Paper presented at ARNOVA conference, Atlanta, November 2007

AMERICAN NONPROFIT SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE

Jon Van Til*

NOTE: This paper builds on the creation of J. Abner Peddiwell, Ph.D., by the distinguished educators and writers Harold Benjamin (1893-1969) [i] and William Van Til (1911-2006)[ii]. The latter, who drew on Peddiwell in a series of writings of his own a generation ago, graciously allowed his son to borrow this embodiment for use in his own professional writings.

“I’ve come across a fascinating item for my study of academic associations, Herbert,” declaimed the noted anthropologist J. Abner Peddiwell, as he settled into his usual overstuffed leather chair in the far corner of the Explorers Club’s lounge. From the paneled walls above his chair, three masks used in primitive ceremonials stared down unblinkingly. “By the way,” added Peddiwell, “may I introduce my daughter Celia, our newest member.”

“A delight to meet you, Celia,” responded Herbert, another long-time member. “I’ve heard about your ground-breaking dissertation on feminism as a transformative force, and congratulate you on your new faculty position.” And then, turning to his old friend the senior Peddiwell: “Tell me about academic associations. What have you learned?”

“Well, look at this call for papers from a group called ARNOVA, whose members claim to focus on the study of something they can’t seem to agree on how to name: voluntary action, nonprofit organizations, the third sector, civil society, social profit sector[iii], and so on. This group is meeting in Atlanta in November, and they want papers to address the topic of ‘social justice’. Here’s their call:

This year’s theme is “The Global Pursuit of Social Justice: Challenges to Nonprofits & Civil Society.” The field of nonprofit research and voluntary action is both inspired and challenged by diverse worldviews of “social justice.” One view is that in a “just society” everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights, benefits, and opportunities. Arguably, to achieve social justice means to overcome oppression, eliminate discrimination, and to enhance quality of life for all humanity.[iv]

* Professor of Urban Studies and Community Development, Department of Public Policy and Administration,Rutgers University at Camden, New Jersey 08102
vantil@camden.rutgers.edu 856-225-6223 web page:  www.crab.rutgers.edu/~vantil

Herbert thought for a moment, and then observed “Well, it’s a bit difficult for me to understand how these people can say something sensible about a topic as large as this if they can’t even agree about what to call what they study—but then again I’m not an academic, so maybe I’m missing something here.”

“No, Herbert, I think you’ve hit the nail near the head,” piped in Celia, “because while academics often deal with polysemic concepts, it is important for them to build theories that they can all understand and even test. Oh, sorry, by “polysemic” I meant terms that share the same identity but are used in different ways.”[v]

The elder Peddiwell leaned forward, and both Herbert and Celia recognized that gesture as his way of prefacing a very important point: “Speaking of polysemic terms, I suspect that few ideas of been used with a greater range of meanings than “social justice” itself.” He turned to the masks above him to emphasize the point. “Like these masks—the one on the left depicting a visage young and fiery, the one on the right a face older and wizened, and the middle one just a bit worried as it seems to look to both its left and right—people have spoken of social justice in vastly different ways.”

Herbert now leaned forward as had Peddiwell, and observed excitedly: “Do you mean to imply that the grand traditions of social thought each have their own conceptions of social justice?”

Then Celia joined the forward leaners, observing: “As well as the related traditions of political ideology—for surely each perspective seeks to capture the term to its own advantage.”

Peddiwell, delighted with the turn of the conversation, settled back into his chair and invited his daughter to continue, which she was quick to do. “Well, consider my well subscribed course on Poverty at the University: I always begin by helping students see social issues as through three different sets of lenses: first, the conservative lens, with its focus on law, tradition, and the preservation of hard-won social order; second, the radical lens, with its focus on the injustice of inherited systems of power and control; and third, the moderate, or liberal lens, with its focus on the importance of equality of opportunity for all.”

Herbert added: “Now I remember from my year at Oxford—how important the conservative theorists found concepts of legal process and stability, and how the Marxists railed against them with their calls for equal outcomes in the distribution of wealth and income. And I remember a guest lecture Michael Walzer gave, where he noted that ‘money if equally distributed at twelve Noon of a Sunday will have been unequally redistributed before the week is out (because) some people will save it, and others will invest it, and still others will spend it (and …in different ways)[vi].’”

“And”, interjected Peddiwell, “I trust the long-suffering moderates and liberals in between these extremists did their best to show that it was possible and desirable to get the best of both worlds by means of reasoned compromise, and were booed out of the house by both the left and the right.”

“Indeed,” recalled Herbert, “I often found myself in that middle group, and I don’t know who I found more exasperating—the revolutionaries to the left or the budding captains of industry on my right.”

