Cherini 1

Citizenship as an Instrument of Social Justice

Fernanda Cherini
1(Politics, York University, Canada)

1. INTRODUCTION
Despite a general agreement and use of social justice as a synonym of ‘good things’, the
term far from being so simple and uncontested. Several definitions of ‘social justice’ have been
offered and they have been dully criticized by supporters and opponents. Critics have been quick
to point at how freely the term is used, without a specific definition that offers more than an abstract
and vague concept. Nonetheless, few have questioned why in most of the definition and
approaches, the focus on the social part of justice has been neglected. These approaches place more
importance in finding solutions for justice in an individual centred way . However, humans are
essentially social, requiring their individual necessities to be considered in relation to their social
interactions and social needs. Therefore, this essay takes the concept of “justice as fairness”
introduced by John Rawls, and proposes that it should be complemented by the concept of
citizenship. Citizenship is the practical manifestation of the ideas of social justice, guaranteeing
equal rights and treatment to all members of a society. Currently, this notion might be hard to
conceive in our society, mainly because the concepts of citizenship and social justice have been
distorted from their original meaning. Still, authentic citizenship is the mechanism through which
justice can be achieved in a way that is inherently connected to the social side. This paper will be
divided in two parts: the first one will provide a theoretical discussion of the concept, while the
second half will examine the hindrances to its realization in current society.

2. THE SOCIAL ASPECT OF JUSTICE AND CITIZENSHIP

Since the term ‘social justice’ was raised by Mill in the 19th century it has been
transforming, as our concerns over social problems have also been changing. Mill offered one of
the first definitions of social justice, already associating it to citizenship. “Society should treat all
equally well who have deserved equally well of it … This is the highest abstract standard of social
and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens,
should be made in the utmost degree to converge” (Mill, 2002, p. 61). However, interest in the
term “social justice” waned from interest until modern times. Sensing the necessity to further bring
light to and clarify the term, many modern thinkers have offered their contributions. One of the
most influential contributions comes from the political philosopher John Rawls, with his famous
concept of “justice as fairness”. Rawls explains that justice as fairness is “when no arbitrary
distinctions are made between persons in the assigning of basic rights and duties” (Rawls, 1999,
 Cherini 2

p. 5) That is the meaning of justice alone; adding the social to it requires considering the collective
setting, instead of only the individual one. For Rawls, like Mill, social institutions play a significant
role in assuring justice (Rawls, 1999, p.3). Also, he affirms that “the justice of a social scheme
depends essentially on how fundamental rights and duties are assigned and on the economic
opportunities and social conditions in the various sectors of society” (Rawls, 1999, p. 7). This
definition of social justice as the distribution of “fundamental rights and duties” by social
institutions inevitably directs us to the concept of citizenship.
Citizenship is intimately connected to social justice, as it is the practical aspect of the
theoretical concept of social justice. Citizenship is defined as "a status bestowed on those who are
full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and
duties with which the status is endowed" (Marshall, 2009, p. 149). This concept is nearly identical
to Rawls understanding of social justice as fairness, as citizenship is what guarantees fair treatment
to all who are part of a society through institutions. As shown previously by Mill’s definition,
citizenship and social justice have been associated before. However, citizenship was mainly seen
in terms of benefiting individuals, not on how it can contribute to the community. This connection
between social justice and citizenship being hard to notice because, in our highly individualistic
society, citizenship has been lacking the ‘social’ aspect to it. “Authentic membership, the sense of
belonging in a community,” (Breton, 2011, p. 40) is necessary because sociality is a unique aspect
of being human (Brodie, 2007, p. 95). Institutions must support and reinforce this type of
membership instead of a individualistic citizenship.

Living in society is the essence of human beings, we are defined by the way we relate and
interact with others. People’s conditions and success depend, not solely on themselves, but also on
others and on the conditions of their societies (Breton, 2011, p. 40). Social justice, therefore, is not
only being treated fairly (justice as fairness), but it is being considered a part of a community
(justice as citizenship) as well because only by living in a community, can we achieve the highest
degree of success and satisfaction as human beings. Another reason why major attention should
be given to the social, is because citizenship is not much different from private social relations.
When we live in society, there is a variety of smaller communities that are all connected, such as
"family, workplace, neighbourhood, church, … city, province, nation-state" (O,Boyle, 2011, p.
106). In all these private communities we have duties and rights (O,Boyle, 2011, p. 106), not only
in the public sphere towards the city, province, and nation-state. Citizenship is, thus, the extension
of social relations and interactions that happen in our private spheres, not an entire separate and
distinct realm. This is not to say that private and public must be merged in a less individualistic
society, but considering social justice as citizenship and fairness requires that it “should not be
studied in isolation from their wider social consequences” (Bernts, d’Anjou, and Houtmans, 1992,
201). Yet, most writings about social justice pay attention mainly to the justice aspect of the term
(Brodie, 2007, p. 95); which is why this paper importance of an approach to understanding social
justice that is indivisible from the ‘social’.

