Iris Marion Young: Justice and the Politics of Difference
Iris Marion Young Reading Notes
Left politics: movements like feminism, black liberation, american indian movements, and LGBTQ movements
Conceptions of social justice that social movements implicitly appeal to
Confronting and modifuing traditional conceptions of justice
Positivism of political theory: “assuming as given institutional structure that ought to be brought under normative evaluation”
Reductionism: “modern political theorys tendency to reduce political subjects to a unity and to value commonness or someness over specificity and difference”
“Conception of justice should begin with the concepts of domination and oppression”
“Social justice requires explicitly acknowledging and attending to those group differences in order to undermine oppression.”
New Social Movements' Impact: Movements like feminism, Black liberation, Indigenous rights, and gay/lesbian liberation challenge traditional political philosophy, especially notions of justice.
Postmodern Philosophy: The challenge posed by postmodernism questions Western reason and its assumptions, impacting political theory.
Deepening Socialist Appeals: The book explores how developments in politics and theory can broaden socialist values of equality and democracy.
Focus on Justice: Justice is central to political philosophy, with the book investigating how new social movements influence conceptions of social justice.
Problems in Political Theory: The book critiques positivism (relying on given institutional structures without normative evaluation) and reductionism (reducing political subjects to unity, disregarding difference).
Shift in Conception of Justice: Argues that justice should focus on domination and oppression rather than distribution, addressing decision-making, labor division, and cultural factors.
Group Differences in Justice: Acknowledges that justice must consider social group differences, especially when certain groups are privileged and others oppressed, to effectively address injustice.
No Theory of Justice: The book does not provide a universal theory of justice but critiques traditional theories that derive principles from general assumptions about human nature, societies, and reason.
Theory of Justice: A self-standing theory of justice is abstracted from the social context, aiming to be universal and independent of particular social circumstances.
Goal of the Theory: The theory intends to provide an objective, reliable standard to evaluate social institutions and relations.
Criticism of Detachment: The attempt to create a theory independent of social context fails, as it becomes either too abstract to be practical or requires substantive premises about social life to be useful.
Example of Rawls' Theory: Rawls’ theory is critiqued for needing premises derived from modern liberal capitalist societies, despite claiming universality.
Moral Reflection vs. Knowledge: The theory of justice, when seen as universal, conflates moral reflection with scientific knowledge, which is a flawed approach.
Discourse on Justice: Justice should not be treated as a knowledge system but as a reflective process; it arises from listening, as Jean-François Lyotard suggests, rather than observing or controlling the narrative.
Reflective discourse is about making arguments and listening to others responses; political dialogue
Everyday Discourse on Justice: Claims about justice are not theoretical proofs but calls and pleas made by some people upon others.
Rational Reflection: Begins by hearing and heeding a call, not by asserting an ideal state of affairs.
Rejection of Universal Theory: The effort to create a universal theory of justice is seen as futile, leading to finite constructs masked as necessary truths.
Reflective Discourse: Aims to clarify concepts, explain social relations, and defend ideals. It is not about providing definitive answers but engaging in a situated political dialogue.
Critical Theory: Normative reflection must be historically and socially contextualized, rejecting the idea of a universal normative system detached from society.
Social Context: Good normative theorizing requires social and political description, ensuring that reflection is grounded in the real conditions of society.
Normative and Social Theory: Critical theory integrates social description with normative evaluation, aiming to critique and improve the given social reality.
Role of Experience: Normative ideals arise from experience and reflection on society, especially in response to suffering or distress.
Philosopher’s Social Situation: The philosopher's role is shaped by the society's oppressions, either reinforcing or challenging them.
Emancipatory Philosophy: Philosophers engage with social circumstances not only intellectually but emotionally, connecting with desires for change.
Desire as Criticism: Desire to be happy creates distance from the given reality, allowing for criticism and transformation.
Emergence of Ideals: Ideas of the good and just arise from the negation of the current state, driven by desire for change.
Critical Theory: A discourse projecting unrealized possibilities in society, grounded in felt desires and lacks, aiming to transform what is into what could be.
Role of Imagination: Imagination helps transform experiences of the present into visions of future possibilities, forming norms and ideals.
