A brief history of Social Justice and "Social Justice Warriors"

social justice or just social justice you justice social justice social justice social justice social justice social justice social justice social justice to some it's a grand civil rights movement concerned only of writing historic of wrongs and a desperate struggle for equality to others it's an almost conspiracy like push for censorship and totalitarianism throw in the term social justice warrior or sjw in short end yeah you've got a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions and definitions and only very little common ground so let's talk a little bit about this neat little package of social justice and social justice warriors social justice has become somewhat of a buzzword in the recent decade or so but the term actually has a very long rich and complicated history contrary to popular belief I think we should not start with defining the term but instead we should start out with the history of the idea behind it there are two main routes for the concept of social justice one being religious in nature the other being a result of enlightenment thinking while the irreligious idea of distributive justice a preceding term that would later on become so who just is dominated before the Enlightenment it was soon replaced with a more rational political approach and framework it's important to note that both lines of thought actually coexisted and at times were hard to separate and it's also important to note that there actually are quite a few scholars who reject the notion that distributive justice is essentially an old-school term for social justice one of the earliest calls for the aforementioned distributive justice in a political sense can be found in thermos panes the rights of men from the Year 1791 secondly because there is an unnatural unfitness in an aristocracy to be legislators for a nation their ideas of distributive justice are corrupted active the resource they begin live by trampling on all their younger brothers and sisters and relations of every kind and are taught and educated to do so with what ideas of justice or honor can men enter a house of legislation who absorbs in his own person the inheritance of a whole family orders out to them some pitiful portion with the insolence of a gift in fact the whole work is essentially one big call for the abolition of artificial privileges and a more just society the first actual use of the term social justice but this time in a more religious sense can be found in luigi de belly's work theoretical treatise on natural law based on fact from 1840 the book is divided into eight subsections on in the Italian original dessert that see only and in this at that see only number six he mentioned social justice for the first time and defines it as justice you between associations and the same or read greater or lesser levels of this social hierarchy social justice around the 18th and 19th century comes still from the perspective of monarchies of aristocracies and that's very important for understanding it most of the proposals for social justice are actually entire aristocratic in nature and very often hierarchies are still to be preserved in a sense it's very complicated just keep in mind that it does not seek usually to abolish natural hierarchies and earned inequalities as mentioned earlier the concept of social justice had deep religious roots namely Catholic and it was only in the late 19th century that there's been an increasing shift away from those roots towards a more political philosophical and materialistic approach in chapter 5 of the 1861 book utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill we'll find for instance the following passage it necessarily follows that we should treat all equally well we're no higher duty forbids who have deserved equal Eva's and that society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it that is who have deserved equally well absolutely this is the highest absolute standard of social and distributive justice to watch which all institutions and the efforts of all wedges citizens should be made in the utmost possible degree to converge as I said earlier the roots of social justice in the term distributive justice are bitch contested and just do it mill is one of the often cited sources for this idea because as you've seen he uses both distributive and social justice but apparently with two slightly different meanings here after this it all becomes increasingly convoluted and entangled with many aspects of social justice theory leaking into American political thought and a later revival and actual codification of social justice as part of Roman Catholic doctrine in the Year 1931 many of the influences of social justice can also be felt in Marx's to include a communist work it's also important to note that most social democracies of this world and most welfare states operate under some version of social justice or another now social justice has not always been only welcomed and accepted as the next step of human social progress and evolution but many thinkers were actually highly critical of the concept the main criticism of being that the phrase social justice can mean potentially everything to potentially everyone and essentially means nothing at all social justice to expect from an impersonal pleasures which nobody can control to bring about a just result it's not only in meaningless conception it's completely impossible see everybody talks about social justice but if you press people to explain to you what they mean by social justice whatever the fix accepts is just nobody knows I telling you because I've been crying for the past twenty years asking people what really are your principles of social justice Friedrich Hayek for instance criticized determined concept regulary and in Chapter one atavism of social justice in his work social justice socialism and democracy he says the following to discover the meaning of what is called social justice has been one of my chief preoccupations for more than ten years I have failed in this endeavor rather have reached the conclusion that with the reference to a society of freemen phrase has no meaning whatever during the late 20th century especially through the establishment of neoliberal schools of thought thanks to people like the aforementioned Friedrich Hayek we've seen an increasingly polar sizing and polarized use of the term social justice while it started out as a theological influence of the concept and slowly transformed into a background idea of political thought social justice has now become a social and political battlefield more and more people and political parties and institutions started dealing with the concept of social justice until the increasingly public debate about it culminated in the year 2006 with the United Nations declaring social justice a desired concerted political effort of their organization in its 2006 report social justice in an open world we can find following statement social justice may be broadly understood SD fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth however it is necessary to attach some important qualifiers to this statement currently