Chapter Overview

In Chapter One we locate social work within a social justice context.  We introduce the idea of social "justice" work and its importance for rethinking social work practice.  We examine broadly accepted contemporary definitions of social work in the U.S. and in an international context, and we ask you the reader to think about the implications of these diverse meanings for social work practice.  This sets the stage for locating concepts of social work in cultural, political, and historical contexts. Likewise, we discuss meanings of social justice and pose the following questions:  What is the relationship between social work and social justice?  What are the common goals?  How do their definitions and context shape the form and content of social work practice?  How are both social work and social justice tied to questions of difference, inequality, and oppression?  We introduce the Just Practice Framework and its five key concepts - meaning, context, power, history, and possibility.  The Just Practice Framework will provide the foundation for integrating theory and practice.  Key concepts are developed and illustrated through examples and reflection and action exercises.  They push us to explore taken-for-granted assumptions about reality - those ideas, principles, and patterns of perception, behavior, and social relating we accept without question.  As learners, this moves us beyond the bounds of familiar and comfortable contexts to challenge old beliefs and ways of thinking. We consider the power of language and image in shaping understandings of social problems and social work.  We bring a critical lens to the social work profession itself as a site of struggle and seek to open up challenges and possibilities of that struggle.

Social "Justice" Work
The Idea of Social Work
Each of us has an idea or an image of social work that we carry around in our heads.  For some of us this image comes from our experiences as paid or volunteer workers in a community service organization.  Others of us may have known social work from the other side, as a "consumer" of services, perhaps as a child in the foster care system or a single parent receiving welfare benefits.  Some of us may have little or no experience with the practicalities of social work.  Perhaps we have taken a course or two, or we have known social work mainly through its representations in the media.  Nonetheless, we have an impression, a mental image if you will, of social work and what we envision ourselves doing as social workers.  Accordingly, each of us has an idea or an image of social justice.  For some of us, social justice relates to notions of equality, tolerance, and human rights. Others of us know social justice through its absence, for example, through personal experiences of injustice, degradation, and violence.

Meanings of Social Work and Social Justice
Take a minute to consider what social work and social justice mean to you.  Most of us take these constructs for granted.  We assume we know their meaning.  At the same time, we believe others hold these same meanings.  What is social work?  What is social justice?  Now think about the interrelationship between the two.  Might some meanings of social work and the ways in which it is practiced neglect consideration of social justice?  What images come to mind?  Or might these meanings be inextricably linked, making it difficult to tell them apart?  What examples of social work practice illlustrate the interrelationship of social work and social justice?

Linking Social Work and Social Justice

The reflection exercise above asks you to think about the meanings of social work and social justice, to explore their dynamic relationship, tensions, and harmonies, and to make concrete applications to the world of practice.  Our bias is that social work should have a middle name - social "justice" work.  Thinking about social work as social justice work accomplishes several important goals:

• Social justice work highlights that which is unique to social work among the helping professions (Wakefield, 1988a, 1988b).  Few other professions have identified challenging social injustice as their primary mission (NASW, 1996).

• Social justice work implies that we take seriously the social justice principles of our profession and use these to guide and evaluate our work and ourselves as social workers.  In subsequent chapters, we will introduce you to early justice-oriented social workers such as Jane Addams and Bertha Capen Reynolds, who have already paved the way.

• Social justice work reminds us of the need for a global perspective on social work as the crisis of late capitalism leaves its mark on our own and distant economies, creating greater gaps between the rich and the poor and transgressing the boundaries of nations and national sovereignty (Giddens, 1991; Keigher & Lowery, 1998; Korten, 1995; Ramanathan & Link, 1999).

