Social Justice: Liberal or Critical?
The Discussion Will Be Muddled and Confused Until Most Folks Can Make the Distinction
This is a guest post by Michael Mills, Ph.D., who is an Associate Professor of Psychology, and former Chair, at the Psychology Department at Loyola Marymount University. He is a co-founder of the Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science.
Language hijacking is an integral part of critical theory and the Woke movement.
Of particular concern in this essay is the redefinition of the central term, "social justice," to conform to critical theory ideologies. Since this redefinition is covert, one cannot object to "social justice" without appearing to be a racist, a sexist or a [insert preferred epithet here].
The term social justice should be reclaimed and rehabilitated. It should also be pluralized to indicate that there are different, and conflicting, social justices.
Specifically, liberal vs. critical social justice should be differentiated. When social justice comes up for discussion, the first question that should be posed is: “What type of social justice are you referring to -- liberal or critical?”
The table below provides a brief summary of the key distinctions, philosophies and thinkers associated with these different approaches to social justice.
Social Justice: Liberal or Critical?
Objecting to ‘Social justice’ is actually fairly straightforward. ‘Justice’ should have no modifier.
Such modifiers only serve to describe what particular flavour of ‘injustice’ is being recommended.
Justice is hard enough to lay our hands on as it is, without intentionally doling out injustices; fuelled on spite and resentment, and acted out against a dodgy backdrop of supposedly ‘seeking to even-up the cosmic scales of historical inequity’.
I know it’s a platitude, but two wrongs really *don’t* make a right. It became a platitude because seeking vengeance, while in our nature, emerges from that part of our nature that is self destructive, and socially immiserating. It should certainly never be touted as a ‘virtue’, and legislatively enshrined. 
‘Justice’, unadulterated, must continue to serve as our target. Yes, it is hard to hit, but only justice brings peace. That is what balanced scales represent; the situation at rest.
Revenge is a broad target, and far less distant. This is because an outcome serving and sating vengeance is prescribed subjectively; by our lizard brains when we feel wronged. Acting to affect such outcomes subsequently produces no balance, and so brings no peace; it is the action that perpetuates conflict; an overreach that powers a persistent oscillation of suffering, recrimination, and retribution.
I’m not a fan of injustice, therefore I wholeheartedly object to ‘social’ justice, and all similar midwit foolishness.
Objectivity and logic are tools of the white supremacist patriarchy! Reeeeeee!