maximalism Grove appears to be the primary objective but it is also essential to ensure that growth is sustainable that the integrity of the natural environment is respected that the use of non-renewable resources is rationalized and that future generations are able to enjoy a beautiful and hospitable earth while it's not the first time that other variables such as sustainability have been mixed in with the concept of social justice this if he has to be one of the biggest if not the biggest of such occurrences and that we see a slight break essentially between the social justice and distributive justice tradition of the 1819 Verto certain degree 20 century and the social justice of the 21st century it's also important to note and that we have to go back again those 1970s it's also important to note that during this period the terms of justice started receiving increasing academic attention and to this day it's a rather important field of discussion so important even that people actually make videos about it sociological I hate so where do you social justice warriors enter the picture and what are they exactly is John Stuart Mill a social justice warrior because he argues against the artificial privileges of aristocracy is temporarily a social justice warrior because he and his places at Thomas Aquinas stressed that the idea of especially good treatment of the poor and vulnerable is a Christian and as such inherently good value well I don't think that there actually is a real answer to that personally I don't think so and let me explain why in a sense the concept of a social justice warrior SJW in short is a very very new buzzword used by widely different groups of people in a colloquial sense in fact there's very little actual research into the concept of social justice warriors there's no real agreed-upon first time use of the term and no agreed-upon definition the term simply appears to have formed organically sometime the very late 20th and especially in the early 21st century they actually is a dictionary definition of social justice warrior v Oxford Dictionary states the following social justice warrior now an informal derogatory a person who expresses of promotes socially progressive views I reject this definition it lacks a lot of the required nuance for a political combat term and is written clearly from a perspective of those promoting quotation marks socially progressive views so let's do this a bit more detailed and nuanced the two main definitions that I'd propose are based on whether the term is subscribed or used as an out-group insult if self ascribed then the term is meant to denote high level of dedication to social justice directly implying a will to fight even against stacked odds if used as an insult then the term is meant to denote a fanatical dedication to avoid a solvent of various theories beliefs and ideas most commonly feminism Marxism social justice and abroad and often allegedly misused sins and various types of identity politics and all of that is coupled with an assumed malicious intent indeed personal gain for the SJW in question in the form of Fame of money or a form of bigotry towards non marginalized people the the capito page for social justice warriors is a good example of just how much of a battlefield the entire topic is the page uses almost exclusively news articles and blog posts as a sources and their sources are deeply partisan partial and biased for instance the Wikipedia article suggested both Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were referred to as justice various citing the article starett roads you are not going to win the battle against social justice warriors by MTV News author Christina Maru stick as I thought the article states that before trolls tried to turn sjw into a derogatory term people like dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were admiringly referred to a social justice warriors the article of course does not provide an actual source for this claim and as far as my own research goes both Gandhi and King were never referred to as social justice warriors by their contemporaries and referring to them as sjw's is highly anachronistic and is such completely inappropriate and interesting fact to note here is that Martin Luther King is often held up at both sides and I gonna make neck those really huge quotation marks by both sides in this conflict as a shining example of how things should be handled there also is a big element of conspiracy theories and I find it very important to stress that whenever I use the term conspiracy theory it is not derogatory it's a completely neutral term in my case there is a big element of conspiracy theories amongst permanence of social justice ranging from very small claims of just academia having a bias towards proponents of social justice over the theories of cultural Marxism being a tool to destroy the best enough to grant theories of global financial often Jewish elite essentially using social justice warriors as useful idiots for their globalist Marxist and often Illuminati dystopian agendas the surrounds the opening question the social justice is rooted both in theological and political philosophical thought namely in Catholic ideas and the Enlightenment over time the political and philosophical approach started to dominate and eventually formed the basis for many influential political ideas and finally it became both explicit policy with lags of the United Nations and a very polarizing social and political battleground social justice warriors are not one centralized group in fact the term is very vague unspecific and deeply dependent on the context of its use ranging from a badge of honor attributed to the likes of Gandhi and King to a term signalizing at saluté disgust towards surfers abused and it push towards a perceived totalitarian goal the interesting thing is that this is a very very new and rather unprecedented phenomenon many if not most of today's applications of social justice are historically speaking largely unheard of for instance the push for increased immigration or for massively increased representation of minorities or a concerted effort at improving sustainability we have to keep in mind that even events that sound similar in nature such as the early democratic revolutions of this world are over only concerned with the fight between aristocracy and non aristocracy coupled with a large push for nationalism that often vent against notions of big immigration so right now we are in the culmination of hundreds of years of thought into a public political battlefield for mostly on the youngest medium we have at our disposal the internet completely unprecedented this will and this is just my personal prediction generate incredible amount of research in the upcoming decade which will only fuel the flames of this already amazing conflict so there you have it a very rough outline of what social justice in social justice warriors are I am dr. layman and this was a patreon spawn this video by Baruch and if you to found a video on the topic of your choice check out my patreon I am poor as shit the only thing left to say at this point is gladly tuned in and as always Babylon prevails you

