Since Trump’s second election I have been hearing talk that “We’re all in this together”.
Ultimately, the true meaning of “all” lies not in its historical usage but in the ongoing efforts to make it **genuinely inclusive**—a call to action for continued progress in the pursuit of justice.
The phrase “justice for all” and the use of the word “all” in foundational American documents like the Constitution have often been sources of reflection, critique, and debate, especially when viewed through the lenses of **history, sociology, political science, and social justice**. While the language of “all” suggests inclusivity and universality, the reality of its application—particularly at the time of its writing—was far more exclusive.
Let’s unpack the concept of **”all”** in this context by examining its historical roots, implications, and how modern disciplines like sociology and political science have interpreted it.
—
**Historical Context: “All” and the Constitution**
When the United States Constitution was drafted in 1787, and later when the Bill of Rights was ratified, the language of these documents was steeped in **Enlightenment ideals** like liberty, equality, and justice. However, these ideals were **not universally applied**:
– The **Three-Fifths Compromise** (Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution) explicitly treated enslaved Black individuals as **three-fifths of a person** for purposes of representation and taxation. This was a political concession to Southern states that wanted to maximize their influence in Congress while maintaining the institution of slavery.
– The framers of the Constitution, many of whom were **slaveholders** (e.g., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison), did not intend for “all” to mean **everyone** in society. The rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution initially applied almost exclusively to **white male property owners**—excluding women, Native Americans, Black people (enslaved or free), and the poor.
– The phrase “justice for all”, while noble in principle, was in practice deeply hypocritical during this era. It excluded large swaths of the population, including those subjected to systemic inequalities like slavery and disenfranchisement.
—
**The Evolution of “All” in Social and Political Thought**
Over time, the meaning of “all” has been challenged, expanded, and redefined through **historical struggles and movements**. Disciplines like history, sociology, and political science provide tools to understand how this concept has evolved.
1. **History and Archaeology**:
– Historical records and archaeological evidence demonstrate that societies often have **hierarchies of inclusion and exclusion**. In the U.S., the founding documents reflect the sociopolitical norms of the 18th century, where racial inequality and systemic oppression were institutionalized.
– The abolitionist movement, Civil War, Reconstruction, and Civil Rights Movement all illustrate moments in history where the **definition of “all” was contested and expanded** to include those previously excluded.
2. **Sociology and Social Sciences**:
– Sociologists examine how language like “all” is used to **construct social hierarchies** and enforce power dynamics. The rhetorical use of “all” creates an illusion of unity while masking structural inequalities.
– For example, the concept of **”colorblindness”** in modern racial discourse can be critiqued as a way to ignore systemic racism while claiming that “all” people are treated equally under the law.
3. **Political Science**:
– Political theorists often critique the **original exclusionary frameworks** of liberal democracies like the U.S. Constitution. Scholars like W.E.B. Du Bois and Angela Davis have argued that the rhetoric of equality in American politics has historically been a tool to **legitimize unequal systems**.
– The expansion of voting rights (e.g., 15th and 19th Amendments) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are examples of how political movements have worked to make “all” more inclusive in practice.
4. **Social Work and Activism**:
– Social work emphasizes the need for **equity** (fairness) rather than equality (sameness). While “justice for all” implies equality, social workers advocate addressing **systemic barriers** that prevent marginalized groups from accessing justice.
– Activists today often challenge the gap between the **ideal of justice for all** and the realities of systemic racism, economic inequality, and social injustice.
—
**What Does “All” Truly Mean?**
The word “all” is both a promise and a paradox in American political and social discourse. Its meaning depends on who is included and excluded in its application. Historically, “all” has been a **selective term**, wielded to uphold existing power structures while denying rights to marginalized groups.
In a broader philosophical sense, “all” should imply **universality**, but achieving true inclusivity requires:
1. **Acknowledging historical exclusions** and their ongoing legacies (e.g., systemic racism, sexism, and classism).
2. **Critically examining language** and how it reinforces power dynamics.
3. **Taking action** to dismantle systems of oppression and expand the circle of inclusion.
—
**Conclusion: “All” as a Call to Action**
The U.S. Constitution’s use of “all” in phrases like “justice for all” set an **aspirational standard**—one that the nation has struggled to meet. History, sociology, and other disciplines highlight the ways in which “all” has been used to exclude rather than include. However, they also offer tools for understanding and reshaping this concept to reflect a more equitable and just society.