Herbert Marcuse: Ideals like beauty, freedom, and justice transcend particular realizations and reflect unrealized potentialities in historical context.
Norms and Ideals: Universals like justice and freedom emerge from specific historical experiences and are shaped by the desire to surpass current limitations.
Philosophical Concepts: Developed in the consciousness of societal conditions and historical context, even when abstract or theoretical.
Michael Walzer: Social criticism involves being engaged with and committed to society, drawing norms from within it, such as violated principles or social movements challenging hegemonic ideas.
Social Criticism: Social critics don't need detachment or enmity; their criticism stems from the idealism of the existing moral world.
Philosophical Starting Point: Focus on social domination and oppression in the U.S., influenced by new left movements of the 1960s-70s (e.g., democratic socialism, environmentalism, civil rights, feminist, and anti-war movements).
Critique of Contemporary Philosophy: These movements claim deep institutional injustices in American society, but they find little resonance with contemporary theories of justice.
Objective: Reflect on the justice claims of these movements and explore their meaning and implications, criticizing modern Western political philosophy.
Disparity with Theories of Justice: Critique of the language and principles of justice in philosophy, offering alternative principles and examining policies that reinforce ideologies.
Critical Theory Method: Criticism of ideas and institutions alongside the assertion of positive ideals and alternative visions for social relations.
Rejection of Some Critical Theory Tenets: Criticism of Habermas’s homogeneous public and commitment to feminist, postmodern, and critical theory ideas.
Influence of Feminism: Extending feminist critiques of male bias in rationality, citizenship, and equality in modern moral and political theory.
Emphasis on Group Difference: Drawing from postmodern thinkers (e.g., Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, Kristeva, Adorno) to critique unifying discourses like impartiality, general good, and community.
Alternative Conception: Proposes differentiated social relations, drawing on analytic moral/political philosophy, Marxism, participatory democracy, and Black philosophy.
Theoretical Debate: Acknowledges the modernism vs. postmodernism debate among critical and feminist theorists but focuses on social issues rather than epistemological questions.
Methodology: Does not treat any theoretical approach as absolute; each theory offers useful tools for analysis.
Primacy of Doing vs. Having: Distinguishes between theories of justice focused on possession (distributive justice) vs. those focused on actions (doing).
Critique of Distributive Paradigm: Contemporary justice theories prioritize distribution of material goods, which obscures other institutional issues and assumes practices as given.
Extension of Distribution: Some theories extend distributive justice to nonmaterial goods (e.g., self-respect, power), but this leads to confusion and fails to address issues like domination and oppression.
Process-Oriented Conceptualization: Argues for a more relational approach to justice that includes decision-making procedures, the social division of labor, and culture, beyond just material goods.
Focus on Oppression: Advocates using domination and oppression as primary terms for conceptualizing injustice, rather than just distribution.
Concept of Oppression: Central to contemporary emancipatory social movements; lacks sustained theoretical analysis.
Five Aspects of Oppression: Exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. These are not reducible to distributive justice and involve broader social structures.
Oppression Affects Social Groups: Philosophy and social theory often fail to adequately address social groups, especially in debates like affirmative action.
Concept of Social Groups: Social groups exist prior to individuals; people's identities are partly shaped by group affiliations. Groups are fluid, shifting, and relational.
Justice and Politics: The concept of justice is coextensive with politics, which involves collective decisions on how people live together.
Politics Definition: Defined as the struggle over resources, arrangements, and social practices that shape societal terms. Politics includes institutional organization, social practices, and cultural meanings.
Wider Understanding of Politics: Goes beyond government or formal interest groups, focusing on any collective evaluation and decision-making regarding rules, practices, and cultural meanings.
New Left Social Movements' Contribution: Effort to politicize institutional, social, and cultural life, counteracting depoliticization by welfare state liberalism.
Criticism of Welfare Capitalism: Welfare state practices depoliticize policy formation, limiting it to expert-driven decisions and interest group negotiations, neglecting broader democratic decision-making.
Distributive Justice Reinforces Depoliticization: Distributive justice often fails to address decision-making power and public discussion, thus reinforcing depoliticized public life.
Feminist and Postmodern Critique: These thinkers argue that denying difference structures Western reason, ignoring heterogeneity and the complexity of linguistic and social relations.