    Some might say that giving social work "justice" as a middle name is hardly necessary. After all, women and minorities in the U.S. struggled long and hard and finally won the right to vote, and there is some evidence of increased equality between men and women.  The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see Appendix, p. 397) celebrated its 50th anniversary in 1998.  But much injustice persists.  Violations of human rights and struggles to retain, recognize, and realize these rights continue on many fronts.  Those struggles force us to ask: What conditions of humanity are necessary for people to claim the most basic of human rights - the right to have rights (Arendt, 1973, p. 296 cited in Jelin, 1996, p. 104)?

The Challenge of Social Justice Work
Struggles for women's rights continue around the world in the face of persistent gender inequality.  Loss of rights have contributed to increased rates of depression and suicide among women (Goodman, 1998).  In 1999, lawmakers in the state of Michigan decided that prisoners no longer count as "persons" under state law, thus limiting their protection under the Civil Rights and Americans with Disabilities Act.  Prisoners have been denied a basic aspect of humanity.  The rights associated within citizenship and "home" are denied to 23 million refugees displaced from their homelands by war and its social, political, and economic devastation (Lyons, 1999, p. 110).  How can we speak of universal human rights when more than one billion people earn less than one dollar per day, when nearly one billion adults are illiterate and when more than one billion people lack access to safe water (ILO, 1998; Reisch, 1988a)?  These are some of the challenging questions we face when we take social justice work seriously.

Taking a Global Perspective
Ideological precepts written into the U.S. Constitution over 200 years ago speak of "equality and justice for all."  These same precepts fuel and continue to feed the fires of revolutionary claims and movements around the world.  Yet as Figure 1.1 indicates, the contemporary world is characterized by brutal inequalities of wealth and poverty.  Like the tipsy champagne glass image it suggests, it is an unstable world with no solid foundation.  We argue that the foundation must be built from the bottom up with the help of social justice work.  We believe that meaningful engagement with questions of social justice demands a global perspective.  We will be reflecting on the history of social justice in U.S. social work, and we will draw from knowledge and practice beyond U.S. borders to challenge and expand our thinking.  In this age of transnational movements of people, power, and information, we need an approach to social justice work that crosses national, geographic, cultural, and disciplinary boundaries and expands our thinking along the way.  
    We find inspiration in the work of international social work and social welfare organizations for framing a global understanding of social work.  For example, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), in trying to develop a global definition of social work, has identified three concepts that are key to justice-oriented social work: peace, environment, and citizenship (IFSW, 1997).  Oxfam, a non-governmental international aid and development organization, argues that we have to attend to the basic rights of subsistence and security before we can address other human rights (Lyons, 1999, p. 9).  Karen Lyons, a social work educator at the University of East London, argues that if we are to think of social work and social justice on a global scale for the 21st century, we need to think about poverty, migration, disasters, and their global impacts (1999, p. 14).  Clearly, these challenging issues are interrelated, and we will return to them to explore patterns that connect throughout the book.

Challenging Our Thinking
The challenge of social justice work calls for challenging ways of thinking.  That is, we have to challenge ways we have been taught to think and critically engage with perspectives that disrupt our certainties about the world, our assumptions about what is "right," "true," and "good."  Our (the authors') own perspectives have been shaped by diverse influences ranging from African American and Italian social theorists and activists (W.E.B. Dubois and Antonio Gramsci) to French philosophers (Michel Foucault), Brazilian and U.S. popular educators (Paulo Freire and Myles Horton), "first" and "third" world feminists (bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins, Chandra Mohanty), critical cultural theorists in Europe and North America (Anthony Giddens, Pierre Bourdieu, Sherry Ortner, Dorothy Smith) and indigenous scholar-activists (Linda Tuhiwai Smith).  We include a selected bibliography of these works at the end of this chapter.
    There are common threads among these diverse influences on our thinking.  They have challenged us to examine the social construction of reality, that is, the ways we as human beings use our cultural capacities to give meaning to social experience. They pose questions about the relations of power, domination, and inequality that shape the way knowledge of the world is produced and whose view counts.  Moreover, they call on us not only to question the order of things in the world but also to be active participants in social transformation toward a more just world.  To understand social justice work and to engage in justice-oriented practice, we must first think critically about its component parts by looking at meanings of social work and social justice.

