Justice nuanced

Mark Greathouse

(4/2021) Merriam-Webster defines nuance as a subtle distinction or variation, a subtle quality, or sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings. Little wonder justice is nuanced. Justice? Yours, mine, or theirs?

Bumper-sticker slogans are bandied about like confetti. Social justice! Criminal justice! Racial justice! LBGTQ justice! Poetic justice! I threw in that last one to be sure you were paying attention.

I wrote a free-verse poem back in 2017 titled "Justice Enslaved" that expressed my lament over how our world seems enslaved to justice. It’s as though justice is the Rx for society’s ills. Guess what? It’s far more nuanced. Enjoy the poem:

To what…to whom are we enslaved? Who forged our chains? Is enslavement just? Where is the justice? Who decides what is justice? Slavery justified from the Hammurabi’s Code to Bible scrolls. Neolithic times segue to Sumer, ancient Egyptian pyramids, Greece, To China and Hebrew kingdoms, to the ancient Levant…even to the West; Slavery as punishment, debt repayment, spoils of war, or birthright. Christian, Hindu, Islam; all find justice enslaved to the law.

Is there justice in slavery? From slavery? Be it medieval Europe, Vikings, Tartars, or Barbary Pirates; Slaves were as booty, a mercantile undertaking, a way of life. Justified in economics essential to the culture, a fact of life! Whether issued by Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontiex, or Sublimus Dei, Pope or Imam, King or Sultan…made no matter; misanthropes all! Justice stood as mute sacrifice to some larger, greater need.

Where then is justice? What indeed is the justice? Reparation, rehabilitation, retribution…mere slogans. From Aztecs to Cortez’, Incas of Peru, Comanches of our plains; To southern cotton fields and tobacco barns enslavement flourished, justice died. Despite Wilberforce, Newton, and Lincoln, slavery forever prevails. EBT cards replace chains, urban plantations defy any escape; Khartoum, Delhi, Jakarta, or Detroit; enslavement abounds.

We cry out for justice. Cry to end enslavement. Yet its pervasive tentacles imprison all nations, all people; Justice seems such a shallow game, a losing default setting for life. What is justice to the enslaved? What then is justice to the enslavers? And what is justice for those who would end slavery? Such optimistic fools. Only our souls offer protest, unshackled by iron chains; Yet justice rings hollow as payment for our past enslavements.

Dare we dwell on justice for past and present sins? Can money or lives truly compensate for injustice perceived or real? For justice remains an elusive charade, be it divine or natural, Be it distributive, egalitarian, social, fair, or utopian. Retributive and restorative justice stand as inherently unjust; We find ourselves mired in justice, mine or yours, the red pill or the blue pill; God forgives, and in the end only "the truth will set you free."

Variations? Shadings? It seems that the distinctions are more raw than nuanced. It begs the question of how justice is to be attained if there is no agreement as to what constitutes true justice. Whether folks are on the political left or right, there seems little hope for common ground. Much of the "nuance" is spawned by misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information emanating from social media, news media, academia, big-tech, and politicians. Regrettably, both political sides are prone to fall into a trap of unsubstantiated argument as expressed by Thomas Sowell, "One of the painful signs of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans – anything except reason."

I contend that many of society’s ills might be more readily resolved, if folks simply knew how to argue reasonably. While extreme positions do exist, there’s much that is nuanced. Learning how to argue would go a long way to healing divisiveness in our nation. I can say that it isn’t done by loose, often-unsubstantiated snippets fired back and forth on Facebook posts or Twitter tweets. I was blessed to have taught my sons the "Socratic Method." Socratic method is a technique by which questions are used to examine values, principles, and beliefs with the goal of achieving some level of elenchus or logical refutation. How to argue based in the Socratic method should be taught in every school in America, as it fundamentally teaches how to argue. Frankly, I don’t practice it so much as I should. It’s seems easier to simply sloganeer simplistic opinions. But wait! That implies a lack of forethought, of reason, a dumbing down as it were.

Consider justice as Socrates (470-379 BC) might have done. Warning: we’ll barely scratch the surface. Justice covers a broad spectrum, as I alluded to early in this op-ed. For argument’s sake, let’s narrow our issue to "social justice" and whether it can be achieved. An interlocutor might first ask, what is social justice? Now, you are placed in the position of defining it. Is it a balance between individual and societal wealth distribution, a balance between personal liberties and fair privilege opportunities, an assurance of receiving your due from society, or the breaking of barriers to social mobility with associated safety nets and economic justice? Wow, that’s a load. So, which social justice do you ascribe to assuming you believe in social justice? Can we establish that your definition of social justice exists? If it can, what is the nature of that social justice? Can you see where this is headed? The answers depend upon you as an individual human being, not some herd-instinct emotion-laden slogan. Every human is different and potentially so is every definition of social justice. We have equal opportunity to have our very own view of it.

I’m partial to a definition by Luigi Taparelli back around 1840, as he saw social justice as a natural law principle that equated to the biblical principle of brotherly love and thereby placed responsibility squarely upon the individual in society. Barack Obama was fond of paraphrasing from a speech by Rev Martin Luther King saying how social justice rides on "the arc of the moral universe and bends toward justice." King’s quote actually was condensed from a quote by 19th century abolitionist and preacher Theodore Parker. "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe…And from what I see I am sure it (the ‘arc’) bends toward justice." Progressives like Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound purloined the social justice arc in the 20th century for their socio-political causes. Good for them and all who followed their quite nuanced political views.

Justice is much maligned and oft-stolen, used to the advantage of one side of an issue versus another. Parker’s arc has been bending leftward politically for decades and has been preempted by media, mega-corporations, entertainment, education, and politicians such as to lose sight of social justice’s original meaning and intent. Yet by most accounts, it seems fair to say that social justice is an ideal inherited from Christianity (sorry all you atheists out there). Can we achieve Socrates’ elenchus? I suggest that reasoned argument is required; nay, it’s an absolute must if we are to survive as a nation. Perhaps, cooler heads and reasoned outcomes can be achieved. We might even strive to influence our own homes, churches, and communities by praying, thinking, and talking on the nuances of social justice.

Might truth set us free? Just sayin’.

Read past edition of the Tumbleweeds

Read other articles by Mark Greathouse