Justice and politics of difference pdf
File Name: justice and politics of difference .zip
- Iris Marion Young
- Social justice
- Overview of Political Theory
- Justice and the Politics of Difference
To browse Academia. Skip to main content.
Iris Marion Young
Download your free copy here. Global justice is a theory that exists within the broader school of cosmopolitanism, which focuses on the importance of the individual as opposed to the state, community or culture. Cosmopolitans take the individual as their starting point because they believe that all human beings have equal moral worth and therefore have the right to equal moral consideration.
In this sense, even if cosmopolitans disagree on how to ensure that individuals are the subject of equal moral concern, the focus of these differing approaches is the value of the individual. This focus on the moral importance of the individual has led some cosmopolitan scholars to critically engage with theories of justice, which are traditionally confined to the state and contained within the realm of political not international theory.
This endeavour has led to the theory of global justice, which seeks to investigate the question of how best to secure a just life for all individuals on Planet Earth, regardless of their nationality or status.
Justice, at its core, concerns itself with who deserves what and why. True to their cosmopolitan roots, contemporary global justice scholars concern themselves with the moral worth of the individual, regardless of place of birth, and focus on problems of global cohabitation in which individuals are not yet treated as morally equal or where the moral focus has traditionally been on states.
To engage with such problems, global justice scholars usually focus on what individuals across the world deserve and how distribution of these entitlements can be achieved. The answers to these types of questions vary significantly depending on which problem is being addressed. Therefore, such structures should be built carefully to ensure a just distribution of rights and duties between all citizens.
Rawls was not advocating for communism, where all wealth is shared equally, but for a society where inequality was moderated so that those who were disadvantaged for whatever reason were at least able to live a decent life. Rawls theorised that such a structure could only exist within a democratic society, or in other words, a specific type of state. Thomas Pogge stresses that global inequalities between individuals call for a global approach to justice that can effectively respond to these inequalities.
Although these scholars ground their arguments in different ways, they both advocate for a widening of the scope of justice to the global level. When discussing global poverty, Thomas Pogge and Gillian Brock argue that poverty alleviation should focus on redistributing wealth and resources between rich and poor individuals.
When analysing humanitarian intervention, scholars such as Mary Kaldor and Daniele Archibugi make the case that individuals must be prioritised over state-centric non-intervention laws. Furthermore, scholars such as Garrett Brown analyse the issue of global health and argue that the health of individuals is determined by global structures to make the case for reform. Contemporary global justice scholars focus on problems as diverse as gender inequality, immigration and refugees, warfare and climate change.
This implies that the question of who deserves what, and why, covers a wide range of topics, most of which are contemporary international relations problems. This is why the discipline of global justice is so relevant to IR, because global justice scholars concern themselves with analysing and assessing fundamental problems caused by global cohabitation. In this sense, it is a modern theory that will continue to be relevant as long as global problems exist.
For example, some scholars emphasise human rights, some discuss the importance of institutions operating fairly referred to as procedural justice , some emphasise the importance of human capability, while others are concerned with fair global social processes.
It is important to keep this diversity in mind when studying global justice. No two scholars have the exact same aims, which implies a healthy diversity of ideas within the field.
This is true even within more narrow subjects, such as climate justice, where authors have many different ideas on how to achieve a just response to the problem of climate change. While you might assume that an approach that seeks to treat all humans on Earth better is popular, or logical, global justice also attracts some notable criticisms.
David Miller argues that national borders are more important than cosmopolitan global justice. Thomas Nagel and Michael Blake both argue that global justice cannot be achieved without the backing of powerful global institutions. However, global institutions that have power over individuals and states simply do not exist yet , rendering discussions about global principles of justice futile.
Finally, Iris Marion Young regards cosmopolitanism as a Western-centric theory that does not have the global appeal it purports to have. After all, global justice is based on the importance of the individual and often makes appeal to human rights and other liberal norms, which some perceive as Western ideals, not universal ones.
