Beyond Justice: Deconstructing the Master's Tools

Justice—the very concept we've been taught to seek and defend—may be the most sophisticated tool of domination ever created. The concept of "Justice" itself, not merely its implementation, keeps us trapped within the Master's House.

Colonial architecture of blame and punishment

The Western Justice Narrative rests on three pillars that Indigenous scholars identify as fundamentally colonial: linear causality, individual blame, and retributive logic. The concept of western "Justice" is embedded in historically specific constructs (ways of thinking) that sever relationships between people, communities, and land. This Justice Narrative while self-identifies as "natural law," in fact it is not rooted in universal truths. 

Linear causality assumes simple cause-and-effect relationships. Harm emerges from disrupted relationships across multiple scales—between individuals, communities, ancestors, and the land itself. The Western insistence on tracing harm to singular causes reflects an epistemological violence. 

Individual blame represents perhaps the most insidious aspect of Western "Justice." Individualized conceptions of "Justice" focus on individual culpability, and thus obscures the systemic conditions producing harm while legitimizing violence against those deemed "guilty."

Retributive logic completes the architecture by insisting harm requires proportional counter-harm. This creates what Michel Foucault identified as the production of "docile bodies"—subjects who internalize norms through fear of punishment. Indigenous alternatives center healing, restoration, and maintaining relationships, revealing retribution as a choice, not a necessity.

Justice as state entitlement to violence

The justice systems in the Master's House answer social crises with collective scapegoating, using punishment to manage the "othered" population rather than addressing conditions creating harm. Justice narratives legitimize state violence by suggesting institutional responses to harm are necessary and desirable. Even progressive movements seeking "social justice" often reinforce state power by appealing to it for redress, ensuring htey remain trapped within the Master's House. 

Philosophy beyond Western causality and responsibility

Buddhist and African philosophical traditions expose Western "Justice" concepts as culturally specific rather than universal. Buddhism's understanding of karma operates through non-linear feedback loops where all phenomena arise through "radical interdependence" (pratityasamutpada), making individual blame conceptually impossible.

Thich Nhat Hanh's teaching that "when another person makes you suffer, it is because he suffers deeply within himself" represents not mere compassion but a fundamental challenge to justice logic. If harm emerges from suffering transmitted through interconnected relationships, punishment becomes not just cruel but nonsensical—adding suffering to an already suffering system.

Ubuntu philosophy, as articulated by Mogobe Ramose, presents an even more radical alternative. The principle "motho ke motho ka batho" (a person is a person through other persons) makes individual justice impossible because personhood itself is collective. Ubuntu doesn't reform justice; it operates from entirely different assumptions about human existence.

These philosophies reveal that Western "Justice" emerged from specific historical conditions—research shows the idea that "crime demands prosecution and punishment" cannot be found in Western society before the 12th century.  What we consider natural and universal is actually a recent historical development tied to state formation and colonial expansion. Many attempts to move beyond justice still reproduce dominator logic through hidden hierarchies, exclusion mechanisms, or coercive harmony that pressures victims to participate in healing. 

Justice as violence legitimation machine

The law functions as ideology, legitimizing inequality through appeals to "neutral" principles while masking power relations behind technical language. The state's monopoly on legitimate violence creates what Rene Girard identified as an "entitlement to violence"—certain actors can legally use force while other violence is criminalized.

This differential treatment appears starkly in how Justice Narratives frame violence: state violence is "legitimate," corporate violence is "regulatory," while violence by marginalized groups is "pathological." The language of "humanitarian intervention," "law and order," and "public safety" legitimizes military invasions, mass incarceration, and expanding surveillance—all in the name of justice. 

Beyond reform: Why the Justice Narrative cannot be fixed

The Justice Narrative cannot be reformed because its fundamental logic—that harm requires institutional response, that individuals bear responsibility for systemic problems, that punishment can create safety—reproduces Domination.  Even progressive movements seeking justice often strengthen state power by appealing to it for inclusion or reform.

 Any justice system requiring enforcement mechanisms creates hierarchies of those who judge and those who are judged, those who punish and those who are punished.

The question isn't how to achieve better western conceptions of Justice but how to organize social life without a Justice Narrative.