climate change, social conditions of inter- and intralanguage variation, and institutional policies that promulgate the notion and the stated practice of official languages and homogenized, monolithic norms of standardized language based on socially dominant speakers. These norms are socialized overtly and covertly into all sectors of society and often are adopted as consensus norms, even by those who are marginalized or stigmatized by these distinctions. As linguist Norman Fairclough notes in Language and Power , the exercise of power is most efficiently achieved through ideology-manufacturing consent instead of coercion. 5  Practices that appear universal or common sense often originate in the dominant class, and these practices work to sustain an unequal power dynamic. Furthermore, there is power behind discourse because the social order of discourses is held together as a hidden effect of power, such as standardization and national/official languages, and power in discourse as strategies of discourse reflect asymmetrical power relations between interlocutors in sets of routines, such as address forms, interruptions, and a host of other conversational routines. In this context, the first step in addressing these linguistic inequalities is to raise awareness of their existence, since many operate as implicit bias rather than overt, explicit bias recognized by the public.

Unfortunately, and somewhat ironically, higher education has been slow in this process; in fact, several essays in this collection show that higher education has been an active agent in the reproduction of linguistic inequality at the same time that it advocates for equality in many other realms of social structure. 6 Two essays in particular explore underlying notions of standardization and the use of language in social presentation and argumentation. The essays also address language rights as a fundamental human right. In “Language Standardization & Lin guistic Subordination,” Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk, and Rachel Elizabeth Weissler discuss how ideologies about standardized language circulate in higher education, to the detriment of many students, and they include a range of suggestions and examples for how to center linguistic justice and equity within higher education.

Curzan and coauthors give us an important overview of language standardization:

We have suggested some solutions to many of the issues we’ve highlighted in this essay; however, implementing solutions in a meaningful way first requires recognition of how important language variation is for our everyday interactions with others. Second, implementing solutions depends on recognizing how our ideas about language (standardized or not) can pose a true barrier to meaningful change. Such recognition includes the understanding that much of what we think about language often stands as a proxy for what we think about people, who we are willing to listen to and hear, and who we want to be with or distance ourselves from. 7

In “Addressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model,” Walt Wolfram describes a proactive “campus-infusion” program that includes activities and resources for student affairs, academic affairs, human resources, faculty affairs, and offices of institutional equity and diversity. Wolfram’s essay shows directly and specifically how academics aren’t always the solution but, as a whole, are complicit in linguistic exclusion. He writes:

A casual survey of university diversity statements and programs indicates that a) there is an implicitly recognized set of diversity themes within higher education and b) it traditionally excludes language issues. 8 Topics related to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual preference, and age are commonly included in these programs, but language is noticeably absent, either by explicit exclusion or by implicit disregard. Ironically, issues of language intersect with all of the themes in the canonical catalog of diversity issues. 9

The absence of systemic language considerations from most diversity and inclusion programs and their limited role in antiracist initiatives is a major concern for these programs, since language is a critical component for discrimination among the central themes in the extant canon of diversity. Language is an active agent in discrimination and cannot be overlooked or minimized in the process.

Some of the essays in this volume of Dædalus address the sociopolitical dominance of a restricted set of languages and its impact on the lives of speakers of devalued languages. The authors of these essays consider the effects of climate, social, educational, legal, and political dissonance confronted by speakers of nondominant languages. They also show how the metaphors of “disappearance” and “loss” obscure the colonial processes responsible for the suppression of Indigenous languages. People who speak an estimated 90 percent of the world’s languages have now been linguistically and culturally harmed due to the increasing dominance of a selected number of “world languages” and changes in the physical and topographical ecology. The authors describe the implications of this extensive language subjugation and endangerment and the consequences for the speakers of these languages. Both physical and social ecology are implicated in this threat to multitudes of languages in the world.

Linguistics in general, and sociolinguistics in particular, has a significant history of engagement in issues of social inequality. From the educational controversies over the language adequacy of marginalized, racialized groups of speakers in the 1960s, as in linguist William Labov’s A Study of Non-Standard English , to ideological challenges to multilingualism and the social and cultural impact of the devaluing of the world’s languages, as described in the essays by Wesley Y. Leonard, Guadalupe Valdés, and Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley, the role of language is a prominent consideration in the actualization and dispensation of social justice. 10

In addition, this collection addresses areas of research that are complementary to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ 2017 report by the Commission on Language Learning, America’s Languages: Investing in Language Education for the 21st Century . 11 In spite of the long-term presence of the teaching of languages other than English in the American educational system, concern over “world language capacity” has surfaced periodically over a period of many years because of the perceived limitations in developing functional additional language proficiencies. The consensus view (as in Congressman Paul Simon’s 1980 report The Tongue-Tied American ) has been that foreign/world language study in U.S. schools is generally unsuccessful, that Americans are poor language learners, and that focused attention must be given to the national defense implications of these language limitations. 12 In the 2017 Language Commission report, foreign/world language study is presented as 1) critical to success in business, research, and international relations in the twenty-first century and 2) a contributing factor to “improved learning outcomes in other subjects, enhanced cognitive ability, and the development of empathy and effective interpretive skills.” 13

The Academy’s report presents information about languages spoken at home by U.S. residents (76.7 percent English, 12.6 percent Spanish). It also includes a graphic illustrating the prevalence of thirteen other languages (including Chinese, Hindi, Filipino and Tagalog, and Vietnamese) commonly spoken by 0.13 percent to 0.2 percent of the population, as well as a category identified as all other languages (a small category comprising 2.2 percent of residents of the United States). 14 The report focuses on languages — rather than speakers — and recommends: 1) new activities that will increase the number of language teachers, 2) expanded efforts that can supplement language instruction across the education system, and 3) more opportunities for students to experience and immerse themselves in “languages as they are used in everyday interactions and across all segments of society.” It also specifically mentions needed support for heritage languages so these languages can “persist from one generation to the next,” and for targeted programming for Native American languages. 15

While it effectively interrupted the monolingual, English-only ideologies that permeate ideas on language in the United States, the conceptualization of language undergirding the report needs to be greatly expanded. The report focuses on developing expertise in additional language acquisition as the product of deliberative study. For example, in the case of heritage languages (defined as those non-English languages spoken by residents of the United States), the report highlights efforts such as the Seal of Biliteracy. Through this effort (now endorsed by many states around the country), high school students who complete a sequence of established language classes and pass a state-approved language assessment can obtain an official Seal of Biliteracy endorsement. Unfortunately, the series of courses and the assessments required to obtain the Seal are only available in a limited number of languages. The report mentions other efforts, including dual language immersion programs, yet it does not recognize family- and community-­gained bilingualism and biliteracy. Notably, the report specifically laments what are viewed as limited literacy abilities of heritage language speakers and recommends making available curricula specially designed for heritage language learners and Native American languages.

The view of language that the report is based on is a narrow one and does not represent the linguistic realities of the majority of bilingual and multilingual students. In her contribution to this volume, “Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’ Languages,” Guadalupe Valdés “specifically problematize[s] language instruction as it takes place in classroom settings and the impact of what I term the curricularization of language as it is experienced by Latinx students who ‘study’ language qua language in instructed situations.” 16 Valdés shows us how these specific issues play out in what is typically viewed as the neutral “teaching” of languages. She writes that challenges to

linguistic justice [result] from widely held negative perspectives on bi/multilingualism and from common and continuing misunderstandings of individuals who use resources from two communicative systems in their everyday lives. My goal is to highlight the effect of these misunderstandings on the direct teaching of English. 17

In “Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives,” Wesley Y. Leonard draws from his experiences as a member of a Native American community whose language was wrongly labeled “extinct”:

Within this narrative, I begin with an overview of how language endangerment is described to general audiences in the United States and critique the way it is framed and shared. From there, I shift to an alternative that draws from Indigenous ways of knowing to promote social justice through language reclamation. 18

Leonard encourages us to directly refute “dominant endangered languages narratives” and replace the focus on the actors of harm in Indigenous communities with a focus on the creativity and resolve of native scholars working to revitalize native language and culture. As he states, the “ultimate goal of this essay is to promote a praxis of social justice by showing how language shift occurs largely as a result of injustices, and by offering possible interventions.” 19

In “Climate & Language: An Entangled Crisis,” Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-­Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley

note that these academic discourses — as well as similar discourses in nonprofit and policy-making spheres — rightly acknowledge the importance of Indigenous thought to environmental and climate action. Sadly, they often fall short of acknowledging both the colonial drivers of Indigenous language “loss” and Indigenous ownership of Indigenous language and environmental knowledge. We propose alternative framings that emphasize colonial responsibility and Indigenous sovereignty. 20

Fine, Love-Nichols, and Perley present models of how language and climate are intertwined. They write, “Scholars and activists have documented the intersections of climate change and language endangerment, with special focus paid to their compounding consequences.” The authors “consider the relationship between language and environmental ideologies, synthesizing previous research on how metaphors and communicative norms in Indigenous and colonial languages influence environmental beliefs and actions.” 21

The essays in this volume profile a wide range of language issues related to social justice, from everyday hegemonic comments to legislative policies and courtroom testimony that depend on language reliability and the linguistic credibility of witnesses who do not communicate in a mainstream American English variety. In 1972, the president of the Linguistic Society of America, Dwight Bolinger, gave his presidential address titled “Truth is a Linguistic Question” as a forewarning of the linguistic accountability of public reporting of national events. In his other work, he describes language as “a loaded weapon.” Through these essays, we find both concepts to be true. 22

Over recent decades, the field of linguistics has developed a robust specialization in areas that pay primary attention to the application of a full range of legal and nonlegal verbal, digital, and document communication that is at the heart of equitable communication strategies. Language variation is also a highly politicized behavior, extending from the construct of a “standardized language” considered essential for writing and speaking to the use of language in negotiating the administration of social and political justice. The essays on linguistic variation and sociopolitical ideology, by Curzan and coauthors, Jonathan Rosa and Nelson Flores, and H. Samy Alim, examine both the ideological underpinnings of consensual constructs such as “standard” versus “nonmainstream” and their use in the political process of persuasion and sociopolitical implementation. 23 The authors in this section address key issues of language variation and language discrimination that demonstrate the vitality of language in issues of social justice, both independent of and related to other attributes of social justice. This model includes standardization in media platforms, as described in Rosa and Flores’s ­essay, demonstrating the systemic othering of those who do not speak this variety as their default dialect.

In “Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolinguistic Perspective,” Rosa and Flores show how “the trope of language barriers and the toppling thereof is widely resonant as a reference point for societal progress.”

