SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN MASS CONSCIOUSNESS. (THEORY AND METHOD OF RESEARCH (STUDY)).
I.
The idea of social justice restoration accompanies all social cataclysmes. All reforms, wars, revolutions, any changes in society go under the slogan of social justice restoration. Appearance at the current ideological vocabulary of calls to restore the justice is a reliable indicator of unstability at the society and it testifys the fact that social ideal and ruling ideology, standing on service to it, has lost its attractiveness for people. Stability of social system violates, i.e. " ability to preserve present condition (state), which is norm for it, aspiration to preserve this condition and ability to come back to this condition in the case of forced deflaction from it" (Zinoviev A. Communism as a reality/ L'Ade D'Home, 1981, p.219). Under this conditions the role of ruling ideology becomes weak, old dogmas cannot explaine accomodated contradictions and prove the correctness of political course of ruling authorities because of constant deflactions from norms, fixing by the law. First and foremost the represrntatives of authority violate the norms, established by themselves. Secretly it admited for granted and fixed in mass conscious as one of the priviliges of those in power. The necessary fact, preceding these actions, is the appearance and wide
broadcasting of "dual morality" in the society, which means existing of both toalitarian, social ideal, fixed in symbols and ritual of official authority, and individual, "latent" ideal, expresed in "kitchen" conversations and in developed culture of undergrounds.
Attempts of official authority to create a semblance of civilized social system in practice lead to the weakening of control-repressive functions of state power and appearence of niche for relatively free development of oppositional cultural and ideological forms.
After it there were undertaken the attempts of state organs to step up ideological work simaltaniously with strengthening of repressions. But under the conditions of violated monopoly on social ideal, underground culture and "latent" ideal, orieting on all-human values, become the factors, gradualy determining the behaviour of the majority of society members. Attempts to strengthen repressions under this condicions challenge the sharp resistance of those, it's directed against (against whom it is directed) (eg, the majority of population under passive or active suppot of those in opposition), provoke an explosion of insurrection and articulate the demands to restore social justice as embodiment of a new ideal. "When such things happen, it is possible to preserve dogmatic type of thinking only by force. The use of force should definitely influence very much on evolution of ideas. Thinking is not developed again by its own logic but it is complicated intertwined with politics. Definite thoughts are associated with definite interests, and victory of one interpretation or another mostly dependes on political force and its supporters than on significance of evidences, builed for its support" (J. Soros. Soviet System: Way To The Open Society/ Moscow,1991, p.104).
It comes the period of changes one historical subjects by others. Such transitional period is characterised by gradual or shap power transmission from one subject to another. Namely in these periods more unsatisfied and oppresed (it's not the same) social groups put forward demands to restore the social justice. Calls to social justice of those who prone to power
are directed to justify their illegal and sometimes even unconstitutional actions. Principles of social justice of revolutionary power put forward on the first place ethics demands. They are intended to show the divergence of ethics norms and norms of the law, fixed in present society thereby to make it evident for the majority of citizens unjustice of the old norms of the law, their antidemocratical orientation and necessity of theirs substitution (on the first level - their cancellation).
On the contrary, concervative forces, trying to hold out the power, insist on strict following of the norms of the law, which consolidates their domination, and try to prove indissoluble unity of dominating norms of the law and ethics. On their term, they justify the use of force against
trouble-makers by serving to higher social values - to the law, which safeguard establishing order, appealing to everybody's security and to common interests.
Demands to restore social justice are connected, as a rule, with dismissal from the power of the old subject and with coming of a new one, who declares (it doesn't mean, that it will be done) principles, suiting the majority of population in the given society.
It goes more or less quick reconsideration of old ideals by the society, which were consolidated by the previous subject; the old ideals are replaced by new ones or, slightly modifying, presented as new ones. As a rule, a new subject, striving to the power, tries to ensure support of the majority of the people and put forward ideals, embodimented common-human values, as, for eg., demands of social justice, which have common-human character. As soon as coming to the power and beginning to embodiment the ideal to life, the new historical subject is uncovered himself in his concrete-historical characteristics. (This very fact is also a cause of contradictions between members of the new "team", coming to the power. In the period of struggle for power, the leaders are concerned with maximal support to each other and put forward mainly abstract demands, supporting by the majority of
population at present time, and it ensures to the leaders, striving to the power, wide social basis of advocates. By the same reason the new team involves leaders, who can be in opposition to the concrete means of the aims achievment, but who ensures the victory at the elections thanks to their supporters. Thus, Eltsin - Rutskoy alliance disintegrated after the porgram of concrete reforms had been put into practice.
