1

Michael Novak, in his article Defining Social Justice, examines some of the

misconceptions surrounding the term ‘Social Justice’ and ultimately seeks to define it

further in today’s times. He first frames his argument in terms of Freidrich Hayek’s

understanding of the concept, a concept that is the basis for “whole books and treatises,”

but causes many scholars to “[run] into embarrassing intellectual difficulties” (2000: 1).

He then seeks to define it as the “specific habit of justice that is ‘social’ in two senses.”

First, he posits that the abilities social justice requires are “those of inspiring, working

with, and organizing others to accomplish together a work of justice” (2000: 4). Second,

he claims that social justice “aims at the good of the city, not at the good of one agent

only,” involving citizens “on the left as on the right or in the center” (2000: 5). Social

Justice, therefore, involves every citizen against unjust institutions.

Clay Shirky, in his article The Political Power of Social Media, analyzes the

ramifications that social media has on modern political movements across the world –

movements that push for political, social, economic, and humanitarian agendas. He first

presents the fact that “the world’s networked population has grown from the low millions

to the low billions. Over the same period, social media have become a fact of life for civil

society worldwide” (2011: 1). As a result of this, Shirky states that “social media have

become coordinating tools for nearly all of the world’s political movements” (2011: 3)

even though authoritarian governments are censoring these platforms more and more

across the world. He also outlines the “instrumental view” put forth by Secretary Hilary

Clinton in 2010 that states that Internet freedoms such as lack of censorship and open,

public speech on these platforms should be protected above all others. This view, Shirky
 2

argues, does not properly emphasize the value of citizen-to-citizen communication over

access to information and broadcast media.

While Novak’s consideration of the term social justice provides an enlightened

and astute view on a topic that affects many lives, policies, and histories, I would only

criticize his view that social justice, at least in the present day, should be ideologically

neutral. In short, this position often follows this logic: if social justice is to better the

whole community, then it should appeal to everyone, regardless of the spectrum. While,

normatively speaking, the ideas surrounding social justice should unite everyone, they

simply run aground at the question of “how?” This simple question provides the simple

basis for the political spectrum in modern times. Whether in this nation or internationally,

citizens (hopefully) care for the betterment of the nation, whether it be socially, morally,

economically, generally, or even theorietically, they will inherently differentiate on the

methods of undertaking these projects and sort themselves into political camps. Thus, one

group’s view that may be the most just path will never sit well with the entirety of the

group, naysayers will arise, and political lines will be drawn, countering Novak’s claim.

What’s bleaker is that, in today’s American political system, political divisions are more

furious and extreme than ever and social justice cannot take foot in concert with every

citizen, making his view idealistic and infeasible.

While Shirky’s arguments on social media’s impacts are very valid and have

mostly come to fruititon, I think his discussion is extremely limited regarding political

extremities and the rise of fake news or misinformation being spread quickly. Especially

in modern political times, social media has been able to deepen the views previously held
 3

by Americans because these social media platforms are now susceptible to manipulation

by various actors. sing the example of communist regimes in relation to technological

impacts, Shirky’s observation that “The ability of these groups to create and disseminate

literature and political documents, even with simple photocopiers, provided a visible

alternative to Communist regimes” does not consider the quality of these documents,

either credible or misleading. As we’ve seen in recent times, the ability for false

information to be utilized to bolster a particular viewpoint has been supported by social

media, offering a new threat to democracy and political participation.

Novak and Shirky both write on a level of political activism and on the power of

social movement, making complementary arguments. Putting the two (Social Media and

Social Justice) together, it seems that the two authors would agree the challenges that

Novak presents in his piece can be helped by the presence of social media in a society.

Moreover, the political improbability that a society works together for a neutral, non-

partisan end seems to be eased by social media because compromise can more easily be

achieved. Compromise (or, more optimistically, cooperation) on the “hows” of politics

can take place more quickly between different groups with different positions on social

media. Social media and the internet, therefore, seems to spur the goals of social justice

by providing an open, endless space for different opinions and open access to

information.
 4

References

Novak, Michael. December 2000. “Defining Social Justice.” [Adapted from lecture

delivered at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought.]

Shirky, Clay. January/February 2011. “The Political Power of Social Media.” Foreign

Affairs.