We argue that by interrogating the colonial and imperial underpinnings of widespread ideas about linguistic diversity, we can connect linguistic advocacy to broader political struggles. We suggest that language and social justice efforts must link affirmations of linguistic diversity to demands for the creation of societal structures that sustain collective well-being. 24

Rosa and Flores present and update their raciolinguistics model in current spaces where race meets technology. With this emerging technology as a reference point, they demonstrate why “it is crucial to reconsider the logics that inform contemporary digital accent-modification platforms and the broader ways that purportedly benevolent efforts to help marked subjects modify their language practices become institutionalized as assimilationist projects masquerading as  assistance.” They also note that disability has always been part of the story — and needs to be brought back to light — sharing that Mabel Hubbard and Ma Bell, who were both influential on modern linguistic technology, were deaf women. 25

In “Black Womanhood: Raciolinguistic Intersections of Gender, Sexuality & Social Status in the Aftermaths of Colonization,” Aris Moreno Clemons and Jessica A. Grieser “call for an exploration of social life that considers the raciolinguistic intersections of gender, sexuality, and social class as part and parcel of overarching social formations.” They center the Black woman as the prototypical Other, her condition being interpreted neither by conventions of race nor gender. As such, we take “Black womanhood as the point of departure for a description of the necessary intersecting and variable analyses of social life.” Clemons and Greiser “interrogate the intersections of gender, sexuality, and social status, focusing on the experiences of Black women who fit into and lie at the margins of these categories.” They highlight the work of semiotician Krystal A. Smalls, who “reveals a model for how interdisciplinary reading across fields such as Black feminist studies, Black anthropology, Black geographies, and Black linguistics can result in expansive and inclusive worldmaking.” 26

In “Asian American Racialization & Model Minority Logics in Linguistics,” Joyhanna Yoo, Cheryl Lee, Andrew Cheng, and Anusha Ànand “consider historical and contemporary racializing tactics with respect to Asians and Asian Americans.” Such racializing tactics, which they call model minority logics,

weaponize an abstract version of one group to further racialize all minoritized groups and regiment ethnoracial hierarchies. We identify three functions of model minority logics that perpetuate white supremacy in the academy, using linguistics as a case study and underscoring the ways in which the discipline is already mired in racializing logics that differentiate scholars of color based on reified hierarchies. 27

The authors consider the often-overlooked linguistic experiences of Asian Americans in linguistics and show how “ideological positioning of Asian Americans as ‘honorary whites’ is based on selective and heavily skewed images of Asian American economic and educational achievements that circulate across institutional and dominant media channels.” 28

In “Inventing ‘the White Voice’: Racial Capitalism, Raciolinguistics & Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies,” H. Samy Alim explores

how paradigms like raciolinguistics and culturally sustaining pedagogies, among others, can offer substantive breaks from mainstream thought and provide us with new, just, and equitable ways of living together in the world. I begin with a deep engagement with Boots Riley and his critically acclaimed, anticapitalist, absurdist comedy ­ Sorry to Bother­ You in hopes of demonstrating how artists, activists, creatives, and scholars might: 1) cotheorize the complex relationships between language and racial capitalism and 2) think through the political, economic, and pedagogical implications of this new theorizing for Communities of Color. 29

Alim digs deep into models of aspirational whiteness in Sorry to Bother You and shows how it goes past the mark. In the script, Boots states, “It’s not really a white voice. It’s what they wish they sounded like. So, it’s like, what they think they’re supposed to sound like.” All of the authors in this section examine varied kinds of intervention strategies and programs in institutional education and social action that can raise awareness of and help to ameliorate linguistic subordination and sociolinguistic inequality in American society.

From our perspective, it is not sufficient to raise awareness and describe lin guistic inequality without attempting to confront and ameliorate that inequality. ­ Thus, our third and final set of papers by John Baugh, Sharese King and John R. Rickford, and Norma Mendoza-Denton offer legal and policy alternatives that implement activities and programs that directly confront issues of institutional inequality. As linguist Jan Blommaert puts it, “we need an activist attitude, one in which the battle for power-through-knowledge is engaged, in which knowledge is activated as a key instrument for the liberation of people, and as a central tool underpinning any effort to arrive at a more just and equitable society.” 30 Our authors illustrate the communicative processes involved when we use our human capacity for language to work toward justice.

In “Linguistic Profiling across International Geopolitical Landscapes,” Baugh “explore[s] various forms of linguistic profiling throughout the world, culminating with observations intended to promote linguistic human rights and the aspirational goal of equality among people who do not share common sociolinguistic backgrounds.” 31 Baugh extends his previous work on linguistic profiling into the international geopolitical landscape and notes, in countries that have them, the role that language academies play in reinforcing narrow norms, showing how those practices relate to practices in countries where these processes are more organic and situated in the educational systems.

In “Language on Trial,” King and Rickford draw on their case study of the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, a close friend of Trayvon Martin, in the 2013 trial of George Zimmerman v. The State of Florida . 32 They show that despite being an ear-witness (by cell phone) to all but the final minutes of Zimmerman’s interaction with Trayvon, and despite testifying for nearly six hours about it, her testimony was dismissed in jury deliberations. “Through a linguistic analysis of Jeantel’s speech, comments from a juror, and a broader contextualization of stigmatized speech forms and linguistic styles,” they show that “lack of acknowledgment of dialectal variation has harmful social and legal consequences for speakers of stigmatized dialects.” 33 Their work complements legal scholar D. James Greiner’s essay on empiricism in law, from a previous volume of Dædalus , to show how empirical linguistic analysis should be included in such models. 34 As King and Rickford state:

Alongside the vitriol from the general public, evidence from jury members suggested that not only was Jeantel’s speech misunderstood, but it was ultimately disregarded in more than sixteen hours of deliberation. With no access to the court transcript, unless when requesting a specific playback, jurors did not have the materials to reread speech that might have been unfamiliar to most if they were not exposed to or did not speak the dialect. 35

In “Currents of Innuendo Converge on an American Path to Political Hate,” Norma Mendoza-Denton shows that politicians’ “innuendo such as enthymemes, sarcasm, and dog whistles” gave us “an early warning about the type of relationship that has now obtained between Christianity and politics, and specifically the rise of Christian Nationalism as facilitated by President Donald Trump.” She demonstrates that “two currents of indirectness in American politics, one religious and the other racial, have converged like tributaries leading to a larger body of water.” 36

Anne H. Charity Hudley concludes the collection with “Liberatory Linguistics,” offering the model as “a productive, unifying framework for the scholarship that will advance strategies for attaining linguistic justice [ . . . ] [e]merging from the synthesis of various lived experiences, academic traditions, and methodological approaches.” She highlights promising strategies from her work with Black undergraduates, graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty members as they endeavor to embed a justice framework throughout the study of language broadly conceived that can “improve current approaches to engaging with structural realities that impede linguistic justice.” 37 Charity Hudley ends by noting how this set of essays is in conversation with the 2022 Annual Review of Applied Linguistics on social justice in applied linguistics, and the forthcoming Oxford volumes Decolonizing Linguistics and Inclusion in Linguistics , which “set frameworks for the professional growth of those who study language and create direct roadmaps for scholars to establish innovative agendas for integrating their teaching and research and outreach in ways that will transform linguistic theory and practice for years to come.” 38

As our summaries suggest, this collection of essays is diverse and comprehensive, representing a range of situations and conditions calling for justice in language. We hope these essays, along with other publications on this topic, broaden the conversations across higher education on language and justice. We are extremely grateful to the authors who have shared their knowledge, research, advocacy, and perspectives in such lucid, accessible presentations.

• 1 See, for example, the statement by the Linguistic Society of America, “ LSA Statement on Race ,” May 2019.
• 2 Rosina Lippi-Green, English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States (New York: Routledge, 2012).
• 3 R. L. G., “ The Last Acceptable Prejudice ,” The Economist , January 29, 2015.
• 4 Cecilia Menjívar, “ The Racialization of ‘Illegality,’ ” Dædalus 150 (2) (Spring 2021): 91–105; Jessica F. Green, “ Less Talk, More Walk: Why Climate Change Demands Activism in the Academy, ” Dædalus 149 (4) (Fall 2020): 151–162; D. James Greiner, “ The New Legal Empiricism & Its Application to Access-to-Justice Inquiries ,” Dædalus 148 (1) (Winter 2019): 64–74; Irene Bloemraad, Will Kymlicka, Michèle Lamont, and Leanne S. Son Hing, “ Membership without Social Citizenship? Deservingness & Redistribution as Grounds for Equality ,” Dædalus 148 (3) (Summer 2019): 73–104; and Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson, “ The Human Factor: The Promise & Limits of Online Education ,” Dædalus 148 (4) (Fall 2019): 235–254.
• 5 Norman Fairclough, Language and Power , 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2001).
• 6 Stephany Brett Dunstan, Walt Wolfram, Andrey J. Jaeger, and Rebecca E. Crandall, “ Educating the Educated: Language Diversity in the University Backyard ,” American Speech 90 (2) (2015): 266–280.
• 7 Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk, and Rachel Elizabeth Weissler, “ Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 31.
• 8 Kendra Nicole Calhoun, “ Competing Discourses of Diversity and Inclusion: Institutional Rhetoric and Graduate Student Narratives at Two Minority Serving Institutions ” (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2021).
• 9 Walt Wolfram, “ Addressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 37.
• 10 William Labov, A Study of Non-Standard English (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969); Wesley Y. Leonard, “ Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023); Guadalupe Valdés, “ Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’ Languages ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023); and Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley, “ Climate & Language: An Entangled Crisis ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 84–98.
• 11 American Academy of Arts and Sciences, America’s Languages: Investing in Language Education for the 21st Century (Cambridge, Mass.: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017).
• 12 Paul Simon, The Tongue-Tied American: Confronting the Foreign Language Crisis (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1980).
• 13 American Academy of Arts and Sciences, America’s Languages , vii.
• 14 Ibid., 4.
• 15 Ibid., 6.
• 16 Valdés, “Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’ Languages,” 53.
• 18 Leonard, “Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives,” 69.
• 20 Fine, Love-Nichols, and Perley, “Climate & Language,” 84.
• 22 Dwight Bolinger, Language: The Loaded Weapon—The Use and Abuse of Language Today (New York: Routledge, 2021).
• 23 Curzan et al., “Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination”; Jonathan Rosa and Nelson Flores, “ Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolinguistic Perspective ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 99–114; and H. Samy Alim, “ Inventing ‘The White Voice’: Racial Capitalism, Raciolinguistics & Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 147–166.
• 24 Rosa and Flores, “Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolinguistic Perspective,” 99.
• 25 Ibid., 101–102.
• 26 Aris Moreno Clemons and Jessica A. Grieser, “ Black Womanhood: Raciolinguistic Intersections of Gender, Sexuality & Social Status in the Aftermaths of Colonization ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 115, 117, 119, 124.
• 27 Joyhanna Yoo, Cheryl Lee, Andrew Cheng, and Anusha Ànand, “ Asian American Racial­ization & Model Minority Logics in Linguistics ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 130.
• 28 Ibid., 134.
• 29 Alim, “Inventing ‘The White Voice,’” 147.
• 30 Jan Blommaert, “ Looking Back, What Was Important? ” Ctrl+Alt+Dem, April 20, 2020.
• 31 John Baugh “ Linguistic Profiling across International Geopolitical Landscapes ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 167.
• 32 John R. Rickford and Sharese King, “ Language and Linguistics on Trial: Hearing Rachel Jeantel (and Other Vernacular Speakers) in the Courtroom and Beyond ,” Language 92 (4) (2016): 948–988.
• 33 Sharese King and John R. Rickford, “ Language on Trial ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 178.
• 34 Greiner, “The New Legal Empiricism & Its Application to Access-to-Justice Inquiries.”
• 35 King and Rickford, “Language on Trial,” 181.
• 36 Norma Mendoza-Denton, “ Currents of Innuendo Converge on an American Path to Political Hate ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 194.
• 37 Anne H. Charity Hudley, “ Liberatory Linguistics ,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 212 .
• 38 Alison Mackey, Erin Fell, Felipe de Jesus, et al., “ Social Justice in Applied Linguistics: Making Space for New Approaches and New Voices ,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 42 (2022): 1–10; Anne H. Charity Hudley and Nelson Flores, “ Social Justice in Applied Linguistics: Not a Conclusion, but a Way Forward ,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 42 (2022): 144–154; Anne H. Charity Hudley, Christine Mallinson, and Mary Bucholtz, eds., Decolonizing Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming); and Anne and Anne H. Charity Hudley, Christine Mallinson, and Mary Bucholtz, eds., Inclusion in Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

Recent Dædalus Issues Explore Mental Health as well as Language & Social Justice in the United States

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Social Justice and Sociological Theory

Bradley campbell.

Department of Sociology, California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032 USA

Sociology is the science of social life, and as such, it is different from the pursuit of social justice and other efforts to evaluate or to reform the social world. Still, the idea of social justice is intimately connected with the idea of sociology. It arises along with scientific understandings of the social world and draws from these understandings to reshape society. The problem is that in practice, social justice activists often draw from only one type of sociological theory, conflict theory, and from a particular form of conflict theory known as critical theory. In doing so, they may ignore potential problems with the theories they are drawing from, and they may overlook many possibilities for effective reform. Conflict theory orients activists toward fighting oppression, but other theoretical approaches could help societies to achieve other possible moral goals, such as promoting understanding, increasing virtue, incentivizing virtue, making virtue easier, and strengthening solidarity.

What does sociology have to do with social justice? If sociology is the science of social life, its aim is to describe and explain the social world. This is very different from social justice activism and other efforts to evaluate and reform the social world. Sociology and social justice are different enterprises, but the idea of social justice is intimately connected with the idea of sociology. It arises along with scientific understandings of the social world and draws from these understandings to reshape society. The moral goals of social justice activists cannot be derived from sociology, but to the extent, sociology is successful in describing and explaining the world; it provides an understanding of society that can enable activists and reformers to achieve their goals. They can draw from sociological theory to better understand the social world they are seeking to change.