Meanings of Social Work
Struggles Over Definition
Perhaps there are as many meanings of social work as there are social workers.  When adding movement across time and place to the mix, the meaning of social work becomes a kaleidoscope of interpretations.  As noted in the Introduction, there have been struggles for control of social work's definition since its inception.  Partially, this struggle is attributable to what some believe is social work's dualistic nature and location, wedged between addressing individual need and engaging in broad-scale societal change (Abramovitz, 1998).  A justice-oriented definition of social work challenges the boundaries between the individual and the social.  Instead, it considers how society and the individual are mutually constituting - we individually and collectively make our social world and, in turn, through our participation in the society and its institutions, systems, beliefs, and patterns of practice, we shape ourselves and are shaped as social beings.  The progressive U.S. social worker, educator, and activist Bertha Capen Reynolds (1942) called this "seeing it whole."  Historically, forces both within and outside social work have influenced its dominant definition.  In Chapter Two we follow the course of these tensions and strains as we explore the history of social work in the U.S.
    First, we start with some commonly held contemporary definitions of social work in the U.S. and then move to alternative and international definitions.  We ask you to consider this question: How is it that a profession that calls itself by one name - social work - can have such diverse meanings and interpretations?  Also, think about the different contexts that shape these meanings and how these translate into different ways of conceptualizing social work practice.  How do countries with different dominant value systems from the U.S. practice social work?  How do these practices differ from our own?  Do other countries understand the meaning of social justice differently than we do in the U.S.?  How do you explain this difference?

Official Meanings
Council on Social Work Education.  Professions have formalized organizations that oversee their functioning, determine standards, and monitor practice.  The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), for example, is the accrediting body for schools of social work education in the U.S.  CSWE's primary role is to ensure the consistency of knowledge, values, and skills disseminated through social work education.  CSWE describes the purpose of the social work profession as the "enhancement of human well-being and the alleviation of poverty and oppression" (1994, p. 135). This purpose is realized through the following activities:

1. The promotion, restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of the functioning of individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities by helping them to accomplish tasks, prevent and alleviate distress, and use resources.
2. The planning, formulation, and implementation of social policies, services, resources, and programs needed to meet basic human needs and support the development of human capacities.
3. The pursuit of policies, services, resources, and programs through organizational or administrative advocacy and social and political action, so as to empower groups at risk and promote social and economic justice.
4. The development and testing of professional knowledge and skills related to these purposes. (CSWE, 1994, p. 135)

National Association of Social Workers.  The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is the largest organization of professional social workers in the U.S.  It works to enhance the professional growth and development of its members, both bachelor of social work (BSW) and master of social work (MSW) practitioners.  NASW also helps to create and maintain professional standards and to advance social policies.  The Preamble to the Code of Ethics (1996) contains NASW's definition of social work:

• The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.  A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession's focus on individual well-being in a social context and the well-being of society.  Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living. (NASW, 1996)

Comparing the Two.  What do the CSWE and the NASW definitions of social work mean to you?  How do these definitions compare to your own definition?  Like other definitions of a profession, these embody the value system of their creators and their supporters.  These organizations have the power to officially sanction not only how we define social work but also how we outline the parameters of its practice and articulate the values believed to be central to the work.  This official sanction refers not only to words and to the language we use to describe what we do but also to the actions we take that exemplify our practice.