These criticisms do not take away from the importance of global justice: like all theories of IR, its theoretical development is spurred on by answering its critics. Climate change requires actors from around the world to come together and agree on how to move forward. As temperatures continue to rise and the global response lags behind what scientists recommend, global justice scholars are becoming increasingly interested in climate change and its global mis management.
Spurred on by the global nature of the problem and the injustices it presents, global justice scholars have also turned their attention to climate change for several important reasons. First, climate change is undoubtedly a global problem and global justice scholars are keen to engage with such problems.
Greenhouse gas emissions cannot be confined within a state, they rise into the atmosphere and cause global temperature changes within and outside of their original state borders. Although it is difficult to establish direct blame or fault, it is nonetheless undeniable that virtually all individuals, states and corporations contribute to some degree to climate change. In this sense, the global nature of the climate change problem defies conventional assumptions about state sovereignty and justice, which is what makes it so interesting to global justice scholars.
Second, climate change requires a global solution, which suits global justice scholars who are interested in providing recommendations for problems of global cohabitation.
No one state can stop climate change on its own. Coming to such agreements will inevitably involve discussion about which actors must lower emissions and by how much or even which actors should contribute to the costs of climate change — such as helping certain populations adapt to rising sea levels or extreme weather. These are, by their nature, questions of distributive justice and are therefore of interest to global justice scholars.
Third, climate change presents an unfair distribution of benefits and burdens between morally equal individuals, who are the key concern of global justice scholars. Climate change will most negatively affect those living in less developed countries who have done the least to contribute to the causes of climate change, while those living in developed countries, who have contributed the most emissions, will likely suffer the least.
This is because less developed countries are more often located in areas which will bear the brunt of the problems associated with climate change. Furthermore, developing states typically do not have as many resources as developed states to adapt to dangerous weather patterns.
For example, the Solomon Islands has already lost five small islands as a result of climate change and yet it is one of the lowest emitting countries in the world. Although global justice scholars agree that climate change will affect individuals and are therefore concerned with addressing the problem, these scholars have different ideas on what exactly is at stake and what should therefore be prioritised.
For example, Simon Caney defines three distinct rights that are predicted to be threatened by climate change: the right to life, the right to food and the right to health — and any programme combating climate change should not violate these.
Tim Hayward defines a right specific to the climate change problem: ecological space — a human right to live in an environment free of harmful pollution adequate for health and wellbeing. In this sense, Hayden is concerned not merely with basic rights but also with fair procedures. The question of who is responsible for climate change action is another key point of discussion amongst global justice scholars.
The discipline of IR is traditionally concerned with relationships between states. Some scholars following this tradition and these debates usually focus on which states should contribute how much to climate change action.
Thomas Risse takes issue with these approaches and advocates for an index that measures per capita wealth and per capita emission rates, then groups countries into categories. In this sense, the debate concerns how responsibility for climate change should be allocated, which is important for international relations as it reflects ongoing discussions between states, most recently when putting together the Paris Agreement.
Other scholars are keen to include non-state actors in their conceptions of climate justice and responsibility. Paul Harris points out that cosmopolitanism is traditionally concerned not only with states but also with individuals. These individuals have responsibility to act on climate change by for example travelling less, reducing meat consumption and buying fewer luxury items. Simon Caney argues that all agents not just the wealthy who contribute to emissions and have the means of lowering these, including individuals, states, corporations, sub-state political authorities and international financial institutions, should be held accountable.
These debates about the climate responsibilities of non-state actors are important to IR theory, which is traditionally concerned with how states relate to one another.
By discussing which other actors might be responsible for climate change, global justice scholars are able to move the discipline of International Relations in a new direction. International relations theory has traditionally been overly concerned with global dis order.
Global justice scholars have contributed to widening the scope of IR theory by shifting the focus to individuals, on a planetary scale, and thereby approaching problems of global cohabitation in a new way. Yet despite signs of progress in academia, states seem to be more focused on managing conflict, distrust and disorder than on reaching global agreements and treating one another fairly.
