Verified by 
Justice conjures up words such as equality and fairness and images of courtrooms, judges, prisons, protest signs, politicians, law enforcement, or even crime and violence. The problematic nature of the term justice is due to our sociological imagination which has spanned generations illustrating that people and backdrops change—they have to in order to evolve into better things. In other instances, things appear to stay the same which then becomes the crux for social movements—even revolutions—as the fight against infrastructure becomes more difficult than fighting the people, ideologies, and religions “of” those socially constructed institutions.
We have moved from the Marxist terms of haves and have-nots based on the bourgeois (ruling class) and proletariat (working class) to the totalitarian-esque “oppressed and oppressor.” The latter is more encompassing, large, and gray as compared to years ago. By today’s standards, the wealthy or affluent perceive themselves as oppressed by the poor, special interest groups and the government. On the other hand, those with low socioeconomic status, certain races, genders, orientations or other groups perceive themselves as oppressed by the wealthy and affluent (often correlated with a system of big business or government). Either way, some common denominators are striking and government appears to be on both sides.
A history of war and conflict (global or domestic, national or local, personal and professional) illustrates the differences in perspectives of right and wrong and good versus evil through the lenses and institutions of religion, peer and social groups, family, schools, media outlets, virtual communities through social media and, further, through demographic characteristics such as race, gender, and ethnicity.
A multicultural nation with common interests (freedom) but uncommon socializations (relativity) lead to a fragmented society that has moved from a modern to post-modern era of philosophy and practice. When people often speak of the “good ‘ol days” they are remarking on a period of time that is nostalgic because it was perceived as simple or comfortable as compared to one that transforms with age, adaptation, and change. The Modern Age (1910–1980), by most socio-cultural standpoints, was a time where people “knew who they were.” There was structure, security, identity, and stability, and the time was marked by family, nationhood, community life, production, a one-way media, and a belief in continuity and situation. The Post-Modern Age (1980–present) is considerably different, whereby, one can create who they want to be. There exists more confusion, a lack of structure, and incessant choice. Instead of aiding progress and finding truth, science is only one source of knowledge where we now have a “plurality of truths.” It is marked by fragmented identities in terms of family, school, and religion, and, in a global society, there is considerable breakage from the past or tradition. This source of individualism, some say, fosters a deeper sense of moral relativity and secular humanism. People now live in glass domes—human terrariums—where they are cut off from reality and the outside world. Shopping in bubbled malls and living in gated communities, Americans have become what Van Hoffman described in 2009 as Bobbleheads in Bubbleland.
The long withstanding social contract per Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau has become the source of discussion again as it went away in the 20th century due to social and political philosophies of utilitarianism and Marxism. The concept, however, remains strong as a bone of contention for justice, as the social contract asks for Americans to give up some of their civil liberties for security. You give to get. For it to work (beyond its theoretical suppositions) rights must respected, but authority must be respected as well. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that neither are happening and, in fact, a de facto illustration (using the police as the most visible agent of justice or government) looks something like “We need the police, but just don’t pull ME over” or:
Driver: Why didn’t you pull that other car over? They blew by me like I was standing still!
Officer: I have your speed checked by radar at 67MPH. This is a 55MPH zone. Were you not exceeding the speed limit?
Driver: Yes, but…
Another denominator that creates a nation no longer interested in abiding by the spirit of the law are the “scales of justice.” Lady Justice (in Latin, lusticia) is widely publicized and illustrated in the law and legal system as a force for morality in the judicial system. Lady Justice is blindfolded as an allegory for objectivity and impartiality where “justice is blind”—it cannot be bought, sold, or wavered by those with power, money and position. She holds a weight scale, equal and balanced, where each scale represents truth and lie. Herbert Packer (1925–1972), a Stanford law professor in his 1962 seminal work Two Models of the Criminal Process, created a long withstanding explanation of disharmony and disorder due to competing and conflicting values in the justice system. His legal theory can be superimposed onto Lady Justice where each scale represents either crime control, where order is a value and due process, where individual rights and civil liberties are a value. Considering this analogy, the scales are no longer balanced, but they are instead tipped one way or the other, the heaviest scale favoring the moral, political, and legal precedent of the day.
As a result, the scales are in a constant state of flux when the composition of legal authority changes (everyone has a political or moral position): U.S. Supreme Court, circuit/trial/appellate courts, attorney generals, and anyone appointed and elected to interpret the law, hear cases, and impose punishment. Even a new police chief or sheriff can tip the scales given conflicting positions on “justice” while in a public office.
Yet another denominator for a disobedient recipe is the gap of relative deprivation. Simply stated, when the means to attain a goal is hampered by someone or some “thing,” it creates a gap where the climb to a job, better job, more money, education, or to start or sustain a family is no longer an option. It’s relative because different people have different goals and, more importantly, the resources to remove roadblocks. A once existing middle class continues to be squeezed into poverty while those who existed in poverty have been placed into the lowest rank of civilization. Both create social conflict when lower incomes, no jobs, homelessness, and other, undesirable social conditions hamper a society that no longer has the means to legitimately attain "The American Dream." As a result, they may strike out against the government, special interest groups, religions, and even neighbors and family through violence and other acts of criminality.
All of these economic and socio-political processes have, over time, created a perfect storm for hostility, disrespect, and a general disdain for the government and agents of government who have managed to exist in opposing corners of the boxing ring at the same time. This isn’t a new phenomenon, however, and, instead of actual anarchy the backlash typically comes in the form of civil disobedience as a call to action.
In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (even after having been arrested) wrote a letter opposing violent protests, but encouraged “tension” as a way to be constructively nonviolent. He understood and believed in authority but encouraged people to rise up from the dark places that pulled them down and away from citizenship, love, and brotherhood. King’s philosophy, however, was tied to civil disobedience and, as a means of nonviolent resistance, was successful for others in other times such as the Boston Tea Party in 1773, Mahatma Gandhi’s campaign for Indian independence from the British in 1930, South Africa’s fight against apartheid in the 1950s and the civil rights movement in America in the 1960s.
Is the rise of civil disobedience today a result of true injustice where it is fashionable to display yourself as a just-in-time patriot for social justice? Are they directionless bandwagon jumpers? Do they lack legitimate organization and influence? Are people who speak out against the government (and its agents) viable conduits for change, but lack political influence and at the numerical mercy of their apathetic believers? Many believe our nation to be a slippery slope toward a country where secrecy, bureaucracy, militarization, surveillance, racism, anti-terrorism laws, and a nation of suspects is an Orwellian “truth” that has now moved from book pages to the very nature of our daily life. Is the government now a “machine” that utilizes legitimate and illegitimate authority to control and dominate without regard to the Constitution (and where citizens have little recourse against it)? Of concern, then, is that civil disobedience, agitation, and the spirit of resistance will open the door to social, political and religious zealots who will denounce the principles of democracy and a republic—compromised by confused heroics regarding what is right, fair, and just. Is it all for one or some for some?
Copyright © by Brian A. Kinnaird
References and recommended reading:
Packer, H (1964). Two Models of the Criminal Process. 113. U of Penn. L. Rev. 1
Von Hoffman, N. (2007). "Bobbleheads in Bubbleland." In John Whitehead’s The Change Manifesto [2008]. Sourcebooks, Inc.
