There’s a sign on the wall, but she wants to be sure, ‘Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings. “Stairway to Heaven,” Led Zeppelin
Perhaps you’ve heard: “Mariemont Schools are teaching Critical Race Theory!” How could that be? That’s ridiculous. Why, look on our school website Q&A:
Does the school district teach Critical Race Theory (CRT)?
No. CRT is not a curriculum. It is a theory. Moreover, CRT means different things to different people as it is a very complex, doctoral-level theory.[i]
OK, so we do not teach CRT because it is not a curriculum. And CRT means different things to different people because it is complex. Just that short sentence is confusing! I’m lost already.
We seem to be getting twisted around in language – terminology, definitions, context. It is no wonder. The term “neologism” refers to a newly coined word that can be easily understood. “Webinar” and “blogosphere” are good examples, as is the word “neologism” itself. Much more difficult to grasp (and often insidious) in our culture and media are “semantic shifts” that occur when, in context, a modern or “postmodern” purported meaning of a word or phrase is radically different from the common usage that we understand. I don’t need to call Mr. Webster to invoke a semantic shift. I just do it and see who is paying attention. Mr. Webster can catch up later.
Consider “shapeshifting” in mythology and folklore, whereby a being can transform itself with supernatural powers, sorcery, or spells. Today’s shamans derive power by shifting our very communication to an increasingly unwitting public.
Today, a movement of fundamentalist ideology is co-opting our very language. These scholar-activist leaders begin using everyday words differently from the rest of us. It is a specialized language using words that people assume, incorrectly, that they understand. This heretofore radical progressive fringe represents a wholly different culture, embedded within our own, with the intent of superseding and devouring the original definitions.
In this introduction to the language of “Social Justice Warriors,” the very term “social justice” is examined.
What we believe social justice means in context of our shared common ground
This term “social justice” (lower case) nominally pursues and derives its name from a broad goal dating back almost 200 years. This term has taken on meanings concerned at some level with addressing and redressing social inequalities, particularly where it comes to issues of class, race, and gender. Most famously, philosopher John Rawls set out a universalist thought experiment in which a socially just society would be one in which an individual, given a choice, would be equally happy to be born into any social milieu or identity group.
In this sense, “social justice” is a cornerstone of philosophical “Classical Liberalism.” Classical Liberalism is best thought of as a shared common ground based on the unalienable rights of the individual. The main tenets of liberalism are political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, the development of universal human rights, legal equality for all adult citizens, due process, freedom of expression, respect for the value of viewpoint diversity and honest debate, respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. [ii]
These Classical Liberal values developed as ideals. For over two centuries our nation has struggled against theocracy, slavery, patriarchy, colonialism, fascism, and many other forms of discrimination to honor these tenets as we do, still imperfectly, today. The struggle for social justice has been strongest when it has been viewed universally, applied to all individuals.
Classical Liberalism is compatible with a wide range of political, economic, and social points of view, including what Americans broadly call “liberal” or “conservative.” Classical Liberalism is opposed to authoritarian movements of all type, be they left-wing or right-wing, secular, or theocratic. This shared common ground provides a framework for conflict resolution, whereby people with a variety of views can rationally debate options for public policy. A broad consensus of Americans view “social justice” as a shared ideal in this context. Thus, social justice = “a good thing.”
A new definition applied to the “Social Justice” Movement
Classical Liberalism at the heart of Western Civilization is under attack. In broad summary, the threats arise from two prevailing pressures, one revolutionary and one reactionary.
Far-left “social crusaders” portray themselves as the sole and righteous champions of moral progress, without which democracy is meaningless and hollow. Warriors on the farthest left advance their cause through revolutionary aims that:
- Openly reject the tenets of Classical Liberalism as a form of oppression; and
- Embrace an authoritarian means to establish a thoroughly dogmatic, fundamentalist ideology regarding how society ought to be ordered.
This movement rejects what we have considered to be objective truth in the tenets of Classical Liberalism and in the ideals of our nation’s founders. These tenets and ideals are dismissed as a fantasy dreamt up by naïve or arrogantly bigoted Enlightenment (read “White”) thinkers.
Meanwhile, not helping matters, reactionary far-right populist movements that claim to represent a last, desperate hope for Classical Liberalism and democracy against a rising tide of progressivism and globalism may trend toward leadership in strongmen to preserve Western values and sovereignty.
Each side fuels the other’s greatest excesses. However, only a small fraction of our society consider themselves “far left” or “far right.” The majority, however, still generally accept the tenets of Classical Liberalism, as described above.
The term “Social Justice” (capitalized) has been shapeshifted, given a new and counterintuitive meaning by far-left activist academicians and an exponentially growing number of disciples. Social Justice, for clarity shown here with a capital “S” and “J,” refers to a specific, doctrinal interpretation prescribing a strict, identifiable orthodoxy. Its meaning in this postmodern semantic shift is indistinguishable from “wokeism.”
These “woke” scholar-activists interpret the world through a lens that detects power dynamics in every interaction, utterance, and cultural artifact – even when they are not obvious or real. This wokeness represents a cynical worldview that centers social and cultural grievances and aims to make everything into a zero-sum political struggle revolving around “identity markers” of race, sex, gender, and sexuality. To an outsider, this culture feels like it originated on another planet where human sociological interactions are interpreted in the most cynical way possible. Its advocates survive only via identity politics and extremes of self-defined political correctness by which an individual can be “cancelled.” They speak in terms of a mythology of “systemic” and “structural” problems endemic to every aspect of our society and institutions. They define “The Truth According to Social Justice” – a radical relativism in the form of double standards such as assertions that only white people can be racist, only men can be sexist, and in the wholesale rejection of a universal tenet of nondiscrimination.
In this twisted Social Justice worldview people should not be treated as individuals. They are shouted down when they suggest recognition of our shared humanity. Instead, society is constrained by identity politics.
We are not individuals according to this dogma. For example, a leading Social Justice proponent assigns each of us into one of three boxes – racists, assimilationists, and anti-racists. The assimilationist – who shares common ideals in a broader society – is rejected. (See the summary of Stamped: Racism, Anti-racism, and You in the Book Reviews section of this Website ).
Classical Liberalism rejects such ideas as unreasonable, untenable, and devoid of hope. Intuitively, we see wokeism lacks reason, equality, due process, and freedom of expression. Try to articulate a response. The trick of the language shapeshifters is to portray a critic as an enemy of “social justice” and a “fairer society.” The goal of these false prophets, speaking in their own language, is to dissuade well-intentioned people from even trying to respond.
The underlying values of Social Justice are so counterintuitive that they are difficult to understand. (Dare we say “very complex” as described by some?) Often, we do not even recognize its peculiar language.
Few of us have ever had to defend universally liberal ethics, reason, and evidence. Until now. Thus, Social Justice = “NOT a good thing”.
This is the first in a series of blog articles analyzing the shapeshifting of our language.
[i] Downloaded February 4, 2022. https://www.mariemontschools.org/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx
[ii] Cynical Theories, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Pitchstone Publishing, 2020. This article adapts the author’s introductory concepts of Critical Theory.