For that reason, global justice as an issue has been under-represented in policy and global justice scholarship has not yet reached the same prominence as mainstream IR theories such as realism or liberalism. Nevertheless, in times of transnational terrorism, rising global inequalities, migration crises, pandemic disease and climate change — considerations of global cooperation, fairness and justice are more important than ever.
Find out more about this, and many other, International Relations theories with a range of multimedia resources compiled by E-IR. Full references for citations can be found in the PDF version, linked at the top of this page. Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing. E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view.
Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks! Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below. Submissions Advertise Donate About. Image by Sakuto. The basics of global justice Justice, at its core, concerns itself with who deserves what and why.
Global justice and climate change Climate change requires actors from around the world to come together and agree on how to move forward. Conclusion International relations theory has traditionally been overly concerned with global dis order. About The Author s. Please Consider Donating Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing. Download PDF.
Subscribe Get our weekly email.
Iris Marion Young 2 January — 1 August was an American political theorist and socialist feminist  who focused on the nature of justice and social difference. Her research covered contemporary political theory , feminist social theory , and normative analysis of public policy. She believed in the importance of political activism and encouraged her students to involve themselves in their communities. Before coming to the University of Chicago she taught political theory for nine years in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh , and before then taught philosophy at several institutions, including the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Miami University. Central to Young's philosophy is the contention that concepts of justice were not limited to individual desert. Instead, the recognition of social groups was essential to redressing structural inequalities.
Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestos, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination. The second half of the twentieth century saw the emergence of large-scale political movements—second wave feminism, Black Civil Rights in the U. These social movements are undergirded by and foster a philosophical body of literature that takes up questions about the nature, origin and futures of the identities being defended. Identity politics starts from analyses of such forms of social injustice to recommend, variously, the reclaiming, redescription, or transformation of previously stigmatized accounts of group membership. For example, in their germinal statement of Black feminist identity politics, the Combahee River Collective argued that. In the process of consciousness-raising, actually life-sharing, we began to recognize the commonality of our experiences and, from the sharing and growing consciousness, to build a politics that will change our lives and inevitably end our oppression.
Table of Contents · Contents · pp. viii-ix · restricted access Download PDF Download Save. Save contents.
Overview of Political Theory
Iris Marion Young. Many of our ebooks are available for purchase from these online vendors:. Many of our ebooks are available through library electronic resources including these platforms:. In this classic work of feminist political thought, Iris Marion Young challenges the prevailing reduction of social justice to distributive justice.
In this classic work of feminist political thought, Iris Marion Young challenges the prevailing reduction of social justice to distributive justice. It critically analyzes basic concepts underlying most theories of justice, including impartiality, formal equality, and the unitary moral subjectivity. The starting point for her critique is the experience and concerns of the new social movements about decision making, cultural expression, and division of labor--that were created by marginal and excluded groups, including women, African Americans, and American Indians, as well as gays and lesbians.
Social justice is the relation of balance between individuals and society measured by comparing distribution of wealth differences, from personal liberties to fair privilege opportunities. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures , the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. The relevant institutions often include taxation , social insurance , public health , public school , public services , labor law and regulation of markets , to ensure fair distribution of wealth , and equal opportunity.
Justice and the Politics of Difference
In this classic work of feminist political thought, Iris Marion Young challenges the prevailing reduction of social justice to distributive justice. It critically analyzes basic concepts underlying most theories of justice, including impartiality, formal equality, and the unitary moral subjectivity. The starting point for her critique is the experience and concerns of the new social movements about decision making, cultural expression, and division of labor--that were created by marginal and excluded groups, including women, African Americans, and American Indians, as well as gays and lesbians. Iris Young defines concepts of domination and oppression to cover issues eluding the distributive model.
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: Young Published Political Science.