During thehistorical subject replacementperiod,
the subjectness' (? cóáúåêòíîñòü) distribution (of political rights, authority) between people on individual level take place... Earlier, those rights were alienated by "the upper strata" and were appropriated by the subject of higher level there (by the class and, on behalf of it, by the party and by the state).
At the initial stages the individual subjectness have, mainly, distructive character, directed to the distruction of existing social relations. Individual can realize his right of a subject only in denial, negation (for eg. in the form of civil disobedience). It can happen absolutely spontaneously as the act of general mood of people expression. And as its consequences one can see spontaneous meetings, in economic sphere - downfall of labour discipline (which is a form of manifestation of individual independence, of non-conformism and disinterest in labour and its results), weakening of law and order etc. Many bright individuals appear during this period, who are united on the basis of common interests. The leaders are brought to light. However, an individual can become a subject of conscious activity only if other individuals
delegate him their individual subjectness; i.e. redistribution
of authority take place, when the majority transmit their authority in favor of minority, of those, who are intrusted to defence their interests. The minority concentrate the rights, deligated "from the bottom". Thus, the new hierarchy of
authority forms. Probably, it's more correct to say that concentration of authority in the hands of social subject means his formation as a subject of authority (i.e. the rule is the concentration of real authority). Possession of these authority means the possession of real rule. Any rule supposes management-subordination relations, subordinated relations in society and, consequently, hierarchical structure of socity itself.
Consequently, any person as an individual (unique) representative of socium (?) cannot become a subject-creator independently. To be happened, the redistribution of authority implements: some hand over, others appropriate, concentrate it in their hands. Thus, it appears de facto nonrecognition, due to which every time forms the new structure of relations in society.
The process goes in the following way: from unequal distribution of political rights and authority in society to their more or less even distribution between individuals (it means in fact anarchy), and then, to the new unequal distribution, fixed by the law.
Subjecness supposes that individual has definite rights. It's important to draw difference between private rights (Right to Life, Right to Freedom etc.) on the one hand and political and civil rights (EG, Right to Freedom of Peasful Meetings) on the other hand. The first ones are immanently inherent to the person from birth and they are naturally realized in any society. They form natural fundament of any social system and they are equal by virtue of human's proper pride (self-respect) equality.These rights cannot be redistributed betweem
individuals by hte use of any mechanism. Civil rights naturally and in a full measure can be realized only in society they are acepted, permited and fixed in corresponded norms of rights. In contrast to private rights (which are inalienable
characteristics of any individual), civil rights can be redistributed by the ruling political force in the frame of closed society. Thus, universally recognized human rights, as right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of
association, right to political participation were usurped by communist party and converted into duties to individuals: citizens had to go to demonstrations on 1st of May and on the 7th of November and they were forced to participate party meetings and trade-union meetings.
In this case the individual losts his subjectness and it brings to impossibility to exercise his rights. It reasonable to note here the ambivalent position of the Soviet authorities till the last time regarding to the way the problem of human rights was put. During the discussion on the international level of the problems, connected with human rights protection, persisted attempts to pay more attention to the sphere of social and economical rights protection were made. On closer examination these rights turn out to be not proper individual rights, but have generalized, secondary, over-individual character, being collective community rights. Thus, the problem of human rights protection had been removed by the problem of social interests protection by the main subject -the State, which alienated have mentioned rights from the individuals and concentrated them in the hands of apparatus. Under such conditions the demands to observe the human rights project as an instrument, through which rights-protectors try to receive recognition of subjectness of any individual by virtue just of the fact of his birth and beloning to the human (race) society in general, but not to any social group or political alignment.
II.
From our point of view, the most important aspect of social justice is distribution. Equality or unequality of the people in one society or other is the result of rights distribution between individuals and social groups.
It is no coincedence that under the socialism the main principle of social distribution was claimed: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work", that is, the principle of distribution. Aristotle pointed two types of justice: "distributive" and "retributove" ones. While the distributive justice applies to the distribution of goods of material world, the retributive justice (for example, punishment for crime) one can consider also as a sphere of distribution but not of material, but ideal world: rights, authorities, social rols between people.