Shifting Meanings
What meanings are communicated by CSWE and the NASW in their definitions of social work?  How might these meanings guide practice?  For example, think of yourself working with children and families or in a health care or community center. Given these definitions, how might you relate to the people, the neighborhoods and the communities with whom you will work? Would your relationships be top/down, bottom/up, or side-by-side?  How do social workers promote, restore, maintain, and enhance human functioning?  Who defines groups at risk?  Now let's shift our vision from "inside" the profession and look at meanings of social work from the "outside," through the eyes of those whom social work is meant to serve.  For example, imagine yourself to be:

• a homeless person turned away from a full shelter for the third night in a row;
• a nine-year-old child in a county receiving home awaiting temporary placement in a foster home;
• a school principal making a referral of child neglect to the local child protection services office;
• a welfare recipient whose monthly benefit has been reduced for failure to provide proper documentation of a part-time day care arrangement.

How would you define social work through these eyes?  As you look at the meaning of social work from an outsider point of view, does this change your conceptions of social work?

    CSWE and NASW are powerful meaning-makers in defining the nature of social work.  More often than not, social work texts include these definitions of social work in their introductory chapters (for example, see Dubois & Miley, 1999; Morales & Sheafor, 1998; Sheafor, Horejsi, & Horejsi, 2000).  Although these definitions are certainly the most dominant, they are not the only ones.  Next, we will look at some alternative meanings, those that go against the official grain, or, at the very least, critique social work's dominant definitions.  These meanings of social work support its inescapable political nature and ask us to consider issues of power as they concern social workers' relationships to those with whom they work.  As you read the following definitions, write down what you think might be factors that shape different meanings of social work and definitions of the helping relationship.

Other Meanings to Consider
Social Work as a Transformative Process.  Paulo Freire (1974, 1990), a Brazilian educator, argues that social work is a transformative process in which both social conditions and participants, including the social worker, are changed in the pursuit of a more just world.  Paulo Freire is noted for his contributions to popular education, a social-change strategy through which critical literacy opens liberatory possibilities (We address popular education further in Chapter 7.).  Freire taught literacy to Brazilian peasants through group discussions that prompted critical reflection on their life conditions.  Weiler (1988) writes that Freire:

• ... is committed to a belief in the power of individuals to come to a critical consciousness of their own being in the world. Central to his pedagogical work is the understanding that both teachers and students are agents, both engaged in the process of constructing and reconstructing meaning. (p. 17).   

    In Freire's view, social work involves critical curiosity and a life-long, committed search for one's own competence; congruence between words and actions; tolerance; the ability to exercise impatient patience; and a grasp of what is historically possible.  Similarly, Stanley Witkin (1998) asks us to consider the qualities of social work in its adjective form: "...pertaining to a human service activity (social work practice) or form of social inquiry (social work research) that is focused on individual and social change from a contextual perspective informed by human rights, social justice, and respect for people" (p. 486).

Social Work as a Political Process.  David Gil (1998, pp. 104-108) defines social work by outlining what he sees as its principles.  Similar to other scholars of social work (Barber, 1995; Fisher, 1995; Reisch, 1997, 1998b), he asks us to affirm the undeniable political nature of social work and its value system.  He believes social work should confront the root causes of social problems by moving beyond mere technical skills.  Like Freire, Gil asserts that social work must promote critical consciousness, that is, an awareness of the interconnected nature of individuals, families, and communities, and a society's political, economic, and social arrangements.  To achieve these ends, Gil contends that social workers must strive to understand their own and others' oppression and consider alternative possibilities for human relations.  He, too, argues that there is need for fundamental social change.

Five Simple Principles.  These ideas about social work resonate with Bertha Capen Reynolds' (1934, 1942, 1963) contributions to the social work profession.  Reynolds was a social worker and social work educator in the U.S. whose life and work modeled a commitment to progressive, justice-oriented social work.  Reynolds' work bridged the individual and social. Like many social workers of her time she was trained in psychoanalytic techniques, but she never lost sight of the contextual nature of individual problems.  Reynolds set forth "five simple principles" she believed necessary to the practice of social work:

1. Social work exists to serve people in need.  If it serves other classes, it becomes too dishonest.
2. Social work exists to help people help themselves ... we should not be alarmed when they do so by organized means, such as client or tenant or labor groups.
3. The underlying nature of social work is that it operates by communication, listening, and sharing experience.
4. Social work has to find its place among other social movements for human betterment.
5. Social workers as citizens cannot consider themselves superior to their clients as they do not have the same problems (Reynolds, 1963, pp. 173-175).

