Nancy Fraser (09b) - Redistribution/Recognition - Allie

* Fraser distinguishes between problems of redistribution and problems of recognition. The former are associated with political-economic injustices whereas the later are associated with cultural/symbolic injustices. The former are remedied by political-economic restructuring while the latter are remedied by ‘some sort of’ cultural or symbolic change – the distinction here is therefore analytical. She adds that most injustices in the world are problems of both redistribution and recognition (they are bivalent) therefore they require solutions that get at both problems: redistribution-recognition dilemma. From then on her article focuses on figuring out the best option to respond to this dilemma and thereby finding ways to attempt to fix injustices.

* The issues of injustice raised by myriad social movements and groups cross-cut axes of difference therefore their claims necessarily overlap during times of conflict. Some demands for redistribution will inevitably crosscut demands for recognition. Moreover, some social injustices require redistribution and recognition. “Thus, far from occupying two airtight separate spheres, economic injustice and cultural injustice are usually interimbricated so as to reinforce one another dialectically” (72).

* Recognition claims “tend to promote group differentiation,” while “redistribution claims… often call for abolishing economic arrangements that underpin group specificity… they tend to promote group de-differenciation” (74). So that the politics associated with the two processes (remedies to injustice) have ‘mutually contradictory claims’, which begs the question of how we can work through them: aka ‘the redistribution-recognition dilemma’ mentioned above. The dilemma concerns the ‘correct’ way to respond to competing claims of recognition and redistribution claims.

* Since most socio-politico-economic situations and injustices do not match an extreme that can be fixed either through redistribution or recognition we are faced with “collectivities located in the middle of the conceptual spectrum” where “we encounter hybrid modes” (78). These ‘hybrid modes’ are essentially ‘bivalent’ collectivities (what about polyvalent collectivities…?). They are faced with both socioeconomic and cultural injustices and must find ways to resolve competing/intersected/interlinked claims. Here Fraser delves into gender and racial issues to demonstrate her point quite clearly.

* Having introduced this idea of bivalent collectivities, types of injustices and their remedies, Fraser goes on to complicate matters by introducing potential approaches to these remedies (we have the sickness, we have the medicine, now how do we administer it to achieve optimal recovery?). The two approaches are: affirmation and transformation. Now, put really succinctly, if we are working with cultural injustices (recognition) the affirmative approach takes the form of multiculturalism while the transformative approach is that of deconstruction. However, if we work with economic injustice (redistribution) the affirmative approach is the liberal welfare state while the transformative approach is socialism.

* Fraser then tackles the pros and cons of affirmative and transformative action. Again to briefly explain, affirmative action is a contradictory approach because it contradicts the universalist conception of recognition (for example we go from workers and capitalists to employed and non-employed so in trying to help the working class we risk worsening their position). “Such remedies, to be sure, provide the needed material aid. But they also create strongly cathected, antagonistic group differentiations” (85). We go from injustices of distribution to injustices of recognition – hence contradiction. Although the transformative approach is also rooted in a universalist approach it works more effectively than the affirmative approach. Transformative efforts, in redressing injustices of distribution can also help redress injustices of recognition (so we get a nice 2-for-1 deal). But again, we are back to the question of bivalent collectivities necessitating both remedies and methods to these remedies.

* Fraser helps try make sense of it all at this point by introducing a really useful matrix of redistribution (a) – recognition (b) versus affirmation (y) –transformation (z) where a-z = liberal welfare state; a-z = socialism; b-y = mainstream multiculturalism; and b-z = deconstruction. Without going into detail here Fraser says that the liberal welfare state and deconstruction do not work in combination, nor do mainstream multiculturalism and socialism. The better paths are the liberal welfare state combined with mainstream multiculturalism (because both promote group differentiation) or socialism combined with deconstruction (because both undermine group differentiation).

*Fraser concludes that combining socialism with deconstruction is the better of the two paths (detailed above), although she acknowledges there are still problems involved – it’s not a panacea but it’s the best option we have. “The redistribution-recognition dilemma is real. There is no neat theoretical move by which it can be wholly dissolved or resolved. The best we can do is try to soften the dilemma by finding approaches that minimize conflicts between redistribution and recognition in cases where both must be pursued simultaneously” (92). “The next step would be to show that this combination [socialism-deconstruction] also works for our larger sociocultural configuration” (92). So how do we deal with polyvalent collectivities…?

* I think Fraser’s discussion is refreshing after reading Harvey’s article. I appreciate that class remains central to her discussion but that it is not the be-all-end-all focus of any hope for the resolution of injustices. It’s nice to see a direct focus/discussion of potential ways to fix/improve cultural injustices as well as economic-political injustices.

Note: I am posting this after class. I finished my entry at UofT before class this morning but I wasn't able to connect to the One-Zone wireless network so I wasn't able to post it until now. Sorry for the delay.