How to Advance Social Justice?
Transcending the traps of selfishness and selflessness
Social justice is a controversial subject in almost all societies due to the various interwoven layers of history, culture, etc. that are very contextual. But stripped down to its basics, the common issue across all societies really boils down to the question of whether we extend a helping hand to the less fortunate and if so, how.
Clearly there is the moral and philosophical angle to the virtue of being our brother’s keepers. And there is also the pragmatic angle that lending a helping hand ensures the productive potential across all social groups and individuals is optimally tapped and thereby the society as a whole benefits.
The two predominant viewpoints — conservative and liberal — on this issue are both trying to address this problem in seemingly sub-optimal ways.
An extreme conservative viewpoint may be rooted in social Darwinism that leaves everyone to find their way or perish trying. However, pragmatic conservatives grudgingly concede the need to extend a helping hand. Yet they harbor a valid suspicion that the takers will have no motivation to get unstuck from the welfare groove due to the law of inertia as a government handout would be a powerful motivation to do nothing. Some argue that it is best to leave it to religious or social organizations that operate in the moral sphere to provide this safety net as a government funded net is an imposition of morality and also an extremely inefficient entity prone to corruption.
A liberal viewpoint assumes that the taker will thank others for the safety net and will work on improving his capabilities, as that is the surest way to a sustained long-term well-being. And while ensconced in the net, he will not be a threat to himself or to society, which he might very well be in the absence of the safety net. It is thus a curious mix of pessimism (i.e. an uncared for individual might disrupt the well-being of the society) and optimism (i.e. a cared for individual will be motivated to ween himself off welfare and turn productive). This viewpoint finds the government to be best suited to lend a helping hand to provide a guaranteed safety net for the less fortunate which is also a source of security for the society.
A key disagreement therefore boils down to who gets to decide the beneficiaries and based on what factors. Sifting through each individual’s needs is not practical and any aggregate factors such as gender, race, caste etc. is guaranteed to be inaccurate. And vesting this decision making authority with the government or even corporations seems to be a recipe for abuse.
Also the underlying philosophical motivations of both viewpoints are found to be lacking but in entirely different ways.
The conservative viewpoint focuses on simply maximizing the individual’s happiness without recognizing that it takes a village to raise an individual. It results in chasing economic metrics at individual and national levels that lead to unhealthy comparison and competition, excess consumption and overall long term harm to the ecosystem. Overall it becomes akin to what a cancer cell does to the body, by consuming excessively at the expense of the health of the society that sustains us.
The liberal viewpoint focuses heavily on handouts and constantly harping on rights while ignoring responsibilities and ever playing the victim card for various identity groups. Also it devolves into an unnatural idea of equality of outcomes. No two blades of grass are even equal. Each person has unique talents, skills, health etc. and therefore any imposition of equality only pulls the society down to its lowest common denominator causing great harm as seen in communist countries. Overall it becomes akin to what a parasite does to the body, being a do-nothing free rider at the expense of the host body which is the society at large.
To sum it up, both the conservative and liberal viewpoints are based on a flawed paradigm and hence woefully inadequate as we clearly see today.
So how do we go about solving this puzzle?
Clearly there is the individual and the societal perspective in this complex issue. But it may be best to start from the individual. Because after all, society is just an amalgamation of individuals and all societal laws, codes and ethics are drawn from the predominant creed of the individuals. So if we start with the individual and then look at the issue carefully as a whole, the solutions and the mechanisms may emerge from them organically.
Now clearly the individual has to optimize their potential. As long as we don’t measure outcome by any societal standards but by the potential of the individual, then we can use the term outcome too. Being focused on optimizing one’s own potential means there is no measurement or comparison but just being the best that one can be.
To understand better, let’s look at a natural forest of trees as a metaphor for a society of individuals. Every tree in the forest consumes what is necessary from the environment to grow to its fullest potential without any yardstick for comparison and every tree gives what is necessary for the environment to thrive. Note that there is no idea of altruism or selflessness but there is only synergy — a natural recognition of the forest as one whole unit with each tree in the forest playing its part to the fullest potential so that the entire forest thrives.
This is the higher order understanding of interconnectedness that can bring about a new way we self-organize society. That is, each individual does what is best for himself and the whole society with no contradiction therein.
Needless to add, this requires a profound shift in individual consciousness and cannot be organized by any outside entity — be it government, religious or social organizations. And only such a total paradigm shift can help transcend in a holistic manner the current dichotomy of both the conservative and liberal viewpoints each with their own major blind spots.
It all boils down to recognizing the essential interconnectedness of society and the world at large, and acting out of that awareness. It naturally means doing the best for oneself and the society as well as our ecology as a whole. Then the question of helping the less fortunate doesn’t need any moral or non-moral justification but an organic outpouring of such awareness. It is as natural as how the organs of the body function by taking care of their well being while contributing to health of the whole body.
It is important to emphasize that interconnectedness based living is different from being altruistic or selfless which is only an artificial ideal. A felt reality of interconnectedness brings about actions that are good for the part and the whole. Like a tree nourishing itself and nourishing the forest too. It’s a natural way of living. Selflessness would be for the tree to give up its life for the sake of the forest — something one never sees in nature.
So a correct understanding and felt living of interconnectedness is neither putting ‘myself’ first or last but looking at the whole of life as one movement.
This is in sync with the natural order. The question to ask in nature itself is, does a tree in a forest act with self interest? The answer would be yes, but it is enlightened self interest that knows that it can thrive only when the whole environment thrives. That’s the paradigm interconnectedness based living refers to.
This requires a profound shift in individual consciousness wherein each individual recognizes that his well being is rooted in maximizing output with minimal consumption and contributing to the health of the society. It is based on the recognition that a meaningful life, and not an affluent one, is the most fulfilling. And a meaningful life is one that recognizes and values the interconnectedness of all.
The main objection to this would be that it is highly impractical for such a profound shift to come about across the globe. But what are the so-called practical options?
If we let the government or corporations decide who is less fortunate based on gender, race, caste etc., it results in identity based politics leading to divisiveness and breakdown in society. If we go with social Darwinism where everyone is out to fend for himself, it not only leads to unhealthy consumption but a deep alienation within that results in depression, anxiety and many related issues. So clearly both viewpoints are failing us already and we are at a point where what is considered ‘impractical’ may be the only ‘practical’ way out.
Also it has to be pointed out that such a shift in individual consciousness doesn’t have to happen in every one of the billions of humans for the new paradigm to come about. If a profound shift happens even in a few thoughtful leaders of the society — political, economic, academic and cultural — it can help put the right systems in place that automatically encourage behaviors with the right incentives for the general population.
The other great advantage of such an interconnected approach is that it not only takes care of social justice, but also issues related to the environment, health (mental and physical), innovation and creativity, war and peace and many more that are foundational to our living.
As a species, we are dying by a thousand cuts with every one of these issues slowly eating away at our very survival eventually. And piecemeal solutions to each of these issues are found severely wanting, being rooted in a divisive consciousness. So we may be quickly reaching a point where such a profound shift in consciousness is not anymore a luxury but a question of our very survival after all.