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. why would a "conspericy theorist" think that there's a secret jewish conspiracy if not to hate on them?
    isn't it a quinicidence that conspiracy theorists talked alot about spying and ONLY after talking it happened?
    or why say the government are "(trying to turn frogs gay)" if you didn't hate gay people?
    it's most likely projection and less about beliveing it.
    more about TRYING to make it happen then it is happening.

  2. The term "Social Justice" is a term created and used by Russian intelligence. It is not new, it is from the 1960's. "Social Justice" is a signature term of Soviet/Russian intelligence and is a key element of how they subvert societies to communism. A "Social Justice" campaign ALWAYS originates with Soviet/Russian intelligence. ALWAYS!!!

    Here, allow the legendary KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov to explain the true nature of the world too you in just one hour! "SJW" is simply another term for "useful idiot". Vladimir Lenin's useful idiots are created through a "Social Justice" campaign, this is how Russian intelligence operates. Two generations of my family worked as counter intelligence agents for the Defense Intelligence Agency, I really do know what I am talking about.

    And so does does Yuri…


  3. Im pretty sure noone on the progressive side would ever use social justice warrior in a self-defining or positive light unless ironically. Perhaps some Neo-libs might but even then probably not many.

  4. Wow, thanks for this video. It now all makes much more sense to me, as I was introduced to Social Justice in a religious context (Christian) back around 2013, and this version of it mostly involved charity work and raising public awareness for disadvantaged groups. It makes sense why I started to feel so distant from the concept of Social Justice when I started seeing more and more of the brand of Social Justice that "SJW" types are more associated with, as that brand has a different root and generally different means to achieve the goals of Social Justice if not outright different goals entirely.

  5. Speaking of aristocracy, when it comes to the working class, social justice is almost universally hated, it's the wealthy educated liberal elites bullying us working class whites and telling us what to do, they can fuck right off.
    One side of this debate is completely insane, irrational, and divorced from the lessons of history, take a guess which one.

  6. There’s a quote that has stuck with me since I heard it, from perhaps an unlikely source (Beware, it’s a translation) “Justice will prevail? Of course it will! Because whoever wins becomes justice.” This makes me think that justice warrior and by extension, social justice warrior is simply someone who believes in their ideals and fights for them, sometimes on behalf of, or, for the betterment of “society”; nothing more, nothing less. Which would include both sides of the coin: for example both feminists and anti-feminists are indeed both social justice warriors even if the majority of people would not refer to anti-feminists as such, because it doesn’t reflect on most of society’s view of what “justice” should be. Buey are indeed both fighting for their own justice ideals. Justice is and always has been subjective, that’s why it’s not possible to define the term “social justice warriors” in any other way, because it will always change depending on people’s perception.

  7. From my experience sjw seems to mean someone who says something that supposedly attacks cis white men and who are part of the global conspiracy to wipe out cis white men through the horrific acts of challenging racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia and in some cases the rights of the disabled and in some cases promoting gun control and free healthcare and challenging established cultural traits that encourage those things because for some reason the most privileged and least discriminated group feels attacked by others being equal to them on all levels, either as an attack on their masculinity or nationalist ideas. I rarely or have never seen it used for anything other than that and normally it's used in place of an actual argument, which has lead me to really hate the term as all it really means is "I don't have to listen to your valid points and confront my racism or homophobia, etc or the fact that maybe through no fault of my own I've had it quite good due to some level of cultural discrimination and maybe the right thing to do is get rid of my advantage because I deem you part of a group that is crazy and irrational."