Impartiality as Denial of Difference: The ideal of impartiality in moral theories denies the diversity of individual experiences, often promoting the privileged perspective as universal and legitimizing authoritarianism.
Impartiality's Ideological Functions: Serves to perpetuate cultural imperialism by masking privilege and legitimizing hierarchical structures through claims of neutral decision-making.
Impartiality and the Civic Public: The ideal of a universal civic public excludes marginalized groups (e.g., women, Black people, Indigenous peoples) from citizenship by suppressing group differences.
Need for Heterogeneous Public: A vision of justice should recognize and affirm group differences, challenging oppression and institutionalized domination.
Separation of Reason from Body and Feeling: Impartiality contributes to the theoretical division between reason and affectivity, reinforcing alienation.
Denigration of the Body in Modern Society: Rationalist culture identifies certain groups with despised or "ugly" bodies, reinforcing cultural imperialism and violence.
Normative Gaze and Hierarchization: Bodies are ranked on an aesthetic scale, constructing some as "ugly" or "degenerate."
Cultural Stereotyping: Feelings of beauty/ugliness and cleanliness/filth drive racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, and ableism, often unconsciously exhibited even by liberal-minded individuals.
Justice and Cultural Oppression: Traditional moral theories overlook unconscious cultural sources of oppression, leading to inadequate justice frameworks.
Consciousness Raising and Cultural Redefinition:
Despised groups reclaim cultural expression to assert positive identities (e.g., feminist, Black liberation, Indigenous, and disability pride movements).
Challenges notions of liberation that seek to eliminate group differences.
Affirming Group Difference: Liberation is framed as social equality that supports group diversity and inclusion in public life.
Limitations of Equal Treatment Principle:
Initially intended to ensure fair treatment but often suppresses differences.
Politics of difference calls for acknowledging group differences in public policy and institutions to combat oppression.
Differential Treatment and Group Participation:
Sometimes necessary for promoting full participation of marginalized groups (e.g., women’s liberation, bilingual education, Indigenous rights).
Reframing Equality and Difference: Equality should not mean sameness, nor should difference imply deviance or devaluation.
Group Difference and Political Decision-Making:
Advocates for autonomous group organization within the public sphere.
Supports institutions ensuring each group’s voice is heard through representation.
Affirmative Action:
Justified as a tool to combat oppression stemming from unconscious biases and stereotypes, not merely as compensation for past discrimination.
Critiques the limited focus on distributing high-reward positions without questioning underlying institutional practices.
Merit-Based Distribution:
Challenges the notion that job positions can be objectively allocated based solely on technical merit.
Argues job allocation is inherently political and value-laden.
Hierarchical Division of Labor:
Reinforces oppression through exploitation, powerlessness, and cultural imperialism.
Suggests democratizing workplaces and directly challenging task-defining vs. task-executing divisions.
Critique of Community Ideal:
While promoting shared public life and mutual recognition, the ideal often suppresses differences and excludes those who challenge identity norms.
Alternative Vision Inspired by City Life:
Emphasizes four virtues:
Social differentiation without exclusion
Variety
Eroticism
Publicity
Virtues of City Life:
Ideal city life embodies heterogeneity through:
Social differentiation without exclusion
Variety
Eroticism
Publicity
Injustices in Contemporary Cities:
Economic decisions and zoning perpetuate inequalities
Segregation of functions and groups results from suburbanization.
Increased local autonomy may worsen these problems.
Advocates metropolitan regional government starting with neighborhood assemblies.
Philosophical Perspective:
Critical theory rooted in specific societal contexts, not impartial or comprehensive.
Acknowledges the author's feminist foundation and broader commitment to anti-poverty, peace, and democratic movements.
Evolution of Feminist Discourse:
Emphasis on intersectionality due to exclusion experienced by women of color, disabled women, and others.
"Sisterhood" remains relevant despite differences, but requires acknowledging diverse oppressions.
Commitment to Multiple Oppressed Groups:
While unable to represent every group, the author reflects on their ideas and experiences through conversations and readings.
Moral and Social Assumptions:
Advocates for basic equality and addressing deep societal injustices through institutional changes.
Aims to foster political dialogue even with those holding differing assumptions about justice and oppression
Iris Marion Young Lecture Notes
Key Questions
Does political philosophy bear responsibility for social justice?
