The Social Justice Syllabus Project

The Artificial Lack of Philosophical Diversity in the OT Social Justice Literature

Published Mar 23, 2014  printer-friendly

         One of the characteristics of the social justice literature in occupational therapy is that it lacks diversity in political and philosophical perspectives. This lack of diversity is used by some to argue for keeping the social justice requirement in the AOTA Code of Ethics. The argument comes up when opponents of the social justice requirement point out that the profession’s membership is made up of people with different political and philosophical beliefs, and this means that many people will find the social justice requirement offensive and discriminatory. The response to this has been to acknowledge that the profession is made up of people with divergent views, but then say that those divergent views are just not reflected in the literature. And so, because these divergent views are not reflected in the literature, then those opposed to the requirement do not have any support for their position in the literature.

          This line of reasoning is incredibly odd for two reasons.

          First, it’s peculiar to hear those with leadership status use the lack of diversity in the literature as a reason for supporting something. This is probably the first time in occupational therapy that those with leadership status have interpreted a lack of diversity in anything as a positive, rather than a as problem. Isn't it always said that we need more diversity? That diversity is part of the Centennial Vision? Yet, in debating the social justice requirement, the lack of diversity in the literature has been considered an acceptable justification for supporting the requirement in the Code of Ethics.

         A second peculiar fact in arguing for the requirement based on the lack of diversity in the literature is that the missing diversity is completely artificial. It results from the deliberate or negligent exclusion of any other perspectives on the part of occupational therapy scholars. It is part of the practice of political filtering in the profession. Different perspectives do exist in the academic literature, but that literature is ignored in occupational therapy.

          The most egregious example to date comes from Ann Wilcock, one of the two most important social justice scholars in occupational therapy (the other being Elizabeth Townsend). The example has to do with the use of the philosopher Tara Smith to make a wide-ranging statement about social justice. Here is that statement, which was made in one of the most important books in the field, An Occupational Perspective of Health (2006):

          “The recent rapid assimilation of social justice  can be traced from the early 1970s when the American philosopher John Rawls identified individual rights , responsibilities, and liberties as moral principles of justice, to over two decades later when Tara Smith explored respect and fair treatment of others in terms of justice as a personal virtue” (Wilcock, 2006, p. 246).

          What this statement makes clear is that Wilcock does not know who the philosopher Tara Smith is. She is a current professor and the former department chair in the philosophy department at the University of Texas at Austin. She is an Objectivist philosopher. Objectivism is the philosophy created by the novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. And there is nothing in Smith's work that remotely suggests that she has played any role in “the recent rapid assimilation of social justice.” Tara Smith has spent her entire career opposing everything associated with Rawls’s social justice. She would vigorously reject any relationship between her philosophy and that of John Rawls.

         To categorize Smith and Rawls as being connected in any way regarding social justice is like saying that Karl Marx and the Pope share the same view of atheism. The statement would not make sense to anyone who understands that Karl Marx was a militant atheist and the Pope has a deep belief in God.

          What is even more peculiar is that in the article cited by Wilcock, Smith specifically states that she is not talking about social justice, but how the idea of justice is important to one’s own self, the way a healthy diet is important to oneself. Smith wrote that

          “By focusing on  . . . social justice, we have neglected an important dimension of a morally good life. My purpose here is to begin to remedy that neglect by examining justice as a personal virtue” (Smith, T. (1999). Justice as a Personal Virtue,” in Social Theory and Practice, 25:361-384, p. 361).

          In other words, she saying that the focus on justice at the societal level has resulted in neglecting the importance of justice as an individual virtue. Her article was meant to address that neglect. Yet, in the occupational therapy literature, she is categorized with John Rawls as playing a role in assimilating the concept of social justice into the culture. This is a serious defect.

          The artificial nature of the missing diversity in the OT literature becomes evident by simply looking at the entry for social justice in The Oxford English Dictionary. This is the most respected dictionary in the English-speaking world, and contains several pieces of information that are useful in understanding words. One of those pieces of information is a description of what is involved in the use of a term. Here is that description for social justice:

          “Much of the debate surrounding social justice has been concerned with the precise nature of fair distribution, and to what extent this may conflict with individual rights of acquisition and ownership.

          The points to highlight here are that social justice involves a debate, and that this debate involves what some believe is a conflict with individual rights in implementing various schemes of distribution. In other words, there are divergent points of view on the subject, with some seeing social justice as a violation of individual rights.

          This reality regarding the diversity of perspectives involved in discussing social justice is completely missing from the occupational therapy literature. Therefore, to argue in favor of the social justice requirement in the Code of Ethics on the basis that the occupational therapy literature only reflects one point of view is invalid. Such an argument ignores the fact that this lack of diversity is due to occupational therapy scholars ignoring any other perspectives. The argument is invalid because it uses a defect in the literautre as a justificaiton for the requirement. 


Comments:

add comment

 

Leave a comment

Name

Text:

powered by drupal
© 2013 | Contact