“Coming back to the subject of the voluntary, nonprofit, third, civil society, social profit or whatever sector,” Celia asserted rather professorially, “I’d like to mention an article I recently read that summarized the doctoral research of Steven W. Ross.[vii] This diligent scholar read and analyzed a variety of historical writings, including many high school textbooks, to see what they said about the role of this many-named sector in American history, and he found seven major themes that dealt with the relationship between the sector and the welfare state. To wit, they were: Complement, Challenge, Auxiliary, Alternative, Apostasy, Impediment, and Transformation. I suspect that if we unpacked these ideas we’d find the key to understanding this sector’s relationship to social justice.”

“A lively exercise for an afternoon’s conversation,” interjected Herbert. I’ve been thinking about these non-governmental, non-business organizations while sitting here. On the left there are those that seek to remake society in the name of their view of social justice as the equal distribution of power and privilege: organizations usually seen as socialist or utopian—the new left of the ‘60s and ‘70s is an example. On the right, there are those who put the emphasis on “justice” when they speak of “the American way of life” or “law and order”. They also tend to place a strong focus on family and religious institutions as central to society.

“Right you are, Herbert,” exclaimed Peddiwell. “In the ‘30s and ‘40s, for example, social justice was a theme for organizations that served to support and extend the emerging welfare state; in the ‘60s the major thrusts from the sector challenged the slow pace of change; and in the ‘80s and ‘90s the sector was often seen as offering alternatives to a “farewell state”. By the time we reach our own time, there seem to be third sector organizations calling for all sorts of self-claimed socially just solutions, from preventive detention in Guantanamo to aging in place in urban villages to assuaging various ills by means of “voluntourism” projects.

“And in the middle,” interjected Celia, are the organizations I tend to study, which all seem to call for the expansion of opportunity to previously excluded social categories: women (pregnant or not—it’s their choice), gays-lesbians-bisexuals-uncertains, disabled persons, minorities, children and youth, poor people. Their interest in social justice seems to be procedural—making sure that it’s available to everyone. What counts is being allowed to run from the starting gate—you still get as far as your own luck and skill takes you.”

“We should also remember,” interjected Peddiwell in a rather professorial tone, “that what scholars call “third sector” organizations may address other concerns than policy advocacy and social change: many focus directly on the provision of services to persons they find in need, while others essentially meet consummatory needs of their members for self-help, support or socialization[viii]. And, of course, there are the mixed types, like churches, that meet some very basic needs of their members (like getting them to the best seats in the afterlife), while also providing services to the needy and, from time to time, inspiring their members toward active participation in political concerns[ix].”

“This range of concerns among organizations in this sector,” interjected Celia, “gives rise to very interesting patterns of support or opposition by conservatives, liberals, and radicals. A fascinating example is found in the new book by Arthur Brooks, in which he argues that conservatives are the true bearers of the voluntary impulse because only they fully support charity as involving ‘voluntary sacrifice by individuals’. Liberals are disqualified by writers like Arthur Brooks because they tend to see the support of government spending as a charitable act. And radicals, like Joan Roelofs, are hardly recognized in the literature on the third sector, although they clearly indicate the importance of voluntary action and advocacy in fueling a wide range of social movements in society.[x]

“So if we bring the argument back to this sector of many names,” Peddiwell offered after clearing his throat, “do we not find that it all depends on one’s conception of social justice? On the right, the voluntaries join their allies in the halls of governmental and corporate power in a quest to preserve property rights, to retain national claims to global resources like the oil of Iraq, and to proclaim the virtues of the American system of law and order as the one and truly best system of justice, and to assuage the grossest of society’s inequalities by offering food, clothing and other alms to the most deferent of the desperately poor.[xi] And to the left, always so very much weaker in a society without a viable Socialist party, a variety of often under-funded groups organize their social and political campaigns with the support of those outraged by inequalities in privilege, declaim policy solutions in their films and web pages, grab their moments in the media eye on ‘Hardball’, and muse with each other about the joys of the coming revolution.”

“And power moves in its long dance from the middle to the right and back to the middle,” observed Herbert. “Clinton to Bush and back to Clinton. A little more for the poor, and then a little less.”

“Just enough justice to keep most folks content, or at least in their place,” concluded Celia. “But with plenty of concerns piled up for future blogs and meetings and campaigns—the building of a just society is a never-ending story of the third sector.” Added Peddiwell: “There is much for scholars to study in this field, I see. But I still think it would be good to agree on a name for this field.”

The conversation had reached a lull. Above the conversants, the three masks used in tribal rituals exchanged winks. The one in the middle still seemed a bit worried, his glance divided between those on the left and right.

---

[i] Cf. Harold R.W. Benjamin, Saber-tooth Curriculum, Including Other Lectures in the History of Paleolithic Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939.

[ii] Cf. William Van Til, “Call Me a Progressive Educator.” Website of selected writings at http://soe.indstate.edu/van_til/ read on August 16, 2007.

[iii] The term “social profit sector” has recently been introduced by Claire Gaudiani, “Let’s Put the Word ‘Nonprofit’ Out of Business.” Chronicle of Philanthropy, July 26, 2007, pp. 35 ff.