“Who” is a political philosopher?
Why is justice relevant with group-based social group movements?
The primary focus of political philosophy is justice
For political theory to be political theory they must touch base on marginalized groups, the historical injustices, and current oppression
Concepts of domination and oppression
The concept of justice from the perspective of enacting equality and democracy
It can begin to detach from the problems
We need to understand what we need to eliminate before we can move towards the ideal depictions and theorization of justice
There's a interconnection between social justice and political philosophy
“Justice is the primary subject of political philosophy”
The subject of social justice relates to social and political issues
thus , the term justice is categorically relevant to group-based social movements and group differences
“Justice should begin with the concepts of domination of oppression”
Some groups are privileged and some are oppressed
“Social justice requires explicitly acknowledging and attending to those group differences in order undermine oppression”
A white woman compared to a white man is less privileged, but compared to a black women is more privileged
Intersectionality
Experiencing more barriers and violence
“Justice is the primary subject of political philosophy. These questions are thus inseparable from questions about justice. What conceptions of social justice do these new social movements implicitly appeal to, and how do they confront or modify traditional conceptions of justice”
Each group has their own perspective of injustice
Western analytical foundation that's oppression and domination centered rather than justice centered
Young criticizes
John Rawls; political theorist
In 1970 wrote a book called theory of justice
Focuses on the requirements of justice that can be enacted in societies
Distributive paradigm
If society is going to enact justice it can only be done by distributing resources
Equal distribution of resources of all individuals independent of their identity
Ideal universal concept to apply this term and depiction of justice and see if it follows the guidelines of justice
Rawls defines a “conception of justice as providing in the first instance a standard whereby the distributive aspects of the basic structure of society are to be assessed” (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1971, p.9)
W.G Runciman defines the problem of justice as ”the problem of arriving at an ethical criterion by reference to which the distribution of social goods in societies may be assessed” (Runciman, 1978, p.37)
Iris Young, while distributive issues are crucial to a satisfactory conception of justice, it is mistake to reduce social justice to distribution
Philosophical theories of justice tend to restrict the meaning of social justice to the morally proper distribution of benefits and burdens among society’s members
Injustice isn’t simply economic and materialistic
“The distributive paradigm tends to ignore, at the same time often presupposes, the institutional context that determines material distributions”
Distributive lens in theory about social justice focuses on the material distribution of resources, income, or positions of rewards and prestige
Equality or inequality of wealth and income as the primary questions of social justice
“When extended to non material goods and resources, the logic of distribution misrepresents them”
Not all claims about justice and injustice in societies are primarily about the distribution of income, resources, or positions
Excessive focus on the distribution of material goods and resources inappropriately restrict the scope of justice, because it fails to bring social structures and institutional contexts under evaluation
Mainstream theories of distributive justice operates “lifeless” epistemologies and lacks connection to social “reality”
Excludes the experiences of social groups, and their exposures to injustice
Theoretical accounts of everyday issues often dismisses the lived experiences of groups and individuals
Theory vs. critical theory
Young is critiquing theory; she is doing critical theory
Doesn’t want to do theory in traditional western terms; as its corrupted and doesn’t connect with social movements
Abstract, universal, foundational principles etc. meeting the standards of philosophy produces bad normativity
Argues about justice but does not construct a theory of justice
Assumptions that all people are rational; what does rationality mean?
Different experiences create different rationalities
Who defines concepts? Who is the rational?
Our experiences and views are never static
Human nature is constantly changing
Can’t build theories around assumptions of our characteristics
One size fits all narratives can fail us
Young is criticizing that theories can undermine group differences and their changing nature
Normative assumptions
“Without a universal normative theory of justice grounded independently of the experience of a particular society, it is often assumed, philosophers and social actors cannot distinguish legitimate claims of justice from socially specific prejudices or self-interested claims to power”
Normative vs descriptive
Philosophers want to find cures to enhance political well being and society and enhance justice
Normative claims prescribe: say what should be done or evaluate by saying what’s good/bad
Eg. its wrong to steal, you shouldn’t steal
Not descriptive
Normative questions ask for prescriptions or evaluations
Should I steal? Is it wrong to steal?