One complication, though, is that sociology is a divided field with multiple competing perspectives, so even the most successful theories are hotly contested. Sociology can help us better understand the social world, but the lack of agreement among sociologists should lead us toward caution. If we draw too narrowly from the range of sociological theory, we may ignore potential problems with the theories we are drawing from, and if we are trying to understand the social world better so that we can change it, too narrow a view may lead us to overlook many possibilities for effective reform.

Currently much social justice-oriented scholarship and activism draws from an approach called critical theory in viewing society as a system of oppression and in embracing a morality focused on liberation. Sometimes the connection is explicit. Occidental College, for example, has a Department of Critical Theory and Social Justice, and “at the heart of the program,” according to the department’s website, “is an interrogation of inequality and systems of power” (Occidental College 2021 ). Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo (2017), in their book Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education , are also explicit about the connection. They argue that most people fail to understand “what social justice is and what might be required to achieve it” and they see themselves as combatting a form of “society-wide social justice illiteracy” that “prevents us from moving forward to create a more equitable society” (Sensoy and DiAngelo 2017 : xix). Their objective, they say, is to “provide a foundation for developing social justice literacy” (Sensoy and DiAngelo 2017 : xix), and as they make clear, they believe they are providing this foundation with an analysis of social justice based on critical theory (Sensoy and DiAngelo 2017 : Chapter 2).

I agree with Sensoy and DiAngelo that there is a great deal of confusion about what social justice is and how to pursue it, but I think that by relying so heavily on critical theory, they exemplify the confusion more than they correct for it. While critical theory can certainly provide insights into the workings of society, it has not achieved the kind of consensus that would justify elevating it above other sociological approaches. And to the extent that critical theory gives us incorrect or just incomplete ideas about reality, it may lead to efforts at reform that are ineffective or even harmful. Sensoy and DiAngelo are right to think that knowledge about society can provide a foundation for social justice literacy, but our knowledge needs to be as accurate and complete as possible. Rather than focus so much on one approach, if social justice activists take seriously the full range of sociological theory, they might be able to develop more rounded conceptions of social justice that would perhaps provide a way to more accurately diagnose social problems and to more effectively deal with them.

The Idea of Social Justice

Any discussion of social justice quickly runs into the problem of how to define it. Friedrich Hayek said he had tried for 10 years to find out what social justice meant and failed. He concluded that the idea was an “empty formula, conventionally used to assert that a particular claim is justified without giving any reason” (Hayek 1979 :3). Similarly, Michael Novak said social justice is most often “an instrument of ideological intimidation,” that it is “a term of art whose operational meaning is, ‘We need a law against that’” (Novak 2000 ).

It is easy to see why this state of affairs would lead Hayek and others to reject the idea of social justice altogether. It is not readily apparent to me, though, that social justice is unusual in this respect. Fairness , tolerance , wisdom , love , and other moral concepts might also go undefined, and they might also be used more often as weapons in political conflicts than as tools for serious moral analysis. This does not lead most of us to reject these concepts or to stop advocating for them and pursuing them, though it might require us to think and talk about them more carefully to avoid misunderstanding. Likewise we need to be clear about what we mean by social justice.

One thing we need to be clear about is what the idea of social justice adds to our moral vocabulary. How does social justice differ from justice more broadly? One way of understanding the difference is by thinking about what was missing from older views of morality. According to David Johnston, “In the vast bulk of ancient writings that touch on questions of justice, the idea that the primary contours — the terrain — of the social world might be reshaped to conform to human design never arises” (Johnston 2011 : 107). In the Iliad , he says, the status hierarchies are taken for granted, and in the Hebrew scriptures, a detailed legal code comes directly from God. What neither the archaic and preclassical Greeks nor the ancient Hebrews imagined was “that the terrain of the social world might be re-graded to accord with a design of strictly human origins” (Johnston 2011 : 108). Along with philosophical thought, the idea gradually began to emerge among the Greeks and Romans, but the older idea, that “the basic contours of the social world are determined by nature,” was still a strong competitor, and with the collapse of the Roman Empire, it remained the dominant idea for many centuries (Johnson 2011 : 111). As people began again to have more confidence in their ability to understand the world, though, they began to think again that the social world might be understood and even altered. Accordingly in the eighteenth century, reflections on justice began to deal with this question: “How can human beings redesign and rebuild the terrain of the social world so as to make that terrain itself just?” (Johnston 2011 : 115).

Those who ask this question reject the idea that social arrangements are simply natural and inevitable. And those who ask the question are pursuing social justice. In Johnston’s words, the idea of social justice is that we can develop “a set of principles from which we may work out an ideally just distribution of rights and privileges, burdens and pains, which can be deployed to assess a society’s institutions as a whole and to argue for a transformation of those institutions if they are found wanting” (2011: 174). More simply, Jason Manning and I have suggested that we think of social justice as the idea “that laws, policies, and social institutions — not just individual behaviors — are part of the moral sphere” (Campbell and Manning 2018 : 188). If we are concerned with social justice, we evaluate institutional arrangements in terms of whether they contribute to human flourishing, fairness, equality, or whatever else we see as morally desirable.

Understood this way, social justice is not a particular idea about how institutions should be organized; it is just the idea that the way institutions are organized is of moral concern. Understood this way, it does not make much sense to reject social justice. Few people now think of the social world as wholly natural and fixed. Political disagreements abound, but they usually involve different visions of how best to organize society rather than a disagreement about whether social arrangements can be altered at all. Social justice seems useful as a moral term, and it seems inevitable that anyone who thinks at all about the world sociologically—anyone seeking descriptions and explanations of social arrangements—would also, when thinking about the world morally, reflect on the desirability of those arrangements.

Social Justice and Sociology

There is a sense in which social justice and sociology are not connected at all. To describe and explain reality is different from evaluating it or changing it. What is is different from what ought to be . One way of putting this is to say that as a science, sociology is value-free. This does not mean that sociologists do not themselves have values that affect what subjects they study or that people’s moral commitments do not affect their observations or interpretations. It simply means that science is not the same as morality—that science does not and cannot by itself determine what is right or wrong, good or evil, desirable or undesirable (Black 2013 ; Campbell 2014 ; Weber 1958 ). Science describes and explains observable reality, and descriptions and explanations are not evaluations.

That sociology is value-free is often misunderstood. To say that value judgments are not statements of fact does not mean value judgments are not important, for sociologists and for others, or that sociology is not relevant to moral debates. Sociology cannot decide between clashing values, but it can sometimes clear up matters of fact. And it can point us to what is possible—to whether and how we can act on our value commitments.

Sociology prepares the way for social justice, and in that sense, the two are intimately connected. Sociology is the science of social life, so the idea of sociology was that the old ways of thinking about the social world were inadequate. Humans had already begun to gaze upon parts of the physical world in a new way, using observation and logic to identify patterns such as the rotations of planets and the speed of falling objects. Sociologists claimed that the social world was another part of observable reality and that we could study it similarly. And if the social world could be understood like the natural world, it could be manipulated. The natural sciences provided new insights about reality, and in doing so, they enabled new technologies. Technologies manipulate the world toward human ends—faster travel, faster communication, deadlier weapons, etc.—and if the natural sciences could make new wonders possible, surely the social sciences could as well. Sociology offers the promise of social technology to enable us to live happier lives, to have more peaceful relationships, and to distribute resources more fairly. It raises the hope of social justice.

Another way social justice and sociology are intimately connected is that those who pursue social justice need sociology to help them pursue their goals. If you are going to reorganize society to reduce violence, say, or inequality, you need to know the conditions that lead to peace and violence, or equality and inequality. Just as you would not try building and flying an airplane without first knowing something about physics, it makes sense, as Axel Van den Berg puts it, “to try to understand the world a little better before rushing off to change it” (2014: 69). Social justice activists need sociology to guide them toward policies that will have the effects they intend, to ensure their attempts to reorganize society do not make things worse.

Social justice advocates generally know this, of course. As we saw with Sensoy and DiAngelo, they believe they do understand the social world and that their policy goals draw from this knowledge, but often their knowledge comes almost exclusively from a single theoretical perspective—a type of conflict theory that is increasingly prominent but has never been dominant in sociology.

Social Justice and Conflict Theory

Thomas Kuhn said that scientific revolutions were rare events in the history of science, where the dominant paradigm of a discipline—that is, the “entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given [scientific] community” (Kuhn 1962 :175)—is replaced by a new paradigm.

More relevant to understanding the situation of contemporary sociology, however, is Kuhn’s discussion of what he calls pre-paradigmatic science (Kuhn 1962 :17). If we alter Kuhn’s definition of a paradigm slightly to include any general framework in which theories are forumulated (rather than one shared by the entire community), this period before the emergence of a dominant paradigm can more accurately be called a multi-paradigmatic period (compare Black 1995 ; Ritzer 1975 ). That is, there are usually several paradigms—several different, competing strategies of explanation. That is the current state of sociology. In sociology there is no dominant paradigm; there are a number of competing strategies of explanation. One of these is conflict theory, and it is critical theory, one form of conflict theory, that informs so much present-day social justice activism.

Conflict theory “explains human behavior as a struggle for domination” (Black 2001 ). Additionally, conflict theory usually assumes four things: (1) that social life involves clashes of interest, (2) that clashes of interest involve zero-sum outcomes where one side’s gain is the other’s loss, (3) that dominant groups gain at the expense of others, and (4) that radical change is the only way to reduce the power of dominant groups (Black 2001 ).

Karl Marx was the first to use this approach. For Marx the clashes of interest were between social classes, and class struggle drives historical change. In every society there has been a system of class relations, and social institutions benefit the dominant class and enable the exploitation of others. The clash between classes normally results in a new class system with a new dominant class, but Marx believed the overthrow of the current capitalist system, in which the bourgeoisie (the capitalists), who own the means of production, exploit the proletariat (the workers), who must work for wages, would put an end to class once and for all, and lead to a new kind of society. Marxists advocate revolution, and they analyze social relationships and institutions in capitalist societies in terms of how they benefit the bourgeoisie and exploit the proletariat.

For a Marxist studying capitalist societies, the task is not to determine whether or how much capitalists exploit workers. The approach treats exploitation as a constant to be assumed rather than as a variable to be explained. The task instead is to show how social arrangements lead to exploitation—even if those social arrangements might at first appear liberating. Thus, Marxists have argued that the idea of equality before the law actually furthers inequality. Agreements between capitalists and workers appear legitimate because they are treated as agreements between equals, even though the power dynamics mean workers are in no position to bargain. The idea of equality disguises inequality and exploitation.

Marx offered a new way of understanding societies and of understanding historical change, but his predictions have failed. The clash between capitalists and workers did not lead to the failure of capitalism and to revolution. And in societies where communist parties gained power and abolished class, doing so did not lead to a new kind of society. Government did not wither away, as Marx predicted. Instead communist reformers established totalitarian governments that were among the most intrusive and violent governments in history (Rummel 1994 ). Abolishing class also did not put an end to conflict and exploitation. Political elites ruled over the masses in the new societies, and they often turned on one another as they pursued power. The economic systems established also failed, leading to famine and shortages of basic goods, and eventually governments led by communist parties collapsed or made reforms.

The orthodox Marxist may be unfazed by any of this. The idea may be that capitalism will still collapse; revolution is still coming. The revolutions in Russia, China, and elsewhere were not real communist revolutions and their governments were not real Marxist governments. Marxism has not failed; real Marxism has not been tried. But another tack for those sympathetic to Marxist analysis is to accept much of Marx’s framework while rejecting many of the specifics. This could mean accepting Marx’s class analysis while rejecting his hope for change, but more commonly, it means accepting the conflict framework while rejecting Marx’s emphasis on class alone as the source of oppression and the driver of historical change. For most of today’s conflict theorists, it is not just class, but also race, gender, sexuality, religion, disability status, immigration status, and much else that give some people power over others. Otherwise the analysis is similar. The idea again is that the oppression of disadvantaged groups is a constant to be assumed rather than a variable to be explained. Just as social institutions benefit capitalists at the expense of workers, they benefit whites at the expense of persons of color, men at the expense of women, heterosexuals at the expense of gays and lesbians, the cisgendered at the expense of the transgendered, Christians at the expense of Muslims, the able-bodied at the expense of the disabled, the native-born at the expense of immigrants, etc., in an interlocking system of domination. Sometimes called critical theory or intersectional theory , this type of conflict theory follows Marxism in calling for a radical reorganization of social institutions to put an end to oppression, but it is not enough just to deal with class, as Marxists would do. And it is not enough to deal with any other single source of oppression, whether gender, race, or something else. The goal is to put an end to the entire system of oppression.