[iv] Cf. ARNOVA website: http://www.arnova.org/about_conference.php read on August 16, 2007.

[v] On polysemic terms in third sector study, see Van Til (1988), p. 42.

[vi] The lecture is likely fictional, but the quote may be found in Walzer (1983), p. xi.

[vii] Jon Van Til and Steven R. Ross, “Looking Backward: Twentieth Century Themes in Charity, Voluntarism, and the Third Sector.” Pp. 112-129 in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1, March, 2001.

[viii] Van Til (1988) observed that all but one of the major traditions in democratic theory positively value and incorporate at least one major type of volunteering in their core conceptions (See Table 1).

TABLE 1. VOLUNTARISM AND FIVE CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF DEMOCRATIC THEORY

Type of Volunteering

Form of Democratic Theory	Service	Self-help	Grassroots action
Populist	0	+	+
Idealist	-	0	0
Pluralist	+	+	+
Social Democracy	+	+	+
Neo-corporatist	+	+	-

Symbols: - = negatively valued; + = positively valued; 0 = no opinion

Source: Mapping the Third Sector, p. 53

Further work remains to be done on the orientation of the three major ideological positions to the major forms of voluntary action. For now, it may be said that Conservatives tend to the warmest support of forms of voluntarism unrewarded by such state actions as tax incentives and stipends, though they also appear to take full advantages of these incentives when offered. Their talk, it might be suggested, is often warmer toward charity than their actions.

Radicals tend to denigrate traditional forms of volunteering as the inconsequential acts of ladies and gentlemen Bountiful, masks for the prevailing privileges of elites (Roelofs, Poppendieck). But they also tend to place great faith in the voluntary power of social movements aimed at structural changes in power and privilege in society, and thus must be counted as often unwitting allies of certain forms of third sector activity.

Liberals, as is so often the case for those in the middle, value direct action as long as it retains a modicum of civility and respect for the opposition. Voluntary service and charitable giving tend to be seen by liberals as important complements to a vigorous welfare state, and training grounds for the learning of values of civic participation and service.

[ix] The noted nonprofits researcher Lester Salamon, for example, long excluded religious organizations from inclusion in the “nonprofit sector”. The boundary between what Talcott Parsons (1966) called “I” (integration) and “L” (latent pattern maintenance) remains contested. See Van Til (2000) for a discussion of “boundary wars in third sector theory.

[x] See the other paper presented at the ARNOVA 2007 conference by Jon Van Til, “A Review Essay: Searching for Critical Issues in Philanthropy.”

[xi] “Social justice” has become an accepted idea in the lexicon of “compassionate conservatives”, though few have been as enthusiastic about it as President Bush, who has been quoted as saying “’When somebody hurts, government has got to move’ (Philip Klein, “The charismatic freshman senator may just be the Democrat who can beat Hillary-and make liberalism a winning philosophy again.” The American Spectator, July 2007-August 2007, p. 90.)

In Britain, the Conservative Party supports a “Social Justice Policy Group”, currently chaired by its former party leader, Iain Duncan Smith, M.P. A recent article notes that “Duncan Smith appeals to old-fashioned family values” in his leadership of the group, noting “that '70 per cent of offenders come from broken homes'. Next he illustrates just how biased Government spending is. 'If you look at family breakdown, it costs up to pounds 800 per tax payer per year,' he says. 'But if you look at the amount that goes into helping with relationships, that's been cut. On average it's less than 50 pence per tax payer per year.'

”Duncan Smith is trying to convince sceptical Tories that tackling child poverty is really about preserving the family and sound management of the economy. 'If breakdown levels fall, we can get more stability in families and stability begets stability,' he insists. 'It also puts children in a much better position to learn at school, much less likely to take drugs and alcohol, and less likely to commit crime. So, proportionately, overall, Britain would benefit dramatically financially because the cost of breakdown would decline.'

Duncan Smith's social justice policy group is examining five 'paths to poverty': family breakdown, educational failure, economic failure and welfare dependence, addictions and indebtedness” (Ruth Smith, “Social justice evangelist - Iain Duncan Smith MP, chair of the Conservatives' social justice policy group”,  Children Now, October 11, 2006, p. 13. Lexis-Nexis Academic, read on 16 August 2007.

Among the policy positions taken by the Social Justice Policy Group is a critique of large nonprofit organizations, which they see as engendering “bad publicity over unspent reserves, high salaries and a lack of transparency,” thereby risking “harming smaller organisations' ability to attract money and trust” (Nathalie Thomas, “Tories say big charities are bad for the sector,”  Third Sector, December 13, 2006, p. 1.) Lexis-Nexis Academic, read on 16 August 2007.

JON VAN TIL is Professor of Urban Studies at Rutgers University in Camden. His latest book, Breaching Derry’s Walls: The Quest for a Lasting Peace in Northern Ireland, will be published this winter by University Press of America.