Nancy Fraser’s idea of Social
Justice
Vivienne Bozalek
University of the Western Cape
Nancy Fraser’s three dimensational
view of social justice
Social Justice
• Fraser (2008; 2009) views social justice as
requiring social arrangements which make it
possible for a...
How have her views of social justice
changed over the years?
• She has always viewed social justice from the perspective...
Why has she changed from a two- to a
three-dimensional view?
• She argues that globalisation has changed the way that we...
Social Justice from Fraser’s (2009;
2013) perspective – three-dimensional
• Recognition and misrecognition - economic
•...
Redistribution and maldistribution
• People can be prevented from participating as equals
by economic structures which p...
Recognition and misrecognition
• People can be prevented from interacting as peers by the
institutionalised hierarchies ...
Redistribution and recognition
• These two dimensions don’t mirror each other
but do interact with each other to impact ...
Representation and misrepresentation
• This is a political dimension and concerns social
belonging – who counts as a mem...
Representation and misrepresentation
• Two types – ordinary political misrepresentation
e.g. race, gender, age etc
• Mi...
Representation and misrepresentation
• Misframing can be considered the defining form of
injustice in the globalising ag...
Three dimensional view of justice
• Fraser (2008:283) asks the question:
How can we integrate struggles against
maldist...
Affirmative and transformative approaches
• Affirmative – contests boundaries of existing frames but accepts the Westphal...
Affirmative vs Transformative
Misrecognition Maldistribution Misframing
Affirmative multi-culturalism liberal welfare st...
Expanded view of affirmative vs
transformative
Misrecognition Maldistribution Misframing
Affirmative
mainstream multic...
References
Bozalek V 2012. Interview with Nancy Fraser. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, 24 (1): 136-151.
Bozale...
of 17

Nancy Fraser and Social Justice

Presentation by Professor Vivienne Bozalek, University of the Western Cape CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Published in: Education      
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - Nancy Fraser and Social Justice