The new conflict theorists also follow Marxists in analyzing interactions and institutions—including those that might at first appear innocuous or even liberating—as sources of oppression. Laws, prisons, and wars contribute to oppression, but so do cultural practices and even ordinary conversations. One idea is that members of oppressed groups frequently experience microaggressions , small slights that make their lives unpleasant and block them from success (Sue 2010 ). When a person of color goes to college and sees portraits honoring mostly white men who contributed to the university or achieved success in the past, this might be a microaggression. Or it might be a microaggression when whites in conversation ask Asians where they are from. These things contribute to people feeling marginalized, and they add up.

Those who do not accept this framework may reject the idea of microaggression, particularly the idea that the intentions of the microaggressor do not matter. But what makes something a microaggression is that it furthers the oppression of those who are already disadvantaged, and it does not matter how well-intentioned someone is (Sue et al. 2007 : 277–278).

Microaggression is just one of the concepts derived from critical theories that outsiders might unfamiliar and objectionable. Other new kinds of offenses include cultural appropriation (such as when members of dominant cultures the clothing styles or eat the foods associated with marginalized cultures), heteronormativity (when someone makes a statement that implies heterosexuality is normal), and white fragility (when whites are defensive over being confronted with their racism and privilege) (Ziff and Rao 1997 ; Warner 1991 ; DiAngelo 2018 ). Another concept that can be jarring to outsiders is the idea of white supremacy (Newkirk 2017 ). In more mainstream contexts white supremacy refers to things like Jim Crow laws that segregated whites and blacks and banned blacks from certain places, and white supremacists are Ku Klux Klansmen and others who favor such laws. But the new conflict theorists talk about mainstream institutions today as “white supremacist institutions,” and they speak of those who oppose revolutionary change as “white supremacists.” It is not that they believe these people are Klansmen or that the Klan or similar groups run mainstream institutions. It is that they see society’s institutions as protecting the advantages whites have over persons of color, and this is the sense in which those institutions and those who defend them contribute to white supremacy.

By now most people are familiar with at least some of these concepts. Increasingly they are not just the argot of critical theorists in academia; concepts like microaggression , cultural appropriation , and white supremacy have made their way into workshops at universities and corporations and into the mainstream media and in public debate. Usually they are presented in the context of efforts to pursue social justice, and both the advocates and opponents of these ideas tend to see them that way, with the advocates using the term positively and the opponents using it pejoratively (such as by referring to social justice activists as social justice warriors ) (Ohlheiser 2015 ).

The result is that social justice often becomes synonymous with a particular theoretical approach and with particular remedies. Social justice activists draw heavily from critical theory, a type of conflict theory. But it is not just conflict theorists and those who adopt the conflict framework who are concerned with social justice, and there is no reason that theoretical perspectives other than conflict theory could not form the basis for other kinds of social justice activism.

Social Justice and Sociological Paradigms

Conflict theory is not the only sociological paradigm, but what are the others? Sociologists have developed various typologies of sociological explanation. Daniel Rigney identifies eight metaphors of society that undergird different sociological perspectives: society as a living system, society as a machine, society as war, society as a legal order, society as a marketplace, society as a game, society as theater, and society as discourse (Rigney 2001 ). Randall Collins discusses four sociological traditions: the conflict tradition, the rational/utilitarian tradition, the Durkheimian tradition, and the microinteractionist tradition (Collins 1994 ). Jonathan Turner says there are ten broad approaches to sociological theorizing: evolutionary theorizing, systems theorizing, ecological theorizing, conflict theorizing, interactionist theorizing, exchange theorizing, structuralist theorizing, cultural theorizing, and critical theorizing (Turner 2013 : Chapter 9). Donald Black ( 2001 ) identifies eight sociological paradigms or strategies of explanation: conflict theory, phenomenological theory, motivational theory, neo-Darwinian theory, rational choice theory, opportunity theory, functionalist theory, and pure sociology. There are a number of other ways of classifying sociological theories, too, and they overlap substantially, but here I draw most explicitly from Black’s typology, and I discuss how six of the sociological perspectives he identifies can inform ideas of social justice. 1 These are some of the most commonly used perspectives in sociology, and each goes about explaining human behavior using different assumptions and employing different concepts: Conflict theory , as noted above, explains human behavior as a struggle for domination, phenomenological theory explains human behavior with the subjective experience of a person, motivational theory explains human behavior with the psychological impact of social forces, rational choice theory explains human behavior as the least costly means to a goal, opportunity theory explains human behavior with what is possible, and functionalist theory explains human behavior with its contribution to the needs of the group (Black 2001 ).

None of these are explanations of human behavior themselves; they are frameworks in which theorists might generate explanations. And because they offer different ways of viewing the social world, would-be reformers will understand social justice differently depending on which framework they draw from. No framework can provide answers to fundamental moral questions, but different assumptions and concepts, and different findings and explanations, will lead people toward different ways of formulating social problems and to different ways of addressing them. Just as conflict theory has inspired activists to call attention to oppression and to fight for liberation, other approaches could inspire them to pursue a variety of other possible social justice projects: to promote understanding, to increase virtue, to incentivize virtue, to make virtue easier, or to strengthen social solidarity.

Promoting Understanding

Phenomenological theory explains human behavior with the subjective experience of a person. The framework focuses on subjectivity, and phenomenologists tend to see people as creators of their own social worlds (Berger and Luckmann 1967 ). They may see the free will of human beings as undermining deterministic explanations, and they may be more interested in describing what it is like to experience a behavior than in explaining it (Black 2000 : 357, n. 36).

The determinism of other approaches is usually what leads us to think about how we might go about altering the social world, so the anti-determinism of phenomenology means that its possible contribution to social justice is more limited or at least less apparent. Some phenomenologists do try to explain behaviors, but those explanations are less deterministic than most social science. Jack Katz ( 1988 ), for example, sees typical cases of homicide, where one person gets angry at another and kills the person on the spot, as “righteous slaughters” from the standpoint of the killers. The killers, responding to insults, adultery, and other behavior that both offends and humiliates them, see themselves as meting out justice to wrongdoers. It is the experience of moralism, anger, and humiliation that leads to the killing. Phenomenological theorists do not see these experiences as the result of socialization or some other social force; they result from internal forces—from subjective experience. How someone suddenly becomes motivated to commit crime is not explained. Katz says it is a kind of magic.

Perhaps as phenomenological theories help us to better understand how violence, discrimination, and other behaviors that we might wish to reduce are experienced by their perpetrators, we could develop ways to help would-be perpetrators develop new understandings of their situations. But if phenomenologists are correct about the mysterious and non-deterministic properties of subjectivity, we would have limited success.

Phenomenological theory is not likely to help us much in trying to change people or their behaviors, but the idea is that it still helps us understand people better. Phenomenologists may see their work as advancing social justice in that it gives dignity to the subjects. Their work treats people as having agency, and it interprets the meaning of their behaviors. Clifford Geertz, for example, provided thick descriptions of human behaviors within particular cultures. In his description of cockfighting in Bali, he argued that betting around the cockfights was a symbolic reenactment of Balinese status conflicts (Geertz 1973 ). The reader comes to see something that might have at first looked irrational and barbaric as purposeful and meaningful within the context it occurs. Phenomenologists may see this kind of cultural translation as promoting tolerance.

Phenomenological theory might also aid us in better understanding our political opponents. In works such as Culture Wars and Before the Shooting Begins, James Davison Hunter ( 1994 ) carefully describes the worldviews of orthodox and progressive opponents in contemporary cultural conflicts and shows that their failure to understand one another inhibits conversation and compromise. That people fail to understand one another is a concern beyond just the culture war issues. Chris Martin ( 2016 ) says that epistemic egocentrism commonly prevents understanding across political ideologies, as we evaluate others as if they shared our information and our concerns. Martin refers to a study that showed that while liberals tend to value authority less than conservatives, liberals and conservatives both thought these differences were much greater than they actually were: “liberals believed that conservatives were obsessed with authority, while conservatives believed that liberals disdained authority” (Martin 2016 : 223). Their egocentrism and lack of empathy led them astray. As Martin points out, “If a liberal uses himself or herself as a reference point, thus framing morality egocentrically, he or she will assume a conservative holds moral positions that are diametrically opposite his or her own, thus rating conservatives as far more different than they actually are” (Martin 2016 : 223). 2

If epistemic egocentrism helps fuel the political polarization of recent years, along with the tendency of people to imagine the worst of their political adversaries and to treat them as enemies, phenomenological theory, to the extent that it accurately portrays the perspectives of its subjects, holds the promise of increased understanding and empathy.

Increasing Virtue

Motivational theory explains human behavior with the psychological impact of social forces. The idea is that institutions and interactions affect the minds of individuals and motivate them to engage in certain behaviors, whether that is altruism, violence, religion, or any other behavior. Motivational theory is as individualistic as phenomenological theory, in that behavior stems from motivations, but motivational theory is more deterministic: The motivations that affect behavior are social products; society shapes the individual (Black 2000 : 357, n. 36). Motivational theory is thus compatible with one kind of reformist project: that of shaping moral character so that people engage in more virtue and in less vice.

Black ( 2001 ) points out that motivational theories come in four forms. Learning theories explain motivations as the result of socialization, bonding theories explain them with the presence or absence of attachments, compliance theories explain them with social pressure, and strain theories explain them with psychological discomfort. Whatever the nature of the explanatory mechanisms, the idea is that individuals are shaped by their social environments. The task for reformers drawing from this approach, then, would be to discover how they might alter social environments to reduce motivations toward behavior they see as undesirable and increase motivations toward behaviors they see as desirable. This could mean educational reform, changes in foster care, and other efforts to better socialize children. It could mean communitarian policies that seek to promote the kinds of social ties that encourage prosocial behavior. It could even mean more fundamental institutional change, as advocated by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld ( 2012 ) in Crime and the American Dream. Messner and Rosenfeld argue that the USA has high rates of violent crime compared to other advanced industrial democracies in part because of an institutional imbalance where the economy is valued more than institutions such as the polity, the family, and education. This leads to a highly competitive society in which crime flourishes, but altering the institutional imbalance, such as by strengthening social welfare programs, would reduce crime.

Those who draw from motivational theory in pursuit of social justice might focus on institutions, then, but it is in terms of how those institutions impact individuals. Accordingly, this tends to be the approach of liberal reformers rather than revolutionaries. Usually such reformers are optimistic about the ability of the insights of social science to help reduce suffering and injustice and optimistic that this is possible by modifying current social arrangements rather than destroying them.

Incentivizing Virtue

Rational choice theory explains human behavior as the least costly means to a goal. It focuses on the interests of individuals, but it is unlike motivational theory in that the characteristics of individuals are usually treated as a constant rather than a variable. Rational choice theorists may assume that individuals are pursuing their own happiness, for example, and what explains variation in their behavior is not variation in their goals; it is variation in their interests. A variable that might help them achieve their goals on one occasion might not on another.

Rational choice theory is the dominant paradigm in economics, and it is associated with free market perspectives. Economists and rational choice sociologists, though, have applied this type of thinking outside the marketplace—to religion, to romantic relationships, and to many other areas where people might at first seem to be behaving irrationally. Rational choice theorists might recommend a variety of policies across the political spectrum, but whatever their recommendations, the central task for those drawing from rational choice theory to pursue social justice is to determine how social arrangements might best incentivize what they see as good behavior and make costly what they see as bad behavior. The goals are more modest—change behavior, not character—since there is no assumption that virtue and vice stem from character.