Examine
Find a judgement around a issue/topic
Descriptive claims describe by saying how the world in fact is/was/will be
Eg. the ten commandments tell us not to steal, 75% of canadians believe that it's wrong to tell a lie
Descriptive questions ask for descriptions
Eg. Do Canadians think stealing is wrong? Do you want to steal?
Concrete and tangible information around what's happening
Stats, scientific information
Prescribing disconnects from the descriptive facts and conditions that societies are experiencing
Mainstream western political philosophical discursive practice is isolated from:
Social political axis
Distinct contingencies and experiences of social groups
Political philosophy bears responsibility to bridge and connect its conceptual repertoire on justice with social group differences, such as racialized and gendered identities, socioeconomic status, disability, etc.
Political philosophers must register the concrete claims of justice of the oppressed and marginalized to their philosophical production
Theoria: seeing
“It wants to see justice”
Philosophers want to cure injustice, but the problem is if there is no room for social groups and their differences they will be undermining and dismissing oppression or discrimination
If we are to scared to discuss injustices how can we solve them?
Power in debate and in philosophical reasoning
Youngs reflective discourse is not “a theory of justice” since it is not a matter of “seeing” or “observing”
Youngs discourse if fueled by “listening”
The rational modality that political philosophy requires is a reflective attitude in hearing/listening the “calls, pleas, claims upon some by the others” (Young 5)
Justice exists because injustice exists
Reciprocity
Can’t define justice without incorporating injustice
Injustice as the experience of pain
If injustice is the opposite yet reciprocal of justice, then justice is the absence of pain through action resulting in the presence pleasure or happiness (my own thoughts)
Youngs reflective discourse on justice adopts the manners of critical theory:
Good normative theorizing dowss not avoid social and political concextualization:
“Normative reflection must being from historically specific circumstances because there is nothing but what is, the given, the situated interest in justice, from which to start. Reflecting from within a particular social context, good normative theorizing cannot avoid social and political description and explanation” (Young 5)
The norms of rational theory always are “socially based” and “measures of society”
“Normative reflection arises from hearing a cry of suffering or distress, or feeling distress oneself” (Young 9)
Political philosopher always inhabits a social context and located on a spectrum of advantages and disadvantages
A philosopher bears responisbility for listening to the call for justice and documenting it or ignores it
Objectivity in good normative reasoning
The does objectivity in political philosophy’s normative disposition requires the philosophers to embody “critical” distance to theory and open space to register the calls/demands/interests coming across differences
“Critical theory is a mode of discourse which projects normative possibilities unrealized but felt in particular given social reality”
Political philosophers seek to contribute to the generation of alternative repertoires informed by social groups’ demands of justice, freedom, etc.
Young situates herself in the method of critical theory as a political philosopher
Good normativity is the most rational modality for normativity that political philosphy takes
Young sepcifies her conceptual/thematic location particularly on social groups that are exposed to domination and oppression
Young inquires about a positive sense of group difference without homohenizing social groups into concepts like “general good, and community”
Young presses the importance of registering and expressing the claims about “justice and injustice implicit in the politics of these movements and exploring their meaning and implication” in professional philosophical production of politics
Difference oriented account of justice is prioritized in youngs approach to justice and political philosophy
FINAL EXAM QUESTION: why young doesn’t want to do theory/ why she argues that she doesn’t do theory
Iris Marioun Young critiques traditional theories in political philosophy, arguing that they often rely on abstract, universal principles that fail to connect with the lived experiences of marginalized social groups. She believes that constructing a theory of justice, as commonly understood in Western philosophy, overlooks the complexities of domination and oppression experienced by various groups. Instead of formulating a universal theory, Young acknowledges the specific historical and cultural circumstances of different groups. Young contends that normative reflection of justice must begin from historically specific circumstances, meaning that it cannot simply rely on rational, detached frameworks. She advocates for a reflective discourse that pivots on listening to the experiences and claims made by marginalized groups, rather than solely “seeing” justice through theoretical observations. This approach prioritizes understanding and addressing specific injustices, differing from the traditional theoretical ambitions that might generalize or homogenize the experiences of diverse social groups. Therefore, she positions her work not as a search for a universal theory of justice, but rather as a means to engage with the concrete, lived realities of social injustices”