  8. Jonathan Haidt and Jordan B Peterson have designed tests to identify social justice warriors. You might disagree with their criteria, but you should probably have mentioned that when you said 'there is no agreed upon definition or solid study of social justice warriors.' Also, I would have liked to have heard more about the French Poststructuralists of the 60's and 70's and the Critical Race Theorists of the late 80's.

  9. Looks like Thomas Paine was speaking against the House of Lords.

    Here's me thinking John Stuart Mill was Charles Earl Grey (he was an SJW, though he did have a blend of tea named after him… and he was a Geordie!)

    Hayek, social justice == fairness that's it.

    Illuminati was a term that was popularised by the Illuminatus! trilogy of fictional novels a bunch of novels that I'm betting very few people have read (I've read the first novel, it was entertaining, but it was fiction)

  10. @Dr. Layman

    at 10:33 you use 'high level' and 'fanatic' dedication. i'm not sure if these two are as contrasting as you present. i'd say that the 'positive' account would be 'person with a dedication to social justice' . the 'warrior' is perfect for the 'willingness to fight' AND accusations of 'abuse/violence' for the 'negative'

  11. What messes with my head is that Dr Layman and Tea and Kraut have the world's most impeccable English language enunciation. As for philosophers, I think what philosophers fail to understand is that nobody but career philosophers gives a shit about career philosophers, that everybody is a philosopher but nobody but a career philosopher has any reason to lose themself in an endlessly expanding circle wank of mutual citation.

  12. I am actually working on a paper on Social Justice Warriors. As of now, I make the distinction between Social Justice Warriors and Social Justice Activist. It is in the latter category I place characters like King, Gahndi, etc. I have yet to find a good way of capping the turn SJW and only have an outline of it which ties into my previous work on irony and the crisis of modernity in relation to culture.

  13. hmm… Dr.layman I am surprised you did not mention John Rawls. He talks a lot about "redistribute justice". Rawls mentions two ways we can achieve "social justice." The fist is the "veil of ignorance" Rawls proposes that we do not know where we will end up in life. IE if we will be rich or poor successful or not etc… Rawls also says we have zero control over what talents we or born with or to what circumstances we are born to. There for Rawls says we live behind a veil of ignorance. So to make life more fair and JUST (note key idea of Rawls was justice as fairness). Society should follow the "Maximin rule" which is basically make life as fair as possible to the people who have are the "least advantaged". I am a classical liberal like Mill. So to me what the maximin rule means. Is everyone gets a shot at making a name for themselves and we as a society should try to give as many people as possible and reasonable the opportunity to make a name for themselves. I think Rawls is mainly talking about money when he say "least advantaged" to me that would be the people who are almost homeless but not quite,because the homeless have nothing and it is difficult for any government to help the homeless with any program. Now there should be programs like welfare to help the less fortunate. HOWEVER, I feel that the people who receive said sever should not be dependent on the service indefinitely or in other words. If some one is on welfare they should only be on welfare for a short time. I feel that there should be programs to help wain people off of programs like welfare. To help people become more independent and productive. So the question remains what exactly is social justice? Even as a political science major myself I would say I have no idea. This Idea of "social justice" is too new or, I am with Hayek on the idea that social justice simply does not exist. I can tell you what Justice IS as defined by any given political scientist/theorist. I would agree with Rawls that justice in terms of a society/government is indeed fairness. That is to say every one gets equal rights equal freedoms and opportunities to the maximum extent possible(NOT EQUAL OUT COMES! FUCK THAT SHIT!). So with that out of the way my question for you Dr.Layman is what do you make of Rawls theory of justice/The original position? I care more about personal liberty and freedoms more so than some overarching sense of justice or a just society. So I would not label my self or great figures like Martin Luther King Jr as SJWs. I would say figures like Dr.King fought for freedom equality and fairness sure! That was/is linked to a "rawlsian" understanding of what we perceive to be justice/Just. So MAYBE IF you real stretch the definition of SJW to what people like Dr.King did/do then MAYBE people like Dr.King were/are SJWs. Then again I think this further proof the point of social justice can mean anything to any one. So the point I made is mostly moot. Maybe social justice is just another word for social change that brakes societal norms? I do not know again I think that the whole concept of social justice is BUNK! Social justice does not seem to exist in any meaningful "tangible" way because it can mean anything to any one.

Related Post