So long as this moment is very important for understanding our ground, here we'll go into detail.
As all sorts of self-developing systems, the society represents itself the organization which is heterogeneous in its different parts. The heterogeneity provoks the indignation, puts the system in motion which is limited and, as far as possible, suppressed by existing structures. The presence of the structure suppresses spontaneous indignation and promotes putting the society in the stable state. Individuals and groups of individuals, dispersed in different parts of system, are also heterogeneous and appear in the role of individual and group bearers of indignation in the system. Once J.Rawls said that "the structure includes different life expectations, determined both by politicalsystem and by economical and social reasons. In this case, institutes of the society show preference one starting places to another. Here the unequality is particularly deep. They are not only widely spread, but also influence initial chances in the life of an individual... These unequalities seem to be inevitable in the basic structure of any society" (Rawls J.Theory of Justice. Cambridge, 1971, p.7).
People in different parts of the society are not equal and
this unequality is a sorce of a social tense, which under the definite circumstances can develop into social conflicts. There exist definite mechanisms (both in the nature and in the society) to avoide this. These mechanisms compensate privileges and additional possibilities. Principles of compensation, i.e. principles of equalization of uneqal are manifestation of one of the parts of justice.
One can suppose that the emergence of justice as a social phenomenon is determined by the existance of unequality. Demands to establish the justice are just the reaction to the indignation of unequality which is not compensated by any other privileges. Hence, the principle of justice can be determined as a principle of organization of any society, directed to its stabilization (concrete matter (substance) of concept of
justice comes from the necessity to preserve already formed social structures); i.e. social justice is the porcedure of distribution, which is accepted (recognized) by the society and ensure its stability and self-reproduction.
The realisation of the principle of justuce one can consider as a porcess of restoration (preservation - V.B.) of stability of social organism through taking down the acuteness of the social conflict. The appearance of the principle of justice is a result of people's unequality and directed to the keeping of unequality within the definite scope. The principle of justice is called to determine the golden mean of correlation between justice and unjustice, which gives the optimal possibilities for the development of society. Both extremes being absolutised (?) are distructive for the
existance of the system. Absolutisation of the equality puts out inner sorces for the self-development of society and leads to the decay and stagnation. Unlimited aspirations to the unequality lead to another extreme and can lead to such unstable eqilibrium (as a result of unequality) of society, when extreme (latest) elements of the system are so differ from each other, so far from each other and so unequal that the common basis, which identified them, disappears. Dispersed elements move so far away from each other, they become so interindependent, that social links formed between them either become weaker and go to ruin or break off with the great tension for the system, thus, destroying it as a previous system and transforming it into something new. (The example is the disintegration of the USSR, where the leaders of the republics had absolutised the national-state distinctions and, appealing to establish the national statehood (state system), favour the development of distinctions to contradictions and then to oppositions (contrasts). Although, everything is subjective, of course).
Those processes are possible only in the periods, when the ruling norms of social justice have no noticeable effect, grow weak and they stop to play the role of social governors (regulators). In the new established system of social relations, the domination of new norms of social justice, accepted by the whole society, are installed. These new norms of justice will establish the new correlation between equality and unequality. Unequality is natural; but for equality the society had to create the definite circumstances artificially, which is possible to create only when the society achieves definite levels of its development both in industry
(production) and in morals (all these are fixed in the social agreement, dialog and consent).
Artificially created circumstances, supporting the people's equality only smooth over unequality but not eliminate it. That's why, any social system can be examined through the characteristics of established unequality.
Practically, the heterogeneous of the system and unequality of its parts is the result of elements' distribution inside the system. Structural devision of uncoordinated elements, the formation of the structure is well organized distribution of elements which constitute the system. It can be also named as substantivized or basis distribution. The
presence of unequality and different levels of system determines the motion of elements from one level to others, the motion between dissimilar parts on one level and establishment of changes' relations between different parts of the system, where each part executes the functions, which is characteristic only to the definite part, thus, it promotes the functioning of the system as a whole.
In our speculations we proceed on premise that we understand "distribution" as a fundamental and through (?) characteristics of the social system. Probably we can point out some levels, where the distributional processes in the system of social relations proceed.