  • 1. Nancy Fraser’s idea of Social Justice Vivienne Bozalek University of the Western Cape
  • 2. Nancy Fraser’s three dimensational view of social justice
  • 3. Social Justice • Fraser (2008; 2009) views social justice as requiring social arrangements which make it possible for all to participate on an equal footing in social life– she calls this participatory parity
  • 4. How have her views of social justice changed over the years? • She has always viewed social justice from the perspective of participatory parity – how we are able to participate as equals but she originally saw it from a two-dimensional perspective (recognition and redistribution) – called a two dimensional view of social justice • She now includes representation as another dimension into this view and calls it a three-dimensional view of social justice and she calls this a theory of post-Westphalian democratic justice • All three dimensions are mutually entwined and reciprocally influence and reinforce each other but none are reducible to the other • Efforts to work towards social justice must thus involve all three of these dimensions – the emphasis will be tactical and strategic • She uses the slogan “No redistribution or recognition without representation” (Fraser, 2008:282) – all three conditions are necessary for participatory parity and none alone is sufficient
  • 5. Why has she changed from a two- to a three-dimensional view? • She argues that globalisation has changed the way that we see social justice • We used to see social justice in terms of territorial states which are national states like South Africa • This included socioeconomic redistribution and cultural or recognition claims • In the age of globalisation, we can no longer take the territorial state for granted in thinking about issues of justice, as our lives are also controlled by transnational corporations and international currency, as well as INGOs and the global mass media and internet – we need to think of who should be included in redistribution and recognition – she calls this the frame of social justice
  • 6. Social Justice from Fraser’s (2009; 2013) perspective – three-dimensional • Recognition and misrecognition - economic • Redistribution and maldistribution - cultural • Representation and misrepresentation - political Each one of these can be viewed from the following perspectives • Affirmative • Transformative She looks at the what, who and how of social justice
  • 7. Redistribution and maldistribution • People can be prevented from participating as equals by economic structures which provide obstacles in terms of denying them the resources they need to do so – precludes economic structures that institutionalise deprivation, exploitation and gross disparaties in wealth, income, labour, leisure time • The problem here is class structure or the economic dimension of society – issues of education, health care, food, housing, water, electricity • What are South African issues of redistribution in higher education which impact on how people in this country can participate as equals at this present moment?
  • 8. Recognition and misrecognition • People can be prevented from interacting as peers by the institutionalised hierarchies of cultural value that deny them the required standing – here they would suffer from status inequality or misrecognition which depreciates some categories of people and the qualities associate with them • Recognition requires a status order where there is equal respect for all participants and equal opportunity for achieving social esteem • The problem here is the status order which is the same as the cultural dimension of society struggles over – race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality etc • What are South African higher education issues of recognition which impact on how people can participate as equals at the moment?
  • 9. Redistribution and recognition • These two dimensions don’t mirror each other but do interact with each other to impact on social justice or participatory parity • Neither class or economics nor culture can explain social justice and injustice • That is why she proposed a two-dimensional theory of justice • But now she thinks this two-dimensional theory doesn’t go far enough
  • 10. Representation and misrepresentation • This is a political dimension and concerns social belonging – who counts as a member of the community or who is included and excluded of those entitled to a just distribution and of reciprocal recognition • It tells us who can make claims for social justice and how such claims are adjudicated • Misrepresentation happens when some people are wrongly denied the possibility of participating as equals with others in social interaction
  • 11. Representation and misrepresentation • Two types – ordinary political misrepresentation e.g. race, gender, age etc • Misframing – constitutes members and non-members in matters of redistribution, recognition and ordinary political-representation – very serious form of injustice – kind of political death • What are South African higher education issues which impact on how is included in the political community who can air their claims? Are some communities wrongly excluded?
  • 12. Representation and misrepresentation • Misframing can be considered the defining form of injustice in the globalising age • National states or the Keynesian-Westphalian frame prevents many poor and despised from challenging the forces that oppress them • They challenge their own contexts – powerless or failed states • This protects predator states (HEIs (Bozalek & Boughey, 2012), transnational foreign investors & governance structures, international currency and transnational organisations from democratic control and decision-making
  • 13. Three dimensional view of justice • Fraser (2008:283) asks the question: How can we integrate struggles against maldistribution, misrecognition and misrepresentation within a post-Westphalian frame?
  • 14. Affirmative and transformative approaches • Affirmative – contests boundaries of existing frames but accepts the Westphalian grammar of frame-setting- redraw existing boundaries or create new ones but still think territorial state is appropriate unit to pose and resolve justice disputes • Transformative – while state-territorial principle remains relevant for some purposes, it is not so in all cases • Structural causes of injustices in globalising world include financial markets, offshore factories, global economy, information networks e.g. digital divide, climate, disease, drugs, weapons, biotechnology – not ‘the space of places’ but ‘the space of flows’ (Castells, 1996:440-460) • Transformative politics of framing changes frame-setting in a globalising world – looking not only at the boundaries of justice but the way they are drawn • All-affected principle - all those affected by a social structure or institution have a moral standing as subjects of social justice in relation to it – not geographic proximity but that they are all affected by a framework, which sets the rules governing their social interaction and which shapes their life chances of advantage and disadvantage – e.g. environmentalists and indigenous peoples – international social movements – seek to change the grammar of and democratise frame-setting making it dialogical – giving collective voice to those harmed
  • 15. Affirmative vs Transformative Misrecognition Maldistribution Misframing Affirmative multi-culturalism liberal welfare state still assumes legitimacy of territorial state Transformative Deconstruction socialism - deep restructuring changes boundaries of justice and how they are drawn
  • 16. Expanded view of affirmative vs transformative Misrecognition Maldistribution Misframing Affirmative mainstream multiculturalism - surface reallocations of respect to existing identities of existing groups - supports group differentiation (Fraser 2008:34) revaluing blackness while leaving unchanged the binary black-white code that gives the latter its sense (Fraser 2008: 36) the liberal welfare state surface reallocation of existing goods to existing groups; supports group differentiation; can generate misrecognition contests boundaries of existing frames but accepts Westphalian grammar of frame-setting. Redraw boundaries of existing territorial states or create new ones but still assume that territorial state is the appropriate unit to pose and resolve issues of justice. injustices of misframing aren't a function of Westphalian political space but from faulty way in which principle is applied. Accept state-territorial principle. Accept principle of state territorality as the proper basis for understanding the 'who' of justice. They agree, in other words, that what makes a given collection of individuals into fellow subjects of justice is their shared membership of the political community that corresponds to such a state. Thus, far from challenging the underlying grammar of the Westphalian order, those who practice affirmative politics of framing accept its state-territorial principle. Transformative deconstruction deep reconstructuring of relations of recognition, destabilizes group differentiation. socialism -deep restructuring of relations of production redistributing income or wealth, reorganising the division of labour, changing the structure of property ownership etc state-territorial principle not adequate for determining the 'who'of justice in all cases - remains relevant for many purposes however. Structural causes of many injustices are global economy, digital divide, biopolitics of climate, disease, drugs, weapons, determining who will live long or die young - not the 'space of places'but the 'space of flows. The aim is to overcome injustices of misframing by changing the boundaries of the who of justiceand the way they are drawn - the mode of their constitution - post-territorial mode of political differentiation. The 'all-affected'principle - all those affected by a given social structure or institution have moral standing as subjects of justice in relation to it. e.g. environmentalists and indigenous peoples claims in relation to extra- and non-territorial powers that impinge on their lives or structures that harm them that cannot be located in the spaces of places. They are also claiming a say - democratising the process by which frameworks of justice are drawn and revised. They are also then transforming the 'how'as well as the 'who'. Transformative movements are demanding or creating themselves new democratic arenas for entertaining arguments about the frame.
  • 17. References Bozalek V 2012. Interview with Nancy Fraser. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, 24 (1): 136-151. Bozalek, V. and Boughey, C. 2012. (Mis)framing Higher Education in South Africa. Social Policy and Administration 46(6): 688–703. Bozalek, V. & Carolissen, R. (2012) The potential of critical feminist citizenship frameworks for citizenship and social justice in higher education, Perspectives in Education, 30(4):9-18. Fraser,N. (2000). Rethinking Recognition. New Left Review, 3 (May/June): 107–20. Fraser, N. & Honneth, A. (2003) Redistribution or recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso. Fraser, N. (2003) Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition and participation. In N. Fraser & A. Honneth Redistribution or recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso pp7-109. Fraser. N. (2005) Mapping the Feminist Imagination:From Redistribution to Recognition to Representation. Constellations, 12(3):295-307. Fraser, N. (2009) Feminism and the Cunning of History. New Left Review, 56:97-117. Fraser, N. (2008). “Reframing Justice in a Globalizing World in K. Olson (ed.). Adding Insult to Injury: Nancy Fraser Debates her Critics. London: Verso, 273-291. Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of Justice: Reimaging Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York: Columbia University Press. Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. London: Verso. Holscher, D. & Bozalek, V. (2012) Encountering the Other across the Divides. Re-Grounding Social Justice as a guiding principle for Social Work with refugees and other vulnerable groups. British Journal of Social Work, 42 (6): 1093-1112 doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcs061