A Look into Generational Interpretations of Social Justice
We are growing up in what I would classify as a constantly changing world. That is neither a positive nor a negative but rather an observation. In the last eighteen months, we have seen our world be encompassed by a pandemic, filled with social justice movements, hit by environmental disasters, etc. Yet, somehow, we have individually and collectively been able to establish some normalcy in all the chaos. In regards to the social justice movements, over the last year, conflicting responses to the social justice movements have become a staple of everyday conversation in the bathroom, to classrooms, and at the dinner table. These discussions are prompted partly due to the nature of social movements. Social movements affect large groups of people in society while also working to initiate change in the world that we know. As an interdisciplinary major, I find myself inclined to understand social issues in society. To begin, I wish to consider how and why generations have vastly different responses to social movements as a way to aid our understanding.
The Ongoing Conflict
If you have not heard it via the news, you most likely have experienced an intense conversation with your grandparents or members of older generations weighing in on recent protests. I have witnessed the negative response from older generations, specifically those who are part of the Baby Boomers who seem to be both astonished and offended by the actions of the Gen Zs who are pushing for social change. Think about it: the generations that fought so hard for social change in protesting the war and fighting for equality are now the ones who oppose others doing the same. I can envision the streets packed with bodies, moving in an orientated way like a factory assembly line, marching down the streets, with signs, flags, collectively working to send a message. Why then does the older generation come to see present-day social movements not as a step towards justice but just a mere nuisance?
The Argument
When speaking with members of older generations about the topic of social justice movements interesting information surfaced. People from older generations value tradition, and they oppose individuals coming in and changing the very things that establish their sense of normalcy. However, every day our world changes in both small and monumental ways. And some individual's perception of normalcy is defined by discrimination and hardship caused by their own country. Nevertheless, this is one dimension to our understanding. What is particularly interesting and a fact that prompted my interest in this topic is that many of those who disapprove were the ones who worked back in the day to initiate social reform. These individuals will claim they had a "valid" cause when they took to the streets and say that as a way of implying that those today lack cause. For now, keep this in the back of your mind. Another facet of this perspective shaping this negativity is the argument that the protests today are not protests. Presumably, it is fair to say that we can agree that riots are not the same as protests. Yes, in the last year, we have seen numerous groups engaging in rioting but, not all people were. There were a vast majority of people who did exercise their right to protest and did so peacefully. Understandably, this creates confusion. That is why these types of discussions are so essential. Some people see these rights as being a platform for problems rather than being this important protected right. Thus, the emergence and implications of such an ideology would add yet another dimension to understanding this divide.
The Shoe Metaphor
In thinking through this ideology, I would ask older individuals why they tie their shoes. I know that this may seem like a ridiculous question but, it has a point. Nobody questions why they tie their shoes every day. Why? Because it works. Look around you next time in class and observe how many people have shoes on. Now they all may be different, like how every social justice movement has a different agenda but clearly, it's apparent that the individuals around you wearing shoes with laces had to tie them. If younger generations have seen that their predecessors have taken this route and achieved justice, they will be inclined to do the same (not to mention that they are allowed to do so as protected by the first amendment). Until we find a way to walk to where we are going with untied laces without falling, we should not be so quick to judge the methods that communities are taking on their path to establishing justice.
Conclusion
Thoughts regarding this topic are going to be subjective. I can never know what it is like to live in the shoes of another person. However, I can listen and try to understand those who feel oppressed and wronged by their country. I see my responsibility as both a citizen and as a student entailing trying to understand social issues should I wish to one day try to solve them, rather than judging them. The understanding suggests that achieving social justice can be messy and controversial, but that in itself does not make it any less valid or unnecessary. Concerning the arguments aiding opposition, the problem is that these arguments assume that an individual's cause (pursuit of justice) is superior to another. This ideology reveals that an underlying conflict in society exists about how to bring about social change. If our protected rights are only valid when we as individuals think so, are we promoting a society built on equality or subjective applicability? Ideally, this explanation would have to go further. But it is a starting point in better understanding this generational divide. Perhaps understanding will be the glue to fill in this gap and pull society together.
Image obtained from Squarespace
