Lecture 9 Flashcards
Delineating scope of global justice
Basic mantra: “A theory of justice sets out what is owed to whom. In other words, it sets out the content of
justice and delineates its scope” (Fabre 2007: 1).
* The “Core” Concepts delineated the content of justice.
* This “Spotlight” delineates its scope.
* In particular, we have commitments across space: states today are:
- Internally: Non-homogeneous (multiculturalism, national self-determination)
- Externally: Interlinked (global justice, immigration).
* We also increasingly realize that we have commitments across time:
- Looking into the future (future generations; climate change)
- Looking into the past (reparative justice)
Liberal egalitarianism
Basics:
- “A theory of justice is liberal in so far as it defends fundamental individual freedoms. It is egalitarian in so far as it assumes
that all individuals are morally equal and mandates an extensive distribution of material resources (income and wealth)
towards those who have fewer such resources” (Fabre 2007: 3).
Luck egalitarianism - liberal egalitarianism
Luck Egalitarianism:
- “individuals should not be made worse off through no fault of their own” (3).
- So we compensate for brute luck, but not option luck.
- This follows Dworkin’s insight that we want to respect people’s choices (ambition-sensitive, but endowment-insensitive).
Sufficientism - part of liberal egalitarianism
- Isn’t luck egalitarianism really severe? Do we not want to protect against destitution?
- “inequality is not bad in and of itself, and all that matters is that individuals have enough resources” (3).
Communitarianism
Basics:
- “[Communitarians critique Rawls] for mistakenly grounding justice on universal foundations, and for overlooking the
(non-instrumental) importance of communal values” (15).
* Communitarians:
- Question whether the individual is prior to the community, and thus …
- … Put less primacy on individual rights, and
- … More emphasis on political and communal participation, and
- … Doubt whether principles of justice can travel (outside the community, nevertheless nation)
Libertarianism
Basics:
- “Coercive taxation for distributive purposes, violates individuals’ ownership rights over the product of their labour and,
thereby, over themselves” (22).
* Some essential principles:
- Strong theory of ownership – we own property just as we own ourselves.
- Negative theory of rights – contra infringement by others.
- Minimal role for the state (outside of the protection of rights)
Basic Question: Must theories of justice account for cultural, religious and ethnic diversity?
“The question [of multiculturalism] is that of the social arrangements which a polity ought to adopt in the face of its
diversity” (Fabre 2007: 51).
* This is a thin conception of multiculturalism – responding mostly to the rise in global diversity.
* A thick conception of multiculturalism also reacts to what “normal” is – i.e. the understanding the normal, or
universal, really meant “white,” “male,” “straight,” etc.
demand a more
inclusive conception of citizenship which recognizes (rather than stigmatizes) their identities, and which accommodates
(rather than excludes) their differences”
Marion Young
- So, rather than eliminate difference, in the name of commonality; the point is to accommodate difference –
what Iris Marion Young called “Differentiated Citizenship” (Young 1989). - Under this rubric, people were understood both as individuals, and as part of groups.
- This brings us back to the debate over “redistribution” vs. “recognition” (Honneth and Fraser 1997). In brief:
- “The Politics of Redistribution” regards socio-economic injustices, such as poverty, exploitation or marginalization.
- “The Politics of Recognition” regards cultural injustices, including through patterns of mis- or non-representation, cultural
domination or disrespect.
Charles Taylors’ politics of recognition
- “The thesis is that our identity is party 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 or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves … Misrecognition shows not just a lack of due respect. It
can inflict a grievous wound, saddening its victims with a critical self-hatred. Due recognition is not just a courtesy we owe
people. It is a vital human need”
Nancy Fraser’s politics of recognition
- “ [To be misrecognized is] to be constituted by institutionalized patterns of cultural value in ways that prevent one from
participating as a peer in social life … [Claims for recognition] seek to establish the subordinated party as a full partner in
social life, able to interact with others as a peer. They aim, that is, to deinstitutionalize patterns of cultural value that
impede parity of participation and to replace them with patterns that foster it” (Honneth and Fraser 1997: 29-31).
- What claims do minority groups make on the majority?
- Individual-level rights (as a member of a minority group).
- Group-level rights (for minorities as a group).
Group-level rights (for minorities as a group).
- Territorial autonomy – such as in Indian Reservations in the US.
- Guaranteed seats – special legislative seats that ethnic groups can choose for themselves.
- Majority-Minority districts.
- Court provisions. Allowing traditional courts jurisdiction over certain aspects of law (such as family law).
- Individual-level rights (as a member of a minority group).
- Equal rights claims
- Legal exemptions – such as exemption from a law, or educational requirement.
- Special assistance – such as multilingual schools, or ballots.
Kymlicka’s “Liberal Culturist” position (Kymlicka 2002: 339).
(liberal egalitarianism)
- It is now not that controversial to say some version of “community” or “group” matters for individual autonomy.
- There is a broad consensus here, what Kymlicka calls the “liberal culturalist” position.
- The question is how much, and to what end? Specifically: what kinds of group rights?
- 1) special representation rights
- 2) rights to self-government
- What do these rights afford?
- External protection against the will of the majority group.
- Ability to impose internal restrictions on their own members.
What is the controversy around liberalism and multiculturalism?
- Liberalism requires that you protect the individual from the group.
- So where do you draw the line, such that you:
- 1) protect the minority from the majority (multiculturalism)
- 2) protect the individual from the group (liberalism)
- You need a form of liberal multiculturalism
- Kymlicka defends minority rights if they are external – i.e. that protect minority groups from domination
- But not internal – i.e. those that restrict individual rights
“Liberal defenders of multiculturalism [must] distinguish the ‘bad’ minority rights that involve restricting individual rights
from the ‘good’ minority rights that can be seen as supplementing individual rights. Minority rights are
consistent with liberal culturalism if (a) they protect the freedom of individuals within the group; and (b) they promote
relations of equality (non-dominance) between groups”.