    Reynolds' understanding of social work continues to inspire individuals interested in social change as attested to by the progressive social work organization founded in her name --- formerly the Bertha Capen Reynolds Society, now the Social Welfare Action Alliance.

International Meanings of Social Work
International Federation of Social Workers' Definition.  Much can be learned about social work when we step outside U.S. soil and learn about its meaning on different social, political, and cultural terrain.  Professional organizations other than CSWE and NASW have set forth definitions of social work.  For example, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) is a global organization founded on the principles of social justice, human rights, and social development.  IFSW achieves these aims through the development of international cooperation between social workers and their professional organizations.  In 2000, IFSW developed a new definition of social work.  It replaces a definition adopted in 1982 and reflects the organization's effort to address the evolving nature of social work.  It reads as follows:

• The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being.  Utilising theories of human behavior and social systems, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environment.  Principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work.

Global Interdependence.  In keeping with international concerns and connections, other social workers continue to forge new definitions of social work that capture global concerns and ideals.  For example, Link, Ramanathan, and Asamoah (1999) contend that a global approach to social work must view the world as a system of interdependent parts, account for the structures that shape human interactions, and challenge culture-bound assumptions about human behavior.  For instance, they point out the culture-bound nature of concepts such as "independence," "self-esteem," and "motivation" that have been predicted on particular modern Western concepts of personhood and the self.  They call on social workers to reach for constructs that can relate to many differing cultures "such as interdependence of self (with family, village, and community life), social well-being, empowerment, resilience, reverence for nature, artistic expression, and peace" (p.30).

Social Work in Nicaragua
Let's consider how social work has been conceptualized in Nicaragua, where the field's own history is inseparable from the country's struggles for democracy.  During the 1980s under the Sandinista government, spaces opened for experimentation in participatory approaches to community and social development.  Social work, however, was originally viewed by the Sandinistas as a tool of the old regime, serving to mediate class struggle rather than support the revolutionary process.  With the revolution, they argue, social work would no longer be necessary (Wilson & Whitmore, 1995, p. 66).  In 1980 the country's only social work school was closed to new admissions.  Wilson and Whitmore write that social workers began to mobilize in order to implement the national call for participation.  In 1984, social work was redefined as "service to the process of social transformation" (Wilson & Whitmore, e1995, p. 67).  The social work program reopened at this time at the Universidad Centroamericna with the stated mission to prepare its graduates to "facilitate the democratic process of popular participation in the structural changes required to achieve a more just and egalitarian society" (p. 67).  The mission further states that intervention at the microsocial level must serve the interests of the popular sectors, involving: "the sensitization and organization of these popular sectors [which] allows them to make themselves subjects of their own transformation" (ETS, 1984).  The overriding mission of social workers, then, is to enhance "the organized participation of people in the development of the society ... as the practice of popular democracy" (ETS, 1984, cited in Wilson & Whitmore, 1995, p. 67).  What does this story teach us of the meaning of social work?  Can we understand the meaning of social work outside of the social, political, or cultural context in which it is practiced?  How might stepping outside our usual frame of reference inform us of the tightly woven connections between social work, politics, economics, and social arrangements?

