I generally try to avoid any contact with the Center for Social Justice because the shear force of its victim blaming, patronising and fact denying seems to overwhelming to counter. I'm often left totally unsure where to start and feel it needs someone with a greater insight to write about it.
However this is my blog and one of its main functions is for me to spit and his about things that annoy me without forcing anyone to listen. So here is me setting out some of my main concerns with the CSJ.
1. The Appropriation of the term Social Justice
Social Justice means something. As a blog form the CSJ points out the concept of Social Justice 'has long been owned by those on the left' and adds 'of British politics'. Social Justice is a concept that is both ancient and global it doesn't belong to Britain but has in the main belonged to progressives. Now that doesn't mean people on the right have nothing to contribute but what is most helpful in debate is for people to critique views they don't agree with and present alternative arguments. What the CSJ has done is simply come up with their own understanding of social justice and then act as though it is the dominant understanding.
2. Lack of clarity and transparency
The CSJ describes itself as independent, the BBC often describes it as right leaning which is far more accurate though I think still not the whole picture. I don't understand why it doesn't formalise and declare its exact link to the conservative party. The Fabian society for example clearly describes itself as being affiliated to the Labour Party. Why couldn't the CSJ do an equivalent?
The second transparency issue is the lack of definition of Social Justice as a concept. Given that they are clearly using an understanding different from the most commonly held agreed understandings it would be very useful if they could define what they mean.
3. Policy Suggestions or Research
I asked this question specifically in regards to the Girls and Gangs report. I was told it was research and given an answer about methodology but that answer only really addressed data collection not how it was coded or analysed. You can ask front line workers, but how you collate and interpret what they say can impact massively on the final message.
4. Origins of Poverty
Though its never directly stated my impression of the overarching narrative of CSJ is that the cause of poverty is decision and behaviors made by poor people themselves. Though they acknowledge the cyclical nature of things they consistently refer to social breakdown as causing poverty while most Social Justice activists would see poverty and inequality as the cause for social breakdown. Infact I find much of their narrative victim blaming. They state that:
In this framework we must work to persaude or punitively pursue people to change themselves because they are the origin of the problem. They are responsible not only for their own poverty and inequality but also for the fact that they don't experience life as a level playing-field. If only they were better and more um I don't know 'like us'.
The reality is that we live in a desperately unequal society where wealth, resources, voice and power are more and more exclusively in the hands of the minority. The cause of poverty quiet frankly is wealth.
None of this would concern me so much if a.) they where more upfront about their underlying assumptions and b.) I didn't have the sneaky suspicion they where hugely influential. I've decided I am going to watch the CSJ more closely.
Here are some other articles I found that are much more eloquent:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/tory-vilification-poor-child-poverty
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/duncan-smith-poverty-benefit-sanctions-easterhouse
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/manufacturing_ignorance_the_centre_for_social_justice_and_welfare_reform_in
However this is my blog and one of its main functions is for me to spit and his about things that annoy me without forcing anyone to listen. So here is me setting out some of my main concerns with the CSJ.
1. The Appropriation of the term Social Justice
Social Justice means something. As a blog form the CSJ points out the concept of Social Justice 'has long been owned by those on the left' and adds 'of British politics'. Social Justice is a concept that is both ancient and global it doesn't belong to Britain but has in the main belonged to progressives. Now that doesn't mean people on the right have nothing to contribute but what is most helpful in debate is for people to critique views they don't agree with and present alternative arguments. What the CSJ has done is simply come up with their own understanding of social justice and then act as though it is the dominant understanding.
2. Lack of clarity and transparency
The CSJ describes itself as independent, the BBC often describes it as right leaning which is far more accurate though I think still not the whole picture. I don't understand why it doesn't formalise and declare its exact link to the conservative party. The Fabian society for example clearly describes itself as being affiliated to the Labour Party. Why couldn't the CSJ do an equivalent?
The second transparency issue is the lack of definition of Social Justice as a concept. Given that they are clearly using an understanding different from the most commonly held agreed understandings it would be very useful if they could define what they mean.
3. Policy Suggestions or Research
I asked this question specifically in regards to the Girls and Gangs report. I was told it was research and given an answer about methodology but that answer only really addressed data collection not how it was coded or analysed. You can ask front line workers, but how you collate and interpret what they say can impact massively on the final message.
4. Origins of Poverty
Though its never directly stated my impression of the overarching narrative of CSJ is that the cause of poverty is decision and behaviors made by poor people themselves. Though they acknowledge the cyclical nature of things they consistently refer to social breakdown as causing poverty while most Social Justice activists would see poverty and inequality as the cause for social breakdown. Infact I find much of their narrative victim blaming. They state that:
'Social justice is not achieved by focussing on the poverty line or tweaking the benefits budget. Instead, it requires unleashing the work of change in people’s lives to create in them opportunities and hopes for the future, as well as a level playing field for positive choices.'
In this framework we must work to persaude or punitively pursue people to change themselves because they are the origin of the problem. They are responsible not only for their own poverty and inequality but also for the fact that they don't experience life as a level playing-field. If only they were better and more um I don't know 'like us'.
The reality is that we live in a desperately unequal society where wealth, resources, voice and power are more and more exclusively in the hands of the minority. The cause of poverty quiet frankly is wealth.
None of this would concern me so much if a.) they where more upfront about their underlying assumptions and b.) I didn't have the sneaky suspicion they where hugely influential. I've decided I am going to watch the CSJ more closely.
Here are some other articles I found that are much more eloquent:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/tory-vilification-poor-child-poverty
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/duncan-smith-poverty-benefit-sanctions-easterhouse
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/manufacturing_ignorance_the_centre_for_social_justice_and_welfare_reform_in
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please do let me know what you think. I am well aware I am not always right!