The definition of social justice in terms of citizenship seems capable of avoiding the main
critics directed towards social justice. As mentioned, a classic criticism is that the term is too
 Cherini 3

ambiguous, “vague and ill-defined” (O’Boyle, 2011, p. 96). Although it is hard to achieve a clear
and specific definition, social justice as fairness through citizenship adds an empirical aspect to
the term. It still has the moral aspect to it (fairness) which can be ambiguous and contested, but it
is supported by the essence of what it means to be human, to live in community, which has
scientific basing. Citizenship is the practical and concrete means through which fairness (social
justice) can be achieved in a way that respects people’s inherent characteristic of being social.
Another main objection is connected to the definition of social justice as equity and equal
distribution: skeptic authors affirm that this approach is unrealistic and impractical (Flew, year, p.
182). This would be because these approaches disregard the fact that differences between people
are natural, which will inevitably lead to inequality in societies (Flew, year, p. 186). A study in
Canada about what makes people feel part of the society shows that “it is not the fact that life
conditions are different that creates problem for social cohesion. People live with these differences
all the time, and generally accept them" (Breton, 2011, p. 39), the problem is with the perception
of unfairness, of not being treated fairly. Inequality will always exist, yet, present inequality is not
a result of only natural differences between people, but of unfair differentiations and power
relations. Thus, a definition that is focused primarily on fairness avoids this misconception that
social justice means total equality; although this does not mean that equality approaches to social
justice are wrong.
Still, avoiding old critics does not mean that our definition is incontestable. Critics could
point that citizenship is an excluding concept, which is true. The feeling of belonging to a
community remains heavily associated with being a citizen of a single state. Nonetheless, it is an
important and feasible first step towards an eventual more universal and broader understanding of
community.
3. OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH
CITIZENSHIP
An awareness that society must be just exists for a long time, even if what it means was
not a consensus. Still, it is difficult to affirm that we have been progressing towards a more just
society. Many authors do present this idea of an evolution of rights: we first acquired civil rights,
then political, and the next step will be social rights (Marshall, 2009, p. 149). However, the fault
in this logic is in not looking at the content of these rights and social policies and how they have
changed over time (Wood, 2009); Canada perfectly illustrates this point. The country is considered
one of the most advanced in terms of human development, ranking as the 10th country in the
Human Development Index (HDI) 1 . Even in terms of inequality, it does not fare too terribly
compared to other “First World” countries, ranking 20th out of the 37 OECD countries2. Yet, this
information does not show that, since 1980, inequality in Canada has been growing rapidly and
social programs are being cut (Brodie, 2007, p. 94). This economic inequality is but a symptom of
a much larger problem that is now deeply rooted in our society, Neoliberalism.

1United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Reports, 2016.
2OECD, “Income Inequality Update: Income inequality remains high in the face of weak recovery," November
2016.
 Cherini 4

When we defined social justice in terms of citizenship with deep connections to the
community, we noted that our society has currently forgotten about the social aspect of justice.
After 1980, the welfare state faced a huge crisis that led to it being overtaken by Neoliberalism.
This system brought a radical view of laissez-faire and all focus was shifted from the social to the
individual. Extreme individualization forced the view that collective social problems are actually
a person’s own fault. “In the era of neoliberalism, human beings are made accountable for their
predicaments or circumstances … as opposed to finding faults in larger structural and institutional
forces" (Wilson, 2007, p. 97). This is because Neoliberalism has changed the political and cultural
structure and institutions in a way that is aligned with its interests. “Neoliberal rationality is not
only or even primarily focused on the economy. It extends and disseminates market values to all
institutions and social action.”3 Neoliberal capitalism requires inequality to function, however, a
perception of inequality by people can destabilize it, so a political system that appears to address
this inequality is necessary 4. Justice and equality have a distorted meaning in Neoliberalism5 , it
promotes universal competition in the market and promises individual freedom and empowerment6.
In Canada, governments have "abandoned the vision of social citizenship, social security, and
social justice, offering in their place a new social imaginary that pinpoints the market … as the
primary, if not 'natural' source of both individual wellbeing and freedom, and political
legitimacy." 7 Democracy no longer represents a mean to fight inequality and unfairness, it has
become a “fulfillment” of the liberal market economy8.
Individuality does not only affect relations between the people and institutions, but also
between people themselves. Justice as fairness through citizenship, requires that people see
themselves as members of a community. Breton et al. did a study in Canada about the “civic
covenant” that exists in the country, with the goal of understanding what brings a higher sense of
community. Their findings seem to be closely related to Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness 9 .
“Fairness is an important pillar of social cohesion. The sense of being treated fairly, of being given
a fair chance, does much to determine the degree of attachment to the institutions, the communities,
and the society in which people live their lives.”10 What we currently have, though, is just the
opposite, people constantly feel that their lives are not fair, especially when comparing themselves
to others. This creates a resentment towards society that, coupled with Neoliberalism’s
individualistic and competitive mindset, lead to segregation and lack of empathy towards others.
Even if some people identify themselves as part of a group, such as religious or ethnic, this feeling
is not extended to the rest of the society.

