What do we really think about justice, and what does it mean in Kazakhstan's context? Social justice is understood as how people perceive fairness in the distribution of resources. Namely, access to quality education and healthcare, housing, fairness in labor and remuneration, equality before the law, and the protection of rights, as well as the opportunity to climb the social ladder regardless of one's background, connections, or ethnicity.
In other words, everyone has a sense of justice; even a child in kindergarten can say, "That's not fair!" We are born with an innate awareness of equality, and when it is violated. That is why justice is not a luxury but a social necessity at the core of trust, social stability, and peaceful coexistence. Injustice, on the other hand, means denial of recognition, something philosophers note causes the deepest pain a person can experience.
In one of the studies conducted by KazISS, we asked: "Do you agree that people who work hard should be rewarded for it?" From an analytical perspective, this statement reflects a normative expectation, a vision of how society ought to be.
The sociological survey was conducted between May 11 and June 22, 2024, commissioned by KazISS. The sample size was 8,000 respondents. Participants included individuals aged 18 and older from all 17 regions of Kazakhstan, as well as the cities of national significance - Astana, Almaty, and Shymkent.
The majority of respondents (66.6%) fully agreed with this statement, 32% agreed, 0.8% disagreed, 0.2% strongly disagreed, and 0.3% found it difficult to answer. This question serves as a kind of litmus test: if people agree with it, they believe in individual justice and meritocracy. They believe that if someone works hard, they deserve more, and society should ensure this.
Disagreement with the statement, however, reflects criticism of systemic injustice: "I may work hard, but someone else will get the position thanks to connections, and that is unfair." Thus, analytically, this question sheds light not only on the value of labor in society but also on how the system itself functions - does it truly reward honest work?
The majority of respondents agree with the statement, but let's take a closer look at whether there are any differences in views within our society when broken down by language, age, income, gender, or employment status. Correlation analysis shows that gender, age, income, education, employment, and type of settlement do not play a decisive role in shaping the belief in fair rewards for labor. In other words, there is no correlation between these indicators and the phenomenon under study. And this is the new reality.
For a long time, we, sociologists, relied on the "big six" - gender, age, education, income, employment, and type of settlement. These variables were clear, easy to measure, and seemed to provide a reliable explanation of social behavior. Throughout the 20th century, sociology developed within the logic of class, age, and rural-urban analysis. In other words, when sociologists asked about one's profession, place of residence, and age, this was usually enough to infer how a person might think.
But today, the traditional axes of analysis are losing their explanatory power when it comes to fundamental values. This most likely points to the emergence of a new social reality, where values such as hard work and reward for effort are seen as universal, supra-stratification norms shared across broad layers of society, regardless of one's place in the social hierarchy.
Modern sociological theorists have already captured these new developments. Ulrich Beck, in his sociology of the "risk society," explores how class boundaries weaken while identities and values become increasingly personalized. Manuel Castells, in his theory of the transition to the network society, shows how classical socio-demographic markers are being replaced by new principles of stratification, largely tied to access to information.
What are some examples of the declining explanatory power of traditional indicators? How do women of the same age in Kazakhstan, for instance, live in "parallel worlds"? They may speak different languages, watch different TV channels, and follow entirely different bloggers on social media. A 35‑year‑old woman with a university degree could just as easily be a successful career professional in Astana, a housewife in Turkistan, or a businesswoman in Aktobe. They can have absolutely different values and worldviews, as well as needs, even though socio-demographically they belong to the same group - women born in the same year.
Why is this happening? Rapid modernization, regional differences, and linguistic diversity are breaking apart homogeneous, previously predictable groups. Symbolic markers such as media consumption, religiosity, or migration experience play an increasingly important role. New variables, such as experiences of inequality or cultural codes, are beginning to carry explanatory power.
This seems to be driven by the growing importance of identity rather than status positions. These factors are becoming the "new keys" to understanding society, while the "traditional six" can perhaps be compared to an old map that no longer shows the new roads.
Thus, belief in hard work and fair reward is no longer just a matter of personal conviction. The value of fair compensation for labor has become so universal and widely shared that it no longer depends on group differences. It is turning not merely into an opinion, but into a part of social consensus.
The declining significance of socio-demographic markers is an important observation. It suggests that in modern Kazakhstan, new lines of meaning are emerging, shaped not by class, place of residence, education, or income, but by other factors that are not yet fully understood.
Of course, it does not mean that social differences disappeared. But this means that the analytical model that sociologists have relied on for decades no longer captures the full picture of what is happening. That means sociology itself must evolve to keep pace with a society that is becoming ever more complex, flexible, and unpredictable.
We may, in fact, be seeing the first signs of a shift in the very logic of social structure -- when key ideas and moral reference points cease to "belong" to individual social groups and begin instead to unite much broader audiences.
Thus, our data point to the value ideal of hard work and fair reward as something deeply rooted in the public consciousness. This broad agreement serves an important moral and compensatory function, reflecting a collective hope for a social order in which all efforts are recognized and rewarded justly.
Aigul Zabirova is a chief research fellow at the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies under the President of Kazakhstan (KazISS). She is a doctor of sociology and a professor.