Social Justice
Social Justice and Community Psychology: An Ethical Responsibility
Social justice is the recognition that people share a common humanity, and therefore everyone should have equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities (Caravelis & Robinson, 2016). Community psychologists prioritize social justice in their work (Evans et al., 2014) and social justice has been increasingly centralized and adopted as a guiding value in community psychology (Evans et al., 2014; Fondacaro & Weinberg, 2002; Munger et al., 2016). Community psychologists have an ethical responsibility to address social injustices through their work (Evans et al., 2014).
Social Justice Informs Community Psychology
Social justice informs a wide range of epistemological (what we consider knowledge) and methodological (how we gain knowledge) practices in community psychology. This includes guiding the goals of community psychology research (Fondacaro & Weinberg, 2002). Social justice influences our understanding of wellness, empowerment, prevention, and other core concepts of community psychology (Fondacaro & Weinberg, 2002; Prilleltensky, 2011).
Distributive and Procedural Social Justice
Justice entails both rights and duties (Evans et al., 2014). Community psychology differentiates between distributive justice–fairness in the ways in which goods are distributed to the public– and procedural justice–decision-making that is transparent, fair, and participatory (Evans et al., 2014; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Munger et al., 2016). Much of the work of early community psychologists, such as the focus on prevention programming, was rooted in distributive justice (Fondacaro & Weinberg, 2002). Procedural justice has increasingly gained prominence (Gokani & Walsh, 2017). For instance, community psychology’s emphasis on empowerment centralizes voice and participation in the decision-making process (Fondacaro & Weinberg, 2002).
Prilleltensky’s (2011) multilevel model of social justice posits that distributive and procedural justice occur at each ecological level. For instance, at the organizational level, informational justice (Colquitt, 2001) is a form of procedural justice in which organizational decision-making processes are transparent and communication is bi-directional. At the macrolevel, procedural justice is reflected in retributive justice (holding people who commit crimes responsible for their actions), and cultural justice (being equitable in how groups treat one another; for instance, in how men treat women and how white people treat Black people; Prilleltensky, 2011).
References
Caravelis, C., & Robinson, M. (2016). Social justice, criminal justice: The role of American law in effecting and preventing social change. Routlege.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Evans, S. D., Rosen, A. D., & Nelson, G. (2014). Community psychology and social justice. In C. V. Johnson and S. Friedman (Eds.), The Praeger handbook of social justice and psychology. Praeger.
Fondacaro, M. R., & Weinberg, D. (2002). Concepts of social justice in community psychology: Toward a social ecological epistemology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 473-492.
Gokani, R., & Walsh, R. T. G. (2017). On the historical and conceptual foundations of a community psychology of social transformation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59, 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12141
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press.
Munger, F., MacLeod, T., & Loomis, C. (2016). Social change: Toward an informed and critical understanding of social justice and the capabilities approach in community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57, 171-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12034
Prilleltensky, I. (2011). Wellness as fairness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9448-8