System Justification Theory

System justification theory was initially proposed by John T. Jost and Mahzarin R. Banaji in 1994 to explain how and why people tolerate unjust and exploitative social arrangements rather than doing everything they can to change the status quo and thereby create a better, more just system. The need for such an explanation arises from historical observations revealing numerous instances of people not merely passively acceptingbut sometimes even actively justifying and rationalizing social systems that are seen as extremely unjust by outsiders, often in retrospect.

For example, the caste system in India has survived largely intact for 3,000 years, and the institution of slavery lasted for more than 400 years in Europe and the Americas. Colonialism was also practiced for centuries and still is in some places (as is slavery), and the apartheid system in South Africa lasted for almost 50 years. According to system justification theory, social systems such as these are supported and maintained at least in part because of processes of motivated social cognition that lead people to consciously and unconsciously defend, bolster, and rationalize aspects of the societal status quo. System justification is accomplished by individuals and groups through the use of stereotypes, social judgments and evaluations, legitimizing beliefs, and more formal ideologies such as political conservatism and religious fundamentalism.

System justification theory may be distinguished from other sociological and psychological perspectives that emphasize self-interest, identity politics, and the thirst for justice as primary or ubiquitous motives. These other perspectives assume that people are quick to anger in the face of injustice and exploitation, and they suggest that protest, rebellion, and moral outrage on the part of the disadvantaged should be commonplace. However, rebellion in social, economic, and political domains occurs more rarely than one would expect, and the sense of injustice is surprisingly difficult to awaken. Moral outrage is frequently directed at those who dare to challenge the system rather than those who are responsible for its failings. What needs to be explained, then, is the surprising extent to which people, including members of disadvantaged groups, acquiesce in the face of an unjust status quo.