Education for Justice in Unjust Times

There is a lot to be worried about in the world at the moment. I do not need to list all the ways here, but notwithstanding the good trajectories in many areas, the future looks less rosy than it did some years ago. In a fascinating look at previous beliefs about the future, writer and historian James Gleick notes that things have also seemed this way at various points in the past – two examples being Thomas Mann’s 1939 time capsule message We know now that the idea of the future as a better world was a fallacy of the doctrine of progress and Albert Einstein who in 1940 wrote anyone who thinks about the future must live in fear and terror. But I think the sentiment of despair, or something close to it, runs deeper than fear of the future, and more to do with (a lack of) noble ideals. I’ll go back further in time to quote Plato and his original angry young man:

I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger!

Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic.

Thrasymachus’s dismay arises from a cynicism born of his conception of morality as power; because nothing is absolute, we should stop caring and simply recognise politics – and life generally – as a raw contest of might between the strong and the weak. To look for more, he thinks, is to be a dupe, a pawn in the game. A nihilist nearly two millennia before it was trendy, his anguished cry is one that has endured and we can surely see it enacted on the global stage over recent years and today more than ever.

But perhaps we can see Thrasymachus’ plight more charitably – borne from fear as he grows up and realises for the first time that the adults do not have the answers and that there are no simple certainties. He’s outgrown the simple ideas of right and wrong, the goodies and baddies of fairy tales, but rather than engage in the hard work of refining these ideas, he walks away. The idea is probably a familiar one to many parents who suffer the scorn of their children, and it has been expressed in different ways; the African proverb has it that the child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.

In modern times, say in our IB Theory of Knowledge classes, Thrasymachus’ assertion is sometimes rephrased in today’s language that moral values are socially constructed, and are simply  the reflection of the interests of particular political communities. But in extended, patient conversations that sometimes follow, what emerges is the same fear or rage felt by Thrasymachus – that the world often does not reflect the ideals and values we hold dear. What follows is the false certainty of power as the only truth. To cling to values, then, seems naive, foolish – a source of disappointment, even shame. Far better to jettison them! The appeal is obvious, and the resulting nihilism often sits under an air of faux sophistication. More courage is required to hold onto our values and ideals, and to realise them in the world, than is required for cynicism.

So we cannot let the idea of power entirely replace universal ideas of truth or justice (or their manifestation in peace, sustainability and equal rights). But this is exactly what philosopher Susan Nieman argues many progressives have done in recent years and to disastrous effect, when they see terms like ‘free speech’ or ‘democracy’ or used by the unscrupulous to try to wrap themselves in virtue. Questioning whether the power is legitimate or illegitimate, crassly or sensitively wielded, rather than simply whether or not actions are right or wrong is, she argues, a poor strategy that at best has been unsuccessful and at worst mirrors the nihilism it purports to critique. From the obvious truth that many claims to be acting according to universal principles of justice are self-serving, it simply does not follow that all such claims are bogus. We need to win the argument on moral terms, not abandon the. moral argument entirely.

We should, of course, be skeptical about moral claims – including our own, and those of our friends and allies, given how well we now understand the cognitive biases that predispose us to impute noble motives to ourselves but impure ones to others. At the same time, we must not allow ourselves to slip, like Thrasymuchus, from skepticism to cynicism and to put all groups and all causes on all fours with each other; some things really are better than others, and right and wrong really do matter. The trick in a complex world is to tell which ones are which.

Two areas where this applies most obviously today are probably those of race and gender (or anywhere in the so-called ‘culture wars’). Nieman would argue that progressives have bought into Thrasymachus’ view that there is no just fight against oppression, only a reversal of domination in which one group seeks to defeat the other. US politics currently seems the rawest example of this. But this is, of course, exactly what white supremacists, for example, would have us believe: that the other side is coming to get them. We have to reject the mindset of battle, and to hold with Martin Luther King’s passionate belief that human dignity is indivisible: it is not possible to fully enjoy it unless it is equally available to all.

Nieman is compelling: Concluding that the idea of justice and right have been rendered so hollow by hypocrisy that they can be discarded is exactly the wrong conclusion… without the courage to assert the imperative of justice and the urgency of humanity, [progressives might] suffer the worst fate that any movement can contemplate: becoming indistinguishable from its enemies.

This is a theme that is playing out on the world stage as we speak. We must not mirror it in our schools, and the long conversation will play out over years. For now, let me identify a few theses that are critical for us as we seek to pursue the perennial ideal of peace and a sustainable future:

• Embed morality and character throughout the school experience, not just the curriculum, so they are the air we breathe, not the things we do only in a specific course, or at specific points in time, or in response to specific events. This is paramount.
• Bring together a diversity of people with different perspectives and give them the tools to engage, so they can transcend any monoculture of ideas, and hold multiple perspectives at the same time.
• Teach for skepticism as the default way of engaging with ideas. This goes hand-in-hand with the first bullet above and is the opposite of teaching for conformity, which can slip into indoctrination. This means less emphasis on information (which often has to be taken at face value, uncritically) and more on concepts which need to be contextualised and nuanced in different situations.
• Value the messy process of learning, with all its uncertainties, setbacks and failures, as much as the more easily quantified, measured and reported metrics surrounding the product of learning.
• Do not proclaim the truth, institutionally: we should hold space for debate about truth, so that it can emerge from competing views.

All this adds up to supporting the next generation to wisdom as well as technical expertise, character as well as self-interest, and humility as well as confidence.

Reference

• Gleick, J (2025) The Prophet Business.New York Review of Books
• Nieman, S. (2023) Left Is Not Woke. Polity Press.
• O’Toole, F. (2023) Defying Tribalism. New York Review of Books.

With thanks for Gemma Dawson for the conversation.