Defining Social Work in Diverse National Contexts.  We have chosen several examples to illustrate the meaning of social work in diverse national contexts.  We hope these will spark your interest to investigate other countries on your own.  Here are some clues about social work.  See if you can guess the country.  (Answers in endnotes for this chapter)

• Social work in this country bears some resemblance to social work in the U.S. because these countries share a common border.  Social work started here at approximately the same time as it did in the U.S.  This country exported practice methods and philosophies from the U.S. and Great Britain.  In fact, the country's longest serving prime minister was employed at Hull House in Chicago as a caseworker when it was under Jane Addams' leadership.  In part, this explains the commonality of social services and policies adopted in this country during the 1940s when compared to the U.S. (e.g., income security programs, minimum wage legislation, old age security, family allowances, and unemployment insurance).  There are also some startling differences.  For example, this country created a universal medical care program and a comprehensive and integrated social assistance program in the 1960s (Hopmeyer, Kimberly, & Hawkins, 1995).  What factors might account for the different meanings of social work in this country and the United States?

• Social work in this country is barely ten years old.  Imagine a country where it was believed there was no need for social workers.  Better yet, imagine a country where, due to the social, political, and economic structure, there "should be no need" for social workers.  Only recently has this country begun to consider social work a part of its agenda because of a major shift from socialism to a market economy (Driedger, 1995).  How will social work configure itself against this newly forming landscape?

• As part of this country's historic ideology, for hundreds of years a good society was a society where the masters at different levels were just and took good care of their subordinates (Frick, 1995).  Beginning in the 1930s, this country evolved away from the concept of the state as the benevolent caretaker toward a new ideology based on solidarity, democracy, equality, and brotherhood.  "Individual rights as citizens were stressed together with the belief in collective solutions to social problems and a preparedness to use the state as an instrument for such solutions" (Frick, 1995, p. 146).  What is the meaning of social work in a country that bridges individual rights and collective solutions?

• During the Allied occupation of this country after World War II, social work and a system of social welfare were introduced based on models developed in the U.S. This is a good example of a powerful meaning-maker spreading its ideas of social work to another country.  While it may be efficient to buy something ready-made, often a good fit to new surroundings is sacrificed.  However, in this country's case there was no other choice.  With conquest and domination came the power to impose meanings on a culture and its people.  Old meanings were replaced with new ones and in the process, the importance of cultural congruence was ignored.  While this country continues to forge an indigenous system of social welfare, social casework is still the dominant model of practice (Matsubara, 1992).

• This was the first country in South America where social work emerged, beginning in 1925.  Influenced initially by European models of practice, the profession underwent a transformation during the mid-to-late 1960s.  The theories of Paulo Freire, the noted Brazilian popular educator mentioned earlier, who was living in exile in this country, had a transformative influence on both the practice and the teaching of social work.  Consciousness-raising and rethinking the power dynamics inherent in the social worker/client relationship became points of reflection that changed the nature of practice.  Social workers in this country contested the individualistic, apolitical emphasis of social work in other countries, especially the imperialistic, colonizing model evident in the U.S. Jimenez & Aylwin, 1992).
  

Meanings of Social Justice
Understanding Social Justice in Context
Notions of justice have been debated since the days of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.  Like social work, the meaning of justice is contextually bound and historically driven.  The ideas we have about social justice in U.S. social work are largely derived from Western philosophy and political theory and Judeo-Christian religious tradition.  The Social Work Dictionary defines social justice as "an ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same rights, protection, opportunities, obligations and social benefits" (Barker, 1995, p. 354).  Our conceptions of justice are generally abstract ideals that overlap with our beliefs about what is right, good, desirable, and moral (Horejsi, 1999).  Notions of social justice generally embrace values such as the equal worth of all citizens, their equal right to meet their basic needs, the need to spread opportunity and life chances as widely as possible, and finally, the requirement that we reduce and where possible, eliminate unjustified inequalities.

