Comparative political theory is at best an embryonic and marginalized endeavor. As practiced in most Western universities, the study of political theory generally involves a rehearsal of the canon of Western political thought from Plato to Marx. Only rarely are practitioners of political thought willing (and professionally encouraged) to transgress the canon and thereby the cultural boundaries of North America and Europe in the direction of genuine comparative investigation. Border Crossings presents an effort to remedy this situation, fully launching a (...) new era in political theory. Thirteen scholars from around the world examine the various political traditions of West, South, and East Asia and engage in a reflective cross-cultural discussion that belies the assumptions of an Asian "essence" and of an unbridgeable gulf between West and non-West. The denial of essential differences does not, however, amount to an endorsement of essential sameness. As viewed and as practiced by contributors to this ground-breaking volume, comparative political theorizing must steer a course between uniformity and radical separation--this is the path of "border crossings.". (shrink)

이 글의 목적은 한나 아렌트와 아이리스 영의 이론을 중심으로 사회적 약자의 정치적 의 사소통을 위하여 민주주의 사회가 고려해야 할 사항이 무엇인지 검토해 보는 것에 있다. 아 렌트는 특수한 정체성의 차이를 인정하는 가운데, 공적 삶과 공공의 가치를 중시하는 보편 적 소통을 중시하였다. 그녀는 공론장에 참여한 모두가 동등한 입장으로 의견교환을 통해 ‘민주적 공공성’을 형성해 간다고 보았지만, 여기에서 참여자들이 겪을 수 있는 경제적 여 건의 어려움이나 ‘담론 자원’의 격차를 염두에 두지 않았다는 점은 한계로 지적된다. 이에 비해 영은 사회적 약자 입장에서 ‘정의’와 ‘민주주의’를 논의한 (...) 철학자이자 페미니즘 이론가 로서, 분배적 패러다임에서 분명히 드러나지 않는 ‘구조적인 부정의’에 주목한다. 그녀는 억압과 지배를 교정하는 ‘차이의 정치’와 ‘소통적 민주주의’를 제안하며, 의사결정에 관여하 고 영향을 받는 모든 특정하고 구체적인 사회집단들에게 목소리와 표결권을 확실하게 보장 하는 제도로서의 민주주의를 옹호한다. 이 글은 약자의 입장에서 의사소통이 더 유리하게 이루어져야 한다고 주장하지는 않는다. 그러나 다양한 관점의 공존이라는 측면에서 그들의 공론장의 진입과 목소리가 배제되지 않는 것에 대한 적극적인 고려가 필요하며, 소통적 민 주주의를 향한 구체적인 실천으로서 ‘정치적 책임’과 ‘연대’가 중요하다고 주장할 것이다. (shrink)

This book develops a notion of differences and "otherness" beyond hegemonic and hierarchical thinking as represented by the legacies of Western philosophical and political thinking. In doing so, it relates to the 20th Century phenomenological discourse, especially to Georg Simmel, Alfred Schütz, Emmanual Lévinas, and Jacques Derrida, and drafts our understanding of difference as a genuine human experience of a social and political world that is in motion and transformative, rather than static and predictable. On this basis of temporalized (...) ontology and its normative consequences, differences are drafted as a positive social and political force and as powerful capacities of transformation and change. In practical terms, this understanding is most important for our theorizing and acting upon peace, peace-building, and conflict solution. Differences appear now not as obstacle to peace and reconciliation, but as lively and constructive articulation of "otherness" and as a positive power of transformation, emancipation, and change.This book will be of interest to students of international relations, philosophy, and political theory. (shrink)

"Feminism, Theory and the Politics of Difference" looks at the question of difference across the full spectrum of feminist theory from liberal, radical, lesbian ...

In this classic work of feminist political thought, Iris Marion Young challenges the prevailing reduction of social justice to distributive justice.

The construction of foreign domestics as ‘Others’ has been a critical process to the globalization of domestic service. While the globalization of domestic service has been associated with a transnational female labour force, the transnational labour system has always been reconstituted as a new labour regime consistent with local particularity. In this article, I examine how Taiwanese employers discursively construct the otherness of their Filipino domestics. I argue that Taiwanese employers construct and naturalize the otherness of foreign domestics utilizing national (...) identities, racial characteristics, and nationally based class difference. These differences, integral to the racialization of foreign domestics, are central not only to the persistence of their servitude at home but also to their social and political marginalization in the host society as a whole. The localization of a transnational labour force necessitates the examination of the contextual politics of difference. Rather than speaking of the universalized experience of foreign domestics, the contextual politics of difference provides a comparative framework for understanding not only the relational but also the contextual nature of identity construction. It demonstrates how difference is localized in the transnational system of care and how the localization of difference serves to reproduce social and global inequality. (shrink)

The question of Nietzsche’s use of political theory has a long and vexed history. The contributors of this book re-situate debates around the notion of difference, in relation to historical and scholarly concerns, but with a view to the current political context. Given that today we are faced with a host of political challenges of domination and resistance, the question raised in this volume is how Nietzsche helps us to think through and to address some of the problems. The (...) authors also discuss how his writings complicate our desire for swift solutions to seemingly intractable problems: how to resist slavishness in thought and action, how to maintain hard-won civil liberties and rights in the face of encroaching hegemonic discourses, practices and forces, or how to counteract global environmental degradation, in short, how to oppose ‘totalitarian’ movements of homogenization, universalization, equalization, and instead to affirm, both politically and ontologically, a culture of difference. (shrink)

Iris Marion Young’s politics of difference promotes equality among socially and culturally different groups within multicultural states and advocates group autonomy to empower such groups to develop their own voice. Extending the politics of difference to the international sphere, Young advocates “decentered diverse democratic federalism” that combines local self-determination and cosmopolitanism, while adamantly rejecting nationalism. Herr argues that nationalism, charitably interpreted, is not only consistent with Young’s politics of difference but also necessary for realizing (...) Young’s ideal in the global arena. (shrink)

Sexual difference as a basis of equality : an introduction to Irigarayan politics -- Irigaray on language : from the speech of dementia to the problem of sexual indifference -- Rethinking the politics of recognition : the declaration of Irigarayan sexuate rights -- Irigarayan performativity : is this a question of can saying it make it so? -- Sexuate genre : ethics and politics for improper selves -- Anticipating sexual difference : mediation, love, and divinity (...) -- Interrogating an unasked question : is there sexual difference? -- The impossible friend : traversing the heterosocial, the homosocial, and the successes of failure -- Sexed discourse and the language of the philosophers : to be two -- Effacement redoubled? : between the Orient and the Occident. (shrink)

An integrated overview of the themes and discourses of feminism and multi-culturalism surrounding the politics of difference. It introduces the challenges posed to theorists such as Rawls, Raz, and Kymlicka, and outlines their response to these challenges.

The author identifies four possible attitudes of tolerance toward groups with different ways of life: resignation, indifference, curiosity and enthusiasm. He explores the potential for these attitudes and concludes by discussing the role of boundaries within communities in modernism and postmodernism. The author is not going to focus on toleration of eccentric or dissident individuals in