Enlightenment reformers of the eighteenth century used this approach to argue for changes in the legal systems of the time. The deterrence theory of crime and punishment proposes that people are less likely to commit crimes, the more certain, swift, and severe the punishment is. The idea is that punishment makes crime costly—not in the interests of the would-be criminal. To do this, punishment just needs to outweigh the benefits of the crime, so the reformers argued for reducing the harsh penalties in effect at the time. The certainty of punishment is much more important, and this often puts contemporary deterrence theorists at odds with both liberals and conservatives, since they favor frequent use of the justice system, which liberals might be concerned about, but they oppose the harsh penalties conservatives might favor.

Other applications of rational choice theory have similarly led to policy proposals that challenge conventional thinking. Olson ( 1990 ) addressed the different individual interests related to private goods and public goods. With private goods, it is clearly in people’s interest to protect and take care of whatever they own. But public goods are owned collectively—they are available to everyone. It is therefore not in anyone’s individual interest to contribute to protecting public goods, even though they derive a benefit from them. This is known as the free-rider problem: Everyone would be better off cooperating, but it is in everyone’s individual interest not to do so. One thing this means is that larger groups will not naturally pursue their group interests, and this is one reason Marx was wrong to think the working class would perceive its interests and then revolt.

There is always the danger that public goods simply will not be provided or protected, but just as incentives or punishments might alter the likelihood of someone committing crime, inducements and coercion can ensure that public goods get provided. Rational choice theory is often used to defend free markets, then, but Olson’s analysis helps us understand why the free market will fail when public goods are involved. His analysis shows why labor unions are likely to fail if they are completely voluntary, for example, and why government involvement might be needed to protect the environment.

Another rational choice theorist, James Buchanan ( 2000 ), showed why politics often fail. Individuals involved in politics—voters, politicians, and others—act according to their own interests. Politics is a competitive marketplace. Politicians compete for votes, for example, and they do so by spending money on things voters like. It is not in the self-interest of voters to pay taxes, though, so politicians end up borrowing and spending, rather than reducing spending or raising taxes. This is rational for everyone involved but only in the short run.

For those pursuing policy changes, these kinds of theories could serve as essential starting points or at least as correctives enabling them to better pursue their goals. Social institutions are not changed in a vacuum; individuals are involved, and one runs the risk of not anticipating the effect one’s policies will have, or how they will be dealt with in the political realm, without taking into account the immediate and individual interests of all those involved.

Making Virtue Easier

Opportunity theory explains human behavior with what is possible. Opportunity theorists assume certain motivations and goals, and the idea is that certain social conditions prevent or enable people from achieving those goals. In criminology this might mean assuming the motivation to commit various crimes, but explaining variation in crime with factors make the crimes easier (e.g., Cohen and Felson 1979 ). The layout of a store could encourage shoplifting by placing valuable and small objects where they are easy to get, or the layout of a neighborhood could encourage burglary by providing routes where burglars could travel on foot without a high likelihood of being seen.

Just as people may have the motivation to commit crime but not the opportunity, they might desire friendships across cultural boundaries without the ability to form any. Peter Blau ( 1980 ) pointed out that when the numbers of different population groups differ, the numbers of friendships possible across those groups is limited. In areas where whites greatly outnumber racial minorities, for instance, most whites—regardless of their preferences—would not have the opportunity for an interracial friendship.

Whether one is seeking to reduce crime or increase racial integration, opportunity theory points to the need to consider what is possible under certain conditions. The task for those using the approach to pursue social justice is to find ways to alter the opportunity structure. The idea would not be to change hearts and minds, or even to incentivize virtue, but simply to make virtue possible more often, and vice impossible more often. And while the use of opportunity theory in this manner might be limited, it is likely to be effective. It is also an area where it is easy to see the distinction between ordinary justice and social justice. If two neighborhoods have different rates of crime not because of the motivations of potential criminals but because the design of one prevents many opportunities for crime, people might seek to alter the design of the high-crime neighborhood or at the very least to design new neighborhoods differently. The design of neighborhoods might become a moral issue—a social justice issue. But it may not have been bad intentions or bad behavior that led to the different designs in the first place. No one would have behaved unjustly when they built the neighborhoods, and individual criminals would still be blamed for their crimes. It is simply that better information now makes it possible to make social changes that reduce harm, and with that knowledge, doing so might become a moral imperative.

Strengthening Solidarity

Functionalist theory explains human behavior with its contribution to the needs of the group. 3 Functionalist theorists see society as akin to an organism, with distinct and necessary parts that contribute to the functioning of the whole society, just like the heart, lungs, skin, and central nervous system of the human organism contribute to the needs of the whole body. Talcott Parsons used this strategy when he identified four basic problems all societies needed to solve—adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latent pattern management—and pointed to the way social institutions such as the economy, the political order, law, religion, education, and the family solve them (Turner 2013 : 352–354).

If motivational theory tends to be associated with liberal politics, and conflict theory with radical politics, functionalist theory is most associated with conservative politics. It is true that many functionalists have been liberals and that many functionalist analyses—such as Émile Durkheim’s argument that crime strengthens social solidarity or Kingsley Davis’s ( 1937 ) argument that prostitution strengthens the family—are contrarian takes that would offend many conservatives. Still, since the gist is that social institutions provide stability and meet social needs, functionalists tend to point to what most people would see as the positive and prosocial aspects of social institutions rather than their negative and oppressive aspects. Conservatives also tend to be concerned with social order and suspicious of radical change and the chaos they fear it will produce, and functionalist analyses often point to the conditions leading to social solidarity, social stability, and harmonious relationships.

Liberals and radicals may question whether conservatives concerned with preserving or strengthening social institutions for the common good are pursuing social justice at all, but many conservatives accept that society is to some extent malleable and that the design of social institutions should be of moral concern. To the extent that they resist change, they may simply be more cautious than others because of the harm and injustice they believe the weakening of social institutions will cause. In their efforts to protect institutions, they are trying to strengthen what psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls moral capital —“the resources that sustain a moral community.” These include “interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, and technologies that mesh well with evolved psychological mechanisms and thereby enable the community to suppress or regulate selfishness and make cooperation possible” (Haidt 2012 : 292). Conservatives tend to value moral capital over diversity, equality, and other things valued more by liberals and radicals. Perhaps they are wrong about the tradeoffs, and perhaps the functionalist view of society is limited or distorted. But functionalist analysis might even be able to help those on the left more effectively change society toward the ends they value. However, you alter social institutions, when you are finished you still face the problem of preserving the new social order you have created. As Haidt says, “if you are trying to change an organization or a society and you do not consider the effects of your changes on moral capital, you’re asking for trouble” (2012: 294).

Whether or not the multi-paradigmatic nature of sociology is healthy is a matter of debate. If we follow Kuhn in seeing the dominance of a paradigm as a sign of a mature science, then it is not. But whether it is healthy or not, and whatever the reasons for it, it is the current state of sociology, and it does little good to pretend otherwise. We cannot just declare a dominant paradigm—that has to be established through evidence and consensus and currently that does not exist. It is thus odd that current social justice activism, even in its institutional forms at universities and corporations, so often draws from only one of the many theoretical approaches in sociology, as if conflict theory, and this particular version of it, a marginal approach in the field and only one of many, had become dominant and its claims uncontested.

Activists and their allies who take this approach run the risk of making unwarranted assumptions and even treating claims as fact that have little empirical support. The idea of microaggression, for example, first developed by critical race theorists and later taken up by critical theorists more broadly, has become institutionalized now, with microaggression reporting systems at many universities and microaggression awareness workshops at many universities and corporations. When Scott Lilienfeld ( 2017 ) investigated the claims of microaggression theorists, though, he found little support for them. This means that a great deal of political and institutional energy has been spent promoting ideas that might be incorrect and which might even harm those they are intended to help (al-Gharbi 2020 ; Lukianoff and Haidt 2015 , 2018 ). And this is likely true of many other ideas formulated using the conflict perspective. Of the various sociological paradigms, conflict theory, and particularly the version often known as critical theory, is the most overtly political, and its adherents are often hostile to science or at least to the idea that sociology can or should be scientific. Sometimes conflict theory acts more as a political ideology than a sociological paradigm, and while it provides a distinctive model of society and many new concepts for thinking about social relations, those working within this perspective have mostly failed to produce general and testable propositions about social life. 4 When they do make testable claims, as with Marx’s predictions about the fall of capitalism and the end of class and with the microaggression claims that Lilienfeld tested, they often turn out to have little support. That the claims of conflict theorists are often untestable or unsupported has led even many sociologists who support the political aims of conflict theory to reject it at as a sociological approach or at least to deal with it cautiously.

Meanwhile the field of sociology is saturated, possibly oversaturated, with perspectives and explanations of social reality. These various paradigms can each provide ways of thinking about and pursuing social justice that differ from those of most social justice activists. Fighting systematic oppression is but one possible aim of social justice, and those with broader moral concerns and a broader awareness of strategies of effecting change might also wish to change the world by promoting understanding, increasing virtue, incentivizing virtue, making virtue easier, or strengthening solidarity, and they might draw from a variety of perspectives other than conflict theory to aid them in doing so. Currently, social justice activists who draw mainly from a tiny sliver of sociology run the risk that their efforts will be based on a distorted understanding of reality. While it would be irresponsible to try to reshape society while ignoring sociology entirely, it is also irresponsible to do so while ignoring most of the field. Dealing with a fragmented, multi-paradigmatic field may be hard, and it may be unsatisfying to find that with much of our knowledge about ourselves and our societies contested, there are few easy answers to our problems. But if we are serious about improving the world, we need to be willing to face social reality as we find it. This is the true foundation for developing social justice literacy.

is professor of sociology at California State University, Los Angeles. He is the author of The Geometry of Genocide: A Study in Pure Sociology and coauthor of The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars.

1 My use of Black’s typology rather than one of the others frames the discussion, but since there is a great deal of overlap between the typologies, my argument does not depend on the typology used. However, exactly one divides up the main sociological perspectives; the different perspectives will give us different ways of thinking about social justice and different possibilities for reform.

2 Consider also how last year’s debates over closures due to COVID-19 led to mutual recrimination and misrepresentations of each side’s position, with lockdown supporters accusing lockdown opponents of “human sacrifice,” and the opponents accusing the supporters of “fascism” (Paresky and Campbell 2020 ).

3 Black ( 2001 ) actually calls this strategy “systems theory,” and he refers to systems theory and the approach he calls neo-Darwinian theory together as “functionalism,” but I follow many others here in using functionalism to refer to systems theory alone.