Perspective of U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference
Some students of social justice consider its meaning in terms of the tensions between individual liberty and common social good, arguing that social justice is promoted to the degree that we can promote positive, individual freedom.  Others argue that social justice reflects a concept of fairness in the assignment of fundamental rights and duties, economic opportunities, and social conditions (Miller, 1976, p.22, cited in Reisch, 1998a).  For example, in their 1986 pastoral letter, the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference outlined three concepts of social justice:

• Commutative justice calls for fundamental fairness in all agreements and exchanges between individuals or private social groups (U.S. Catholic Bishops, 1986, #69).
• Distributive justice requires that the allocation of income, wealth, and power in society be evaluated in light of its effects on persons whose basic material needs are unmet (#70).
• Social justice implies that persons have an obligation to be active and productive participants in the life of society and that society has a duty to enable them to participate in this way (#71).  The meaning of social justice also includes a duty to organize economic and social institutions os that people can contribute to society in ways that respect their freedom and the dignity of their labor (#72).

Rawls' Theory of Justice
A number of social workers and social theorists concerned about questions social justice have turned to the work of philosopher John Rawls (1971) and his theory of justice.  For example, Wakefield (1988a) argues that Rawls' notion of distributive justice is the organizing value of social work.  For Rawls, distributive justice denotes "the value of each person getting a fair share of the benefits and burdens resulting from social cooperation" both in terms of material goods and services and also in terms of nonmaterial social goods, such as opportunity and power (Wakefield, 1988a, p. 193).
    Albee (1986) turns to Rawls, work on characteristics of a just society to inform his thinking about the relationship between social injustice and psychopathy.  According to Albee, Rawls recognizes that most people are quite able to say what they see to be "unjust."  However, it is more difficult to talk about what a just society would look like.  Rawls (1971) asks, what would be the characteristics of a just society in which basic human needs are met, unnecessary stress is reduced, the competence of each person is maximized, and threats to well-being are minimized?  Rawls tries to imagine whether a small group of people unmotivated by selfish interests, could reach consensus regarding the characteristics of a just society.  In his book A Theory of Justice (1995), Rawls imagines such a small group, selected at random, sitting around a table.  He places an important limit on this vision: no one at the table knows whether he or she is rich or poor; black, brown, or white; young or old.  He assumes that, without knowledge of their own immediate identities, they will not be motivated by selfish considerations.  Rawls concludes that the group will arrive at two basic principles:  

1. Justice as Fairness:  "According to this principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others" (Albee, 1986, p.897).
2. Just Arrangements: "Social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair and equal opportunity" (Albee, 1986, p. 897).
   

    From this perspective, society must make every attempt to redress all those social and economic inequalities that have led to disadvantage in order to provide real equality of opportunity.  This demands a redistribution of power; the rejection of racism, sexism, colonialism, and exploitation; and the search for ways to redistribute social power toward the end of social justice (Albee, 1986, p. 897).

Social Workers Conceptualize Social Justice
Reisch (1998a) draws on Rawls' principle of "redress," that is, to compensate for inequalities and to shift the balance of contingencies in the direction of equality, in articulating the relationship between social work and social justice.  He argues that a social justice framework for social work and social welfare policy would "hold the most vulnerable populations harmless in the distribution of societal resources, particularly when those resources are finite.  Unequal distribution of resources would be justified only if it served to advance the least advantaged groups in the community" (Reisch, 1998a, p. 20; Rawls, 1995).
    Similarly, Saleebey (1990, p. 37) has detailed what social justice means to social work:

1.  Social resources are distributed on the principle of need with the clear understanding that such resources underlie the development of personal resources, with the proviso that entitlement to such resources is one of the fits of citizenship.
2. Opportunity for personal and social development are open to all with the understanding that those who have been unfairly hampered through no fault of their own will be appropriately compensated. 
3. The establishment, at all levels of a society, of agendas and policies that have human development and the enriching of human experience as their essential goal and are understood to take precedence over other agendas and policies is essential.
4. The arbitrary exercise of social and political power is forsaken.
5. Oppression as a means for establishing priorities, for developing social and natural resources and distributing them, and resolving social problems is forsworn.

Notes:
Key for countries (Canada, Russia, Sweden, Japan, and Chile)