3 Brodie, "Reforming Social Justice in Neoliberal Times," 100.
4 Edward Broadbent, Democratic Equality: What Went Wrong? (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001), 5.
5 Wilson, "Social Justice and Neoliberal Discourse," 97.
6 Brodie, "Reforming Social Justice in Neoliberal Times," 103.
7 Brodie, "Reforming Social Justice in Neoliberal Times," 99.
8 C. B. Macpherson, The Real World of Democracy (Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2006), 14.
9 Breton, "Citizenship Consciousness, Nonbounded Solidarity, and Social Justice," 39.
10 Reymond Breton, Norbert J. Hartmann, Jos L. Lennards, and Paul Reed, A Fragile Social Fabric? Fairness,

Trust, and Commitment in Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004), 33.

 Cherini 5

All the hindrances mentioned refer to extreme Neoliberal market ideas being applied to the
political and social areas. This is certainly not the only obstacle to social justice, since inequality
and unfairness have existed in all societies. Discrimination has been crystallized in our society
through centuries of history and it is a significant barrier to social justice. Still, the main issue in
trying to overcome social problems in modern society is Neoliberalism. It has reversed trends of
social concerns that were happening between 1945 and 198011. The only way to meaningfully
address social justice is to once again reverse the current trend. Transforming a structure is never
an easy task, especially when the main instrument that has the ability to change it is not willing to
do so. Nonetheless, we cannot abandon the state, it is important to keep pressuring it to act in the
interest of the society, not of the market.
4. CONCLUSION

Social justice cannot be properly conceived nor achieved without thorough consideration
of the social, as living in a community is a fundamental aspect of human life. In addressing the
definition of the term, we have seen that the social aspect has been sideways discussed. To solve
this issue, we proposed a conception of social justice that adds the notion of citizenship to Rawls’
definition of justice as fairness. Citizenship is the practical aspect of social justice and the means
through which it can be achieved in an intrinsically social way. Nonetheless, this type of
citizenship is not what we witness in modern society. The social aspect is not only neglected in the
theories, but it is completely disregarded in our society because of the predominance of Neoliberal
values. Since 1980, Neoliberalism has been shaping our social and political structures, not just the
economy. Justice and democracy have had their essences altered to fit Neoliberal ideology; the
fault of social problems is put on people instead of institutions; competitivity and unfairness have
disconnected people from the community. Life conditions under Neoliberalism are deplorable and
completely stripe humans of their essence. Change is vital, we must continuously pressure the state
to shift from Neoliberalism, as well as find other solutions that do not address the issue individually,
but collectively.

11 Broadbent, Democratic Equality: What Went Wrong?, 6.
 Cherini 6

References
Bernts, Ton, Leo d'Anjou, and Dick Houtmand. "Citizenship and Social Justice." Social
Justice Research 5, no. 2 (1992), 195-212.
Breton, Margot. "Citizenship Consciousness, Nonbounded Solidarity, and Social Justice."
Social Work with Groups 34 (2011), 35-50.
Breton, Reymond, Norbert J. Hartmann, Jos L. Lennards, and Paul Reed. A Fragile Social
Fabric? Fairness, Trust, and Commitment in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press,
2004.
Broadbent, Edward. Democratic Equality: What Went Wrong? Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2001.
Brodie, Janine. "Reforming Social Justice in Neoliberal Times." Studies in Social Justice
1, no. 2 (2007), 93-107.
Flew, Antony. “Social Justice: From Rawls to Hume.” Hume Studies 12, no. 2 (1986),
175-191.
Macpherson, C. B. The Real World of Democracy. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc.,
2006.

Marshall, T. H. “Social Citizenship and Social Class.” In Inequality and Society 2009,
eds. Jeff Manza and Michael Sauder, 148-155. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2009.
O'Boyle, Edward J. "Social Justice: Addressing the Ambiguity." Logos: A Journal of
Catholic Thought and Culture 14, no. 2 (2011), 96-117.

OECD. Income Inequality Update: Income inequality remains high in the face of weak
recovery. 2016.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Reports. 2016.

Wilson, Bobby M. "Social Justice and Neoliberal Discourse." Southeastern Geographer

47, no. 1 (2007), 97-100.
Wood, Ellen Meiksins. "Capitalism and Social Rights." Against the Current 140 (2009).
Accessed October 13, 2017. http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2150.