4 There are important exceptions, though. Theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf ( 1956 ) and Randall Collins ( 1975 ) have developed more scientific conflict theories that could also be used to develop strategies for social justice that would differ from those of critical theorists.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Al-Gharbi M. “Who Gets to Define What’s Racist?” Contexts . 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger PL, Luckmann T. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge . Garden City: Anchor Books; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D. The Epistemology of Pure Sociology. Law & Social Inquiry. 1995; 20 :829–870. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.1995.tb00693.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D. Dreams of Pure Sociology. Sociological Theory. 2000; 18 (3):343–367. doi: 10.1111/0735-2751.00105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D. Lectures in Contemporary Sociological Theory (SOC 506) University of Virginia; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D. On the Almost Inconceivable Misunderstandings Concerning the Subject of Value-Free Sociology. British Journal of Sociology. 2013; 64 (4):763–780. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12034. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau P. A Fable about Social Structure. Social Forces. 1980; 58 :777–788. doi: 10.2307/2577184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchanan JM. Politics as Public Choice . 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell, Bradley, 2014. “Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Sociological Morality.” Society 51(5): 443-451.
• Campbell, Bradley and Jason Manning. 2018. The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Cohen LE, Felson M. Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review. 1979; 44 :588–608. doi: 10.2307/2094589. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins R. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Sociology . New York: Academic Press; 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins R. Four Sociological Traditions . New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dahrendorf R. Toward a Theory of Social Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1956; 2 :170–183. doi: 10.1177/002200275800200204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis K. The Sociology of Prostitution. American Sociological Review. 1937; 2 (5):744–755. doi: 10.2307/2083827. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• den Berg V, Axel . Public Sociology, Professional Society, and Democracy. In: Hannemaayer A, Schneider CJ, editors. The Public Sociology Debate: Ethics and Engagement . Vancouver: UBC Press; 2014. pp. 53–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiAngelo, Robin. 2018. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism.” Boston: Beacon Press.
• Geertz C. The Interpretation of Cultures . New York: Basic Books; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haidt J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion . New York: Pantheon Books; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayek F. Social Justice, Socialism, and Democracy: Three Austrian Lectures . 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter JD. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America . New York: Basic Books; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter JD. Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America’s Culture Wars . New York: The Free Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston D. A Brief History of Justice . Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz J. Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions of Doing Evil . New York: Basic Books; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lilienfeld S. Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2017; 12 (1):138–169. doi: 10.1177/1745691616659391. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukianoff G, Haidt J. The Coddling of the American Mind. September: The Atlantic; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukianoff G, Haidt J. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure . New York: Penguin Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CC. How Ideology Has Hindered Sociological Insight. The American Sociologist. 2016; 47 :115–130. doi: 10.1007/s12108-015-9263-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Messner S, Rosenfeld R. Crime and the American Dream . Fifth Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newkirk, Vann R. II. 2017. “The Language of White Supremacy.” Atlantic , October 6. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-language-of-white-supremacy/542148/
• Novak M. Defining Social Justice. December: First Things; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Occidental College. 2021. “Critical Theory and Social Justice.” https://www.oxy.edu/academics/areas-study/critical-theory-social-justice
• Ohlheiser, Abby. 2015. “Why ‘Social Justice Warrior,’ a Gamergate Insult, Is Now a Dictionary Entry.” Washington Post , October 7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/
• Olson, Mancur Jr (1990) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Paresky, Pamela and Bradley Campbell. 2020. “Safetyism Isn’t the Problem.” New York Times, June 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/opinion/safetyism-coronavirus-reopening.html .
• Rigney D. The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to Social Theory . Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritzer G. Sociology: A Multi-Paradigm Science. The American Sociologist. 1975; 10 :156–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rummel RJ. Death by Government . New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Said E. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient . London: Penguin Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sensoy Ö, DiAngelo R. Everyone Equal: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education . Second Edition. New York: Teachers College Press; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sue DW. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation . Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley and Sons; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha M. B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice.” American Psychologist 62(4): 271-286. [ PubMed ]
• Turner J. Theoretical Sociology: 1830 to the Present . Los Angeles: Sage; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warner M. Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet. Social Text. 1991; 29 :3–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber, Max. 1958. “Science as a Vocation.” Pp. 129-156 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology , edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ziff B, Rao PV. Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation . New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]

Justice and Social Equity Critical Essay

Introduction, the concept of justice and social equity, threats to justice and social equity.

By virtue of the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy entries, both justice and social equity can be explained in relation to distributive justice and justice as a virtue. Justice can be defined as the concept of the rightness of morals. These morals are based on inter alia law, equity, ethics or natural law backed by sanctions in case of breach. On the other hand, social equity refers to the just and fair distribution of resources in a given society.

The concept of distributive justice is governed by normative principles that have been designed for purposes of guiding the allocation, as well as benefits and detriments of economic activity. The concept of distributive justice tends to observe strict egalitarianism that calls for the allocation of material goods in equal amounts to all.

For example, where a resource of public utility like electricity is in question, then all parts of the society should benefit from this resource as opposed to it being enjoyed by only a portion of members of the society.

Furthermore, distributive justice also maintains the ‘different principle’ that permits allocation in cases where it is contrary to strict equality, but its effect is not detrimental. This means that its effect must be in such a way that the least advantage in the society is in better condition materially than under the strict equality (Lamont 2007).

Justice as a virtue is further reflected in the Stanford Encyclopedia (Lamont 2007). It refers to individual’s traits that could be good or bad. The phrase is evidently ambiguous and may thus vary depending on individuals or social applications. Historically, both Aristotle and Plato’s perceptions of justice as a virtue proved that they were rationalists.

The two scholars employed the role of reason in their perception of what was just and fair. A good example is the fact that, it is considered unjust when one refuses to pay a debt or steals.

Ethical thinkers have thus supported the fact that, justice is not based on mere sentiments. Instead, they advocate for a more intellectual and constructive rational in determining what is just. More scholars have also presented their distinct opinions about justice as a virtue using both virtual and non-virtual approaches.

In his article, Frederickson reveals the existing connection between social equity and justice (2008). Additionally, he also outlays the challenges that befall social equity in both society and public administration. The author talks about Philip J. Rutledge in his leadership implemented in public administration and social equity (Frederickson 2008).

Evidently, social equity can be influenced by the changing attitudes existing towards fairness and governmental programs that are aimed at bringing equality. The challenges that affect social justice are said to be based on racial and gender prejudices, as opposed to existing economic differences. Ethnicity and race therefore puts the ‘poverty face’ on and also gives it an identity.

A good example in where it affects the Hispanic, African American, Indians and also native Americans who, according to the article, were only 3 percent of enrolled students in the University of California (Fredericks 2008).

In the book “The State of social equity in America Public Administration”, more is revealed about threats that are faced by social justice and equity. Over the years, public administration is said to have led the way when it comes to social equity.

Historically, this concept of social equality in public administration was emphasized on matters concerning service delivery, gender and race in employment as well as democratic participation. The situation has since then improved but still ought to be addressed because equity is today defined in a much broader way (Frederickson 2010).

In a nutshell, the concept of justice and social equity is inevitable when it comes to public administration and thus of high importance. Despite the fact that justice and social equity has improved over the years, there still exist certain threats that act as a stumbling block as discussed above.

Fredrickson, H. (2008). Social Equity in the Twenty-First Century: An Essay in Memory of Philip J. Rutledge. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(1): 1-8.

Fredrickson, H. (2010) . Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments and Applications. New York: M.E Sharpe.

Lamont, J. (2007). Distributive Justice . Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 6). Justice and Social Equity. https://ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-social-equity/

"Justice and Social Equity." IvyPanda , 6 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-social-equity/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Justice and Social Equity'. 6 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Justice and Social Equity." February 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-social-equity/.

1. IvyPanda . "Justice and Social Equity." February 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-social-equity/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Justice and Social Equity." February 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-social-equity/.

• Rawls and Marx on Distributive Justice
• The Best Principle in Distributive Justice
• Negotiation: Concept and Effectiveness
• Verifying Distributive Law and DeMorgan’s Law
• Cutting the Line for Organ Transplants
• Distribution of Resources in Society
• Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”
• The Concept of "Justice" in All Its Manifestations
• The Concept of Economic Justice
• The Management of Organizational Justice by Cropanzana et al.
• Glass Ceiling for Minorities and Women
• Cultural Immersion of Homeless Veterans
• Revisiting the Minority Issue Viewed from a Statistical Standpoint: The Discovery of the Century
• Modern Problems and Opportunities in our Society
• An Electrocution by Metal Kite Line

Advertisement

• Next Article

Language & Social Justice in the United States: An Introduction

Walt Wolfram , a Fellow of the American Academy since 2019, is one of the pioneers of sociolinguistics. He is the William C. Friday Distinguished University Professor at North Carolina State University, where he also directs the Language and Life Project. He has published more than twenty books and three hundred articles on language variation, and has served as executive producer of fifteen television documentaries, winning several Emmys. His recent publications include Fine in the World: Lumbee Language in Time and Place (with Clare Dannenberg, Stanley Knick, and Linda Oxendine, 2021) and African American Language: Language Development from Infancy to Adulthood (with Mary Kohn, Charlie Farrington, Jennifer Renn, and Janneke Van Hofwegen, 2021).

Anne H. Charity Hudley is Associate Dean of Educational Affairs and the Bonnie Katz Tenenbaum Professor of Education and African and African-American Studies and Linguistics, by courtesy, at the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. She is the author of four books: The Indispensable Guide to Undergraduate Research (with Cheryl L. Dickter and Hannah A. Franz, 2017), We Do Language: English Language Variation in the Secondary English Classroom (with Christine Mallinson, 2013), Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools (with Christine Mallinson, James A. Banks, Walt Wolfram, and William Labov, 2010), and Talking College: Making Space for Black Linguistic Practices in Higher Education (with Christine Mallinson and Mary Bucholtz, 2022). She is a Fellow of the Linguistic Society of America and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Guadalupe Valdés , a Fellow of the American Academy since 2020, is the Bonnie Katz Tenenbaum Professor of Education, Emerita, in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. She is also the Founder and Executive Director of the English coaching organization English Together. Her books Con Respeto: Bridging the Distances Between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools: An Ethnographic Portrait (1996) and Learning and Not Learning English: Latino Students in American Schools (2001) have been used in teacher preparation programs for many years. She has recently published in such journals as Journal of Language, Identity, and Education; Bilingual Research Journal; and Language and Education.

• Cite Icon Cite
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Search Site

Walt Wolfram , Anne H. Charity Hudley , Guadalupe Valdés; Language & Social Justice in the United States: An Introduction. Daedalus 2023; 152 (3): 5–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_e_02014

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

In recent decades, the United States has witnessed a noteworthy escalation of academic responses to long-standing social and racial inequities in its society. In this process, research, advocacy, and programs supporting diversity and inclusion initiatives have grown. A set of themes and their relevant discourses have now developed in most programs related to diversity and inclusion; for example, current models are typically designed to include a range of groups, particularly reaching people by their race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, gender, and other demographic categories. Unfortunately, one of the themes typically overlooked, dismissed, or even refuted as necessary is language. Furthermore, the role of language subordination in antiracist activities tends to be treated as a secondary factor under the rubric of culture. Many linguists, however, see language inequality as a central or even leading component related to all of the traditional themes included in diversity and inclusion strategies. 1 In fact, writer and researcher Rosina Lippi-Green observes that “Discrimination based on language variation is so commonly accepted, so widely perceived as appropriate, that it must be seen as the last back door to discrimination. And the door stands wide open.” 2

Even academics, one of the groups that should be exposed to issues of comprehensive inclusion, have seemingly decided that language is a low-priority issue. As noted in a 2015 article in The Economist :

The collision of academic prejudice and accent is particularly ironic. Academics tend to the centre-left nearly everywhere, and talk endlessly about class and multiculturalism…. And yet accent and dialect are still barely on many people's minds as deserving respect. 3

As such, as the editors of this collection, we have commissioned thirteen essays that address specific issues of language inequality and discrimination, both in their own right and directly related to traditional themes of diversity and inclusion.

Recent issues of Dædalus have addressed immigration, climate change, access to justice, inequality, and teaching in higher education, all of which relate to language in some way. 4 The theme of the Summer 2022 issue is “The Humanities in American Life: Transforming the Relationship with the Public.” As an extension of that work, the essays in this volume focus on a humanistic social science approach to transforming our relationship with language both in the academy and at large.

There is a growing inventory of research projects and written collections that consider issues of language and social justice, including dimensions such as raciolinguistics, linguistic profiling, multilingual education, gendered linguistics, and court cases that are linguistically informed. Those materials cover a comprehensive range of language issues related to social justice. The collection of essays in this Dædalus volume is unique in its breadth of coverage and extends from issues including linguistic profiling, raciolinguistics, and institutional linguicism to multilingualism, language teaching, migration, and climate change. The authors are experts in their respective areas of scholarship, who combine strong research records with extensive engagement in their topics of inquiry.

The initial goal of this Dædalus issue is to demonstrate the vast array of social and political disparity manifested in language inequality, ranging from ecological conditions such as climate change, social conditions of interand intralanguage variation, and institutional policies that promulgate the notion and the stated practice of official languages and homogenized, monolithic norms of standardized language based on socially dominant speakers. These norms are socialized overtly and covertly into all sectors of society and often are adopted as consensus norms, even by those who are marginalized or stigmatized by these distinctions. As linguist Norman Fairclough notes in Language and Power , the exercise of power is most efficiently achieved through ideology-manufacturing consent instead of coercion. 5 Practices that appear universal or common sense often originate in the dominant class, and these practices work to sustain an unequal power dynamic. Furthermore, there is power behind discourse because the social order of discourses is held together as a hidden effect of power, such as standardization and national/official languages, and power in discourse as strategies of discourse reflect asymmetrical power relations between interlocutors in sets of routines, such as address forms, interruptions, and a host of other conversational routines. In this context, the first step in addressing these linguistic inequalities is to raise awareness of their existence, since many operate as implicit bias rather than overt, explicit bias recognized by the public.

