Social Justice and Pseudo-Thinking

          Pseudo-thinking involves the use of abstract language which does not have any real substance. When people communicate pseudo-thinking it will sound like real sentences are being spoken with real meaning, but, at root, there is nothing there because the person doing the thinking has not bothered to attach the words to a clearly defined idea. Pseudo-thinking involves words for which there is no identifiable referent.

            The following is a prototypical example of this kind of thinking.

Imagine your nutritionist recommends a diet specifically for you and says:

“Humans should eat food.”

That’s it. That’s the whole diet.

Is this a diet plan one can say they “like”? Is this diet of any use? What food? How much? How often?

The sentence above is not a very good statement to provide guidance on what to eat. Although the statement is true, so true in fact that no one could disagree with it, it is a truth with no relevance to the issue at hand: a specific diet for you.

The following is a part of a definition of social justice:

          “a state of affairs … in which … benefits or burdens in society are dispersed in accordance with some allocation principle.” (Jost & Kay, 2009, “Social Justice: History, Theory, and Research”)

          Note that the meaning of the definition hinges on the phrase “some allocation principle.”

          This sentence is exactly the same as “Humans should eat food.” And for the same reason, it is not a definition of social justice people can say they “like.” The reason for this is as follows:

         Any interaction among people involving the “dispers[ment]” of “benefits or burdens” is governed by some allocation principle. This is just as true as saying that any diet will consist of a human eating food. But what is the allocation principle involved? This is the same as asking, what is the food to be eaten? What precisely is the thing being referred to when one says the term “allocation principle”?

         When the mind is unfocused, using emotions and intentions to infuse terminology with significance, meaningless abstractions will seem to have meaning.  The real meaning never comes through, however, because the person is focused on the intention and emotional resonance of the term. It makes no sense to say you like a definition of social justice that says we should use "some allocation principle" just as it makes no sense to say you like a nutrition plan that says humans should eat food.

            The reason for expounding on these examples is because the term social justice is a term that engenders pseudo-thinking. The term is one that suggests it means something good, and without giving the matter much study, many often infuse the term with positive connotations, without being clear as to what is actually being said.

Comments:

add comment