Background:
Dr. Charles Taylor is having a communitarian philosophical
discussion about notion of ‘Politics of Recognition’ in his book “Multiculturalism” that he defines the
above notion as a “term
designates something like a person’s understanding of who they are, of their
fundamental defining characteristics as a human being. The thesis is that our
identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition
of others, and so a person or group of people can suffer real damage, real
distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a
confining demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves.”[1]
Theoretical Framework:
Dr. Nancy Fraser is a
critical philosopher, who is re-examining Dr. Taylor’s theory of ‘Politics of
Recognition’ in light of Karl Marx Political Economy as a theoretical framework
to elucidate post-socialist approach toward inequality in society as a measure
to define cultural domination against subordinate culture. In addition, the
concept of Emile Durkheim of oneness is appearing, as well as, C. Wright Mills
idea of “The Power Elite” is echoing
in her book “Justice Interrupts: Critical
Reflections on the “Postsocialist Condition.” Dr. Fraser prescribes welfare
– liberalism as a measure to cure social illness of society in order to reduce
barriers for disadvantage groups to integrate in society.
Counterargument:
Dr. Fraser argues that it
is not ‘Politics of Recognition’, but it is ‘Struggle for Recognition’.[2] It
is recognition of differences in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race, gender
and sexuality.[3] She
argues that position of post-socialist has changed currently from defending
class interest to group identity.[4] It
is cultural domination which is leading to injustice,[5] and exploitation of working class in hands of
owner of means of production is defined in term of cultural domination.[6]
According to Dr. Fraser “cultural recognition displaces socioeconomic
redistribution as the reedy for injustice and the goal of political struggle.”[7]
Author is using four
intellectual sources to define socioeconomic injustice from Karl Marx’s
Political-Economy, the notion of capitalist exploitation of workers, John Rawls
definition of justice which is about fairness in the choice of primary goods,
Amartya Sen definition of people are
having equal “capabilities to function” and Ronald Dworkin view of equality of
resources.[8]
C. Wright Mills in his book
“The Power Elite” explains how
affluent families are living in a same neighbourhood; attend same academic
institutes to gain same knowledge about how to govern affair of a business or
politics, following one tradition by not questioning its value, and marrying
among each other so wealth would remain among them. Applying the above ideas in
a real life situation in Canada. Paul Martin was a prime minister of Canada,
and his father Joseph James Guillaume Paul Martin was a MP for the Liberal
Party of Canada. Jack Layton from NDP whose father was Robert Layton from
Progressive Conservative MP.
Redistribution dilemma – socioeconomic factor:
There are cultural norms
that they are like iron blocks planted solid in the ground and they are giving
direction to a building how it would look from outside and inside. There are
some rooms which are small and dark and there are rooms which are large, and
luxurious.[9]
The above building created in this fashion because of some individuals of
understanding of what reality is and perpetuating those values to others and
setting cultural norms for rest of people.[10]
Author suggests overcoming
socioeconomic issues on level of economic; it requires “political-economic
restructuring … redistribution income, reorganizing the division of labor, as
well as other remedies.”[11]
Karl Marx – Political Economy:
Author argues that
political economy and culture are interconnected factors for injustice in
society.[12]
Marx explains that how owner of means of production exploits workers by
giving-up their labours for wages. In return petite bourgeoisie is making
profit and not sharing it with workers. Author begins to argue that how gender
of person or her/his sexual preferences are becoming factors to gain employment
in a private or public sectors. Women are gaining employments in pink ghetto
sectors that those jobs tend to be low paying jobs. The ‘Political – Economy is
used to justify class inferiority and exploitation of disadvantage groups.[13]
In regard to LGBT community that they are always targeted by heterosexual
community as an inferior and incapable of being good individuals, they are
subject to questioning of morality. The institutional systems are established
in a way that it does not recognize their rights in matter of social-welfare
benefits.[14] (This
book was published, in 1997, and assuming author is discussing same sex
marriage, and what would happen when their union would dissolve. There is a discussion
how the judicial system would divide their assets among couples.)
Author introduces concept of
bivalent as a way to define exploited class with despised sexuality.[15]
There are factors of political-economic structure and cultural valuational
structure of society.[16]
As a result, there are two
distinct cases to deal with in regard to political economy. If there is one
factor like gender or sexual preference, the remedy for injustice requires
recognition and not redistribution.[17]
In case of bivalent requires redistribution and recognition.[18]
Affirmation and Transformation:
Author is proposing two
approaches to resolve it is about reshaping structural building of society that
they are creating “inequitable outcomes of social arrangements without disturbing
the underlying framework that generates them.”[19]
It means author is a social democrat. “Transformative remedies … correcting
inequitable outcomes precisely by restructuring the under lying generative
framework … end – state outcomes versus the process that produce them.”[20]
Affirmative remedies “for such injustices are currently associated with
“mainstream multiculturalism.””[21]
Solution:
Affirmative remedies for
“such injustices have been associated historically with the liberal welfare
state.”[22]
Transformative remedies
associated with socialism.[23]
Question Period:
- I (Peyman) did not understand what is different between concepts of “Gay-identity politics treats homosexuality as a cultural positivity on page 24 and Queer politics … treats homosexuality as the constructed and devalued correlate of heterosexuality.
Endnote:
[2] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 11. Print.
[3] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 11. Print.
[4] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 11. Print.
[5] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 11. Print.
[6] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 11. Print.
[7] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 11. Print.
[8] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 13. Print.
[9] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist Condition.”Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 15. Print.
[10] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 15. Print.
[11] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 15. Print.
[12] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 17. Print.
[13] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 17. Print.
[14] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 18. Print.
[15] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 19. Print.
[16] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 19. Print.
[17] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 18. Print.
[18] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 19. Print.
[19] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 23. Print.
[20] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 23. Print.
[21] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 24. Print.
[22] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 24. Print.
[23] Fraser, Nancy. “Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist
Condition.”Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 25. Print.