Unfortunately, and somewhat ironically, higher education has been slow in this process; in fact, several essays in this collection show that higher education has been an active agent in the reproduction of linguistic inequality at the same time that it advocates for equality in many other realms of social structure. 6 Two essays in particular explore underlying notions of standardization and the use of language in social presentation and argumentation. The essays also address language rights as a fundamental human right. In “Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination,” Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk, and Rachel Elizabeth Weissler discuss how ideologies about standardized language circulate in higher education, to the detriment of many students, and they include a range of suggestions and examples for how to center linguistic justice and equity within higher education.

Curzan and coauthors give us an important overview of language standardization:

We have suggested some solutions to many of the issues we've highlighted in this essay; however, implementing solutions in a meaningful way first requires recognition of how important language variation is for our everyday interactions with others. Second, implementing solutions depends on recognizing how our ideas about language (standardized or not) can pose a true barrier to meaningful change. Such recognition includes the understanding that much of what we think about language often stands as a proxy for what we think about people, who we are willing to listen to and hear, and who we want to be with or distance ourselves from. 7

In “Addressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model,” Walt Wolfram describes a proactive “campus-infusion” program that includes activities and resources for student affairs, academic affairs, human resources, faculty affairs, and offices of institutional equity and diversity. Wolfram's essay shows directly and specifically how academics aren't always the solution but, as a whole, are complicit in linguistic exclusion. He writes:

A casual survey of university diversity statements and programs indicates that a) there is an implicitly recognized set of diversity themes within higher education and b) it traditionally excludes language issues. 8 Topics related to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual preference, and age are commonly included in these programs, but language is noticeably absent, either by explicit exclusion or by implicit disregard. Ironically, issues of language intersect with all of the themes in the canonical catalog of diversity issues. 9

The absence of systemic language considerations from most diversity and inclusion programs and their limited role in antiracist initiatives is a major concern for these programs, since language is a critical component for discrimination among the central themes in the extant canon of diversity. Language is an active agent in discrimination and cannot be overlooked or minimized in the process.

Some of the essays in this volume of Dædalus address the sociopolitical dominance of a restricted set of languages and its impact on the lives of speakers of devalued languages. The authors of these essays consider the effects of climate, social, educational, legal, and political dissonance confronted by speakers of nondominant languages. They also show how the metaphors of “disappearance” and “loss” obscure the colonial processes responsible for the suppression of Indigenous languages. People who speak an estimated 90 percent of the world's languages have now been linguistically and culturally harmed due to the increasing dominance of a selected number of “world languages” and changes in the physical and topographical ecology. The authors describe the implications of this extensive language subjugation and endangerment and the consequences for the speakers of these languages. Both physical and social ecology are implicated in this threat to multitudes of languages in the world.

Linguistics in general, and sociolinguistics in particular, has a significant history of engagement in issues of social inequality. From the educational controversies over the language adequacy of marginalized, racialized groups of speakers in the 1960s, as in linguist William Labov's A Study of Non-Standard English , to ideological challenges to multilingualism and the social and cultural impact of the devaluing of the world's languages, as described in the essays by Wesley Y. Leonard, Guadalupe Valdés, and Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley, the role of language is a prominent consideration in the actualization and dispensation of social justice. 10

In addition, this collection addresses areas of research that are complementary to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ 2017 report by the Commission on Language Learning, America's Languages: Investing in Language Education for the 21st Century . 11 In spite of the long-term presence of the teaching of languages other than English in the American educational system, concern over “world language capacity” has surfaced periodically over a period of many years because of the perceived limitations in developing functional additional language proficiencies. The consensus view (as in Congressman Paul Simon's 1980 report The Tongue-Tied American ) has been that foreign/world language study in U.S. schools is generally unsuccessful, that Americans are poor language learners, and that focused attention must be given to the national defense implications of these language limitations. 12 In the 2017 Language Commission report, foreign/world language study is presented as 1) critical to success in business, research, and international relations in the twenty-first century and 2) a contributing factor to “improved learning outcomes in other subjects, enhanced cognitive ability, and the development of empathy and effective interpretive skills.” 13

The Academy's report presents information about languages spoken at home by U.S. residents (76.7 percent English, 12.6 percent Spanish). It also includes a graphic illustrating the prevalence of thirteen other languages (including Chinese, Hindi, Filipino and Tagalog, and Vietnamese) commonly spoken by 0.13 percent to 0.2 percent of the population, as well as a category identified as all other languages (a small category comprising 2.2 percent of residents of the United States). 14 The report focuses on languages - rather than speakers-and recommends: 1) new activities that will increase the number of language teachers, 2) expanded efforts that can supplement language instruction across the education system, and 3) more opportunities for students to experience and immerse themselves in “languages as they are used in everyday interactions and across all segments of society.” It also specifically mentions needed support for heritage languages so these languages can “persist from one generation to the next,” and for targeted programming for Native American languages. 15

While it effectively interrupted the monolingual, English-only ideologies that permeate ideas on language in the United States, the conceptualization of language undergirding the report needs to be greatly expanded. The report focuses on developing expertise in additional language acquisition as the product of deliberative study. For example, in the case of heritage languages (defined as those non-English languages spoken by residents of the United States), the report highlights efforts such as the Seal of Biliteracy. Through this effort (now endorsed by many states around the country), high school students who complete a sequence of established language classes and pass a state-approved language assessment can obtain an official Seal of Biliteracy endorsement. Unfortunately, the series of courses and the assessments required to obtain the Seal are only available in a limited number of languages. The report mentions other efforts, including dual language immersion programs, yet it does not recognize family- and community-gained bilingualism and biliteracy. Notably, the report specifically laments what are viewed as limited literacy abilities of heritage language speakers and recommends making available curricula specially designed for heritage language learners and Native American languages.

The view of language that the report is based on is a narrow one and does not represent the linguistic realities of the majority of bilingual and multilingual students. In her contribution to this volume, “Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’ Languages,” Guadalupe Valdés “specifically problematize[s] language instruction as it takes place in classroom settings and the impact of what I term the curricularization of language as it is experienced by Latinx students who ‘study’ language qua language in instructed situations.” 16 Valdés shows us how these specific issues play out in what is typically viewed as the neutral “teaching” of languages. She writes that challenges to

linguistic justice [result] from widely held negative perspectives on bi/multilingualism and from common and continuing misunderstandings of individuals who use resources from two communicative systems in their everyday lives. My goal is to highlight the effect of these misunderstandings on the direct teaching of English. 17

In “Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives,” Wesley Y. Leonard draws from his experiences as a member of a Native American community whose language was wrongly labeled “extinct”:

Within this narrative, I begin with an overview of how language endangerment is described to general audiences in the United States and critique the way it is framed and shared. From there, I shift to an alternative that draws from Indigenous ways of knowing to promote social justice through language reclamation. 18

Leonard encourages us to directly refute “dominant endangered languages narratives” and replace the focus on the actors of harm in Indigenous communities with a focus on the creativity and resolve of native scholars working to revitalize native language and culture. As he states, the “ultimate goal of this essay is to promote a praxis of social justice by showing how language shift occurs largely as a result of injustices, and by offering possible interventions.” 19

In “Climate & Language: An Entangled Crisis,” Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley

note that these academic discourses-as well as similar discourses in nonprofit and policy-making spheres-rightly acknowledge the importance of Indigenous thought to environmental and climate action. Sadly, they often fall short of acknowledging both the colonial drivers of Indigenous language “loss” and Indigenous ownership of Indigenous language and environmental knowledge. We propose alternative framings that emphasize colonial responsibility and Indigenous sovereignty. 20

Fine, Love-Nichols, and Perley present models of how language and climate are intertwined. They write, “Scholars and activists have documented the intersections of climate change and language endangerment, with special focus paid to their compounding consequences.” The authors “consider the relationship between language and environmental ideologies, synthesizing previous research on how metaphors and communicative norms in Indigenous and colonial languages influence environmental beliefs and actions.” 21

The essays in this volume profile a wide range of language issues related to social justice, from everyday hegemonic comments to legislative policies and courtroom testimony that depend on language reliability and the linguistic credibility of witnesses who do not communicate in a mainstream American English variety. In 1972, the president of the Linguistic Society of America, Dwight Bolinger, gave his presidential address titled “Truth is a Linguistic Question” as a forewarning of the linguistic accountability of public reporting of national events. In his other work, he describes language as “a loaded weapon.” Through these essays, we find both concepts to be true. 22

Over recent decades, the field of linguistics has developed a robust specialization in areas that pay primary attention to the application of a full range of legal and nonlegal verbal, digital, and document communication that is at the heart of equitable communication strategies. Language variation is also a highly politicized behavior, extending from the construct of a “standardized language” considered essential for writing and speaking to the use of language in negotiating the administration of social and political justice. The essays on linguistic variation and sociopolitical ideology, by Curzan and coauthors, Jonathan Rosa and Nelson Flores, and H. Samy Alim, examine both the ideological underpinnings of consensual constructs such as “standard” versus “nonmainstream” and their use in the political process of persuasion and sociopolitical implementation. 23 The authors in this section address key issues of language variation and language discrimination that demonstrate the vitality of language in issues of social justice, both independent of and related to other attributes of social justice. This model includes standardization in media platforms, as described in Rosa and Flores's essay, demonstrating the systemic othering of those who do not speak this variety as their default dialect.

In “Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolinguistic Perspective,” Rosa and Flores show how “the trope of language barriers and the toppling thereof is widely resonant as a reference point for societal progress.”

We argue that by interrogating the colonial and imperial underpinnings of widespread ideas about linguistic diversity, we can connect linguistic advocacy to broader political struggles. We suggest that language and social justice efforts must link affirmations of linguistic diversity to demands for the creation of societal structures that sustain collective well-being. 24

Rosa and Flores present and update their raciolinguistics model in current spaces where race meets technology. With this emerging technology as a reference point, they demonstrate why “it is crucial to reconsider the logics that inform contemporary digital accent-modification platforms and the broader ways that purportedly benevolent efforts to help marked subjects modify their language practices become institutionalized as assimilationist projects masquerading as assistance.” They also note that disability has always been part of the story-and needs to be brought back to light-sharing that Mabel Hubbard and Ma Bell, who were both influential on modern linguistic technology, were deaf women. 25

In “Black Womanhood: Raciolinguistic Intersections of Gender, Sexuality & Social Status in the Aftermaths of Colonization,” Aris Moreno Clemons and Jessica A. Grieser “call for an exploration of social life that considers the raciolinguistic intersections of gender, sexuality, and social class as part and parcel of overarching social formations.” They center the Black woman as the prototypical Other, her condition being interpreted neither by conventions of race nor gender. As such, we take “Black womanhood as the point of departure for a description of the necessary intersecting and variable analyses of social life.” Clemons and Greiser “interrogate the intersections of gender, sexuality, and social status, focusing on the experiences of Black women who fit into and lie at the margins of these categories.”

They highlight the work of semiotician Krystal A. Smalls, who “reveals a model for how interdisciplinary reading across fields such as Black feminist studies, Black anthropology, Black geographies, and Black linguistics can result in expansive and inclusive worldmaking.” 26

In “Asian American Racialization & Model Minority Logics in Linguistics,” Joyhanna Yoo, Cheryl Lee, Andrew Cheng, and Anusha Ànand “consider historical and contemporary racializing tactics with respect to Asians and Asian Americans.” Such racializing tactics, which they call model minority logics,

weaponize an abstract version of one group to further racialize all minoritized groups and regiment ethnoracial hierarchies. We identify three functions of model minority logics that perpetuate white supremacy in the academy, using linguistics as a case study and underscoring the ways in which the discipline is already mired in racializing logics that differentiate scholars of color based on reified hierarchies. 27

The authors consider the often-overlooked linguistic experiences of Asian Americans in linguistics and show how “ideological positioning of Asian Americans as “honorary whites” is based on selective and heavily skewed images of Asian American economic and educational achievements that circulate across institutional and dominant media channels.” 28

In “Inventing ‘the White Voice’: Racial Capitalism, Raciolinguistics & Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies,” H. Samy Alim explores

how paradigms like raciolinguistics and culturally sustaining pedagogies, among others, can offer substantive breaks from mainstream thought and provide us with new, just, and equitable ways of living together in the world. I begin with a deep engagement with Boots Riley and his critically acclaimed, anticapitalist, absurdist comedy Sorry to Bother You in hopes of demonstrating how artists, activists, creatives, and scholars might: 1) cotheorize the complex relationships between language and racial capitalism and 2) think through the political, economic, and pedagogical implications of this new theorizing for Communities of Color. 29

Alim digs deep into models of aspirational whiteness in Sorry to Bother You and shows how it goes past the mark. In the script, Boots states, “It's not really a white voice. It's what they wish they sounded like. So, it's like, what they think they're supposed to sound like.” All of the authors in this section examine varied kinds of intervention strategies and programs in institutional education and social action that can raise awareness of and help to ameliorate linguistic subordination and sociolinguistic inequality in American society.

From our perspective, it is not sufficient to raise awareness and describe linguistic inequality without attempting to confront and ameliorate that inequality. Thus, our third and final set of papers by John Baugh, Sharese King and John R. Rickford, and Norma Mendoza-Denton offer legal and policy alternatives that implement activities and programs that directly confront issues of institutional inequality. As linguist Jan Blommaert puts it, “we need an activist attitude, one in which the battle for power-through-knowledge is engaged, in which knowledge is activated as a key instrument for the liberation of people, and as a central tool underpinning any effort to arrive at a more just and equitable society.” 30 Our authors illustrate the communicative processes involved when we use our human capacity for language to work toward justice.

In “Linguistic Profiling across International Geopolitical Landscapes,” Baugh “explore[s] various forms of linguistic profiling throughout the world, culminating with observations intended to promote linguistic human rights and the aspirational goal of equality among people who do not share common sociolinguistic backgrounds.” 31 Baugh extends his previous work on linguistic profiling into the international geopolitical landscape and notes, in countries that have them, the role that language academies play in reinforcing narrow norms, showing how those practices relate to practices in countries where these processes are more organic and situated in the educational systems.

In “Language on Trial,” King and Rickford draw on their case study of the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, a close friend of Trayvon Martin, in the 2013 trial of George Zimmerman v. The State of Florida . 32 They show that despite being an ear-witness (by cell phone) to all but the final minutes of Zimmerman's interaction with Trayvon, and despite testifying for nearly six hours about it, her testimony was dismissed in jury deliberations. “Through a linguistic analysis of Jeantel's speech, comments from a juror, and a broader contextualization of stigmatized speech forms and linguistic styles,” they show that “lack of acknowledgment of dialectal variation has harmful social and legal consequences for speakers of stigmatized dialects.” 33 Their work complements legal scholar D. James Greiner's essay on empiricism in law, from a previous volume of Dædalus , to show how empirical linguistic analysis should be included in such models. 34 As King and Rickford state:

Alongside the vitriol from the general public, evidence from jury members suggested that not only was Jeantel's speech misunderstood, but it was ultimately disregarded in more than sixteen hours of deliberation. With no access to the court transcript, unless when requesting a specific playback, jurors did not have the materials to reread speech that might have been unfamiliar to most if they were not exposed to or did not speak the dialect. 35

In “Currents of Innuendo Converge on an American Path to Political Hate,” Norma Mendoza-Denton shows that politicians’ “innuendo such as enthymemes, sarcasm, and dog whistles” gave us “an early warning about the type of relationship that has now obtained between Christianity and politics, and specifically the rise of Christian Nationalism as facilitated by President Donald Trump.” She demonstrates that “two currents of indirectness in American politics, one religious and the other racial, have converged like tributaries leading to a larger body of water.” 36

Anne H. Charity Hudley concludes the collection with “Liberatory Linguistics,” offering the model as “a productive, unifying framework for the scholarship that will advance strategies for attaining linguistic justice […] [e]merging from the synthesis of various lived experiences, academic traditions, and methodological approaches.” She highlights promising strategies from her work with Black undergraduates, graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty members as they endeavor to embed a justice framework throughout the study of language broadly conceived that can “improve current approaches to engaging with structural realities that impede linguistic justice.” 37 Charity Hudley ends by noting how this set of essays is in conversation with the 2022 Annual Review of Applied Linguistics on social justice in applied linguistics, and the forthcoming Oxford volumes Decolonizing Linguistics and Inclusion in Linguistics , which “set frameworks for the professional growth of those who study language and create direct roadmaps for scholars to establish innovative agendas for integrating their teaching and research and outreach in ways that will transform linguistic theory and practice for years to come.” 38

As our summaries suggest, this collection of essays is diverse and comprehensive, representing a range of situations and conditions calling for justice in language. We hope these essays, along with other publications on this topic, broaden the conversations across higher education on language and justice. We are extremely grateful to the authors who have shared their knowledge, research, advocacy, and perspectives in such lucid, accessible presentations.

See, for example, the statement by the Linguistic Society of America, “LSA Statement on Race,” May 2019, https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/lsa-statement-race .

Rosina Lippi-Green, English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States (New York: Routledge, 2012).

R. L. G., “The Last Acceptable Prejudice,” The Economist , January 29, 2015, https://www.economist.com/prospero/2015/01/29/the-last-acceptable-prejudice .

Cecilia Menjívar, “The Racialization of ‘Illegality,’“ Dædalus 150 (2) (Spring 2021): 91-105, https://www.amacad.org/publication/racialization-illegality ; Jessica F. Green, “Less Talk, More Walk: Why Climate Change Demands Activism in the Academy,” Dædalus 149 (4) (Fall 2020): 151-162, https://www.amacad.org/publication/climate-change-demands-activism-academy ; D. James Greiner, “The New Legal Empiricism & Its Application to Access-to-Justice Inquiries,” Dædalus 148 (1) (Winter 2019): 64-74, https://www.amacad.org/publication/new-legal-empiricism-its-application-access-justice-inquiries ; Irene Bloemraad, Will Kymlicka, Michèle Lamont, and Leanne S. Son Hing, “Membership without Social Citizenship? Deservingness & Redistribution as Grounds for Equality,” Dædalus 148 (3) (Summer 2019): 73-104, https://www.amacad.org/publication/membership-without-social-citizenship-deservingness-redistribution-grounds-equality ; and Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson, “The Human Factor: The Promise & Limits of Online Education,” Dædalus 148 (4) (Fall 2019): 235-254, https://www.amacad.org/publication/human-factor-promise-limits-online-education .

Norman Fairclough, Language and Power , 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2001).

Stephany Brett Dunstan, Walt Wolfram, Andrey J. Jaeger, and Rebecca E. Crandall, “Educating the Educated: Language Diversity in the University Backyard,” American Speech 90 (2) (2015): 266-280, https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-3130368 .

Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk, and Rachel Elizabeth Weissler, “Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 31, https://www.amacad.org/publication/language-standardization-linguistic-subordination .

Kendra Nicole Calhoun, “Competing Discourses of Diversity and Inclusion: Institutional Rhetoric and Graduate Student Narratives at Two Minority Serving Institutions” (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2021), https://www.proquest.com/openview/552b09ea236453a210e8b541d03188fe/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y .

Walt Wolfram, “Addressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 37, https://www.amacad.org/publication/addressing-linguistic-inequality-higher-education-proactive-model .

William Labov, A Study of Non-Standard English (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED024053.pdf ; Wesley Y. Leonard, “Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): https://www.amacad.org/publication/refusing-endangered-languages-narratives ; Guadalupe Valdés, “Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’ Languages,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): https://www.amacad.org/publication/social-justice-challenges-teaching-languages ; and Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley, “Climate & Language: An Entangled Crisis,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 84-98, https://www.amacad.org/publication/climate-language-entangled-crisis .

American Academy of Arts and Sciences, America's Languages: Investing in Language Education for the 21st Century (Cambridge, Mass.: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017), https://www.amacad.org/publication/americas-languages .

Paul Simon, The Tongue-Tied American: Confronting the Foreign Language Crisis (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1980), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED206188 .

American Academy of Arts and Sciences, America's Languages , vii.

Valdés, “Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’ Languages,” 53.

Leonard, “Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives,” 69.

Fine, Love-Nichols, and Perley, “Climate & Language,” 84.

Dwight Bolinger, Language: The Loaded Weapon—The Use and Abuse of Language Today (New York: Routledge, 2021).

Curzan et al., “Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination”; Jonathan Rosa and Nelson Flores, “Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolinguistic Perspective,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 99-114, https://www.amacad.org/publication/rethinking-language-barriers-social-justice-raciolinguistic-perspective ; and H. Samy Alim, “Inventing ‘The White Voice’: Racial Capitalism, Raciolinguistics & Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 147-166, https://www.amacad.org/publication/inventing-white-voice-racial-capitalism-raciolinguistics-culturally-sustaining .

Rosa and Flores, “Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolinguistic Perspective,” 99.

Ibid., 101-102.

Aris Moreno Clemons and Jessica A. Grieser, “Black Womanhood: Raciolinguistic Intersections of Gender, Sexuality & Social Status in the Aftermaths of Colonization,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 115, 117, 119, 124, https://www.amacad.org/publication/black-womanhood-raciolinguistic-intersections-gender-sexuality-social-status-aftermaths .

Joyhanna Yoo, Cheryl Lee, Andrew Cheng, and Anusha Ànand, “Asian American Racialization & Model Minority Logics in Linguistics,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 130, https://www.amacad.org/publication/asian-american-racialization-and-model-minority-logics-linguistics .

Ibid., 134.

Alim, “Inventing ‘The White Voice,’“ 147.

Jan Blommaert, “Looking Back, What Was Important?” Ctrl+Alt+Dem, April 20, 2020, https://alternative-democracy-research.org/2020/04/20/what-was-important .

John Baugh “Linguistic Profiling across International Geopolitical Landscapes,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 167, https://www.amacad.org/publication/linguistic-profiling-across-international-geopolitical-landscapes .

John R. Rickford and Sharese King, “Language and Linguistics on Trial: Hearing Rachel Jeantel (and Other Vernacular Speakers) in the Courtroom and Beyond,” Language 92 (4) (2016): 948-988, https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/Rickford_92_4.pdf .

Sharese King and John R. Rickford, “Language on Trial,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 178, https://www.amacad.org/publication/language-on-trial .

Greiner, “The New Legal Empiricism & Its Application to Access-to-Justice Inquiries.”

King and Rickford, “Language on Trial,” 181.

Norma Mendoza-Denton, “Currents of Innuendo Converge on an American Path to Political Hate,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 194, https://www.amacad.org/publication/currents-innuendo-converge-american-path-political-hate .

Anne H. Charity Hudley, “Liberatory Linguistics,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Summer 2023): 212, https://www.amacad.org/publication/liberatory-linguistics .

Alison Mackey, Erin Fell, Felipe de Jesus, et al., “Social Justice in Applied Linguistics: Making Space for New Approaches and New Voices,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 42 (2022): 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190522000071 ; Anne H. Charity Hudley and Nelson Flores, “Social Justice in Applied Linguistics: Not a Conclusion, but a Way Forward,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 42 (2022): 144-154, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190522000083 ; Anne H. Charity Hudley, Christine Mallinson, and Mary Bucholtz, eds., Decolonizing Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming); and Anne H. Charity Hudley, Christine Mallinson, and Mary Bucholtz, eds., Inclusion in Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

Email alerts

Related articles, affiliations.

• Online ISSN 1548-6192
• Print ISSN 0011-5266

A product of The MIT Press

Mit press direct.

• About MIT Press Direct

Information

• Accessibility
• For Authors
• For Customers
• For Librarians
• Direct to Open
• Open Access
• Media Inquiries
• Rights and Permissions
• For Advertisers
• About the MIT Press
• The MIT Press Reader
• MIT Press Blog
• Seasonal Catalogs
• MIT Press Home
• Give to the MIT Press
• Direct Service Desk
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Crossref Member
• COUNTER Member  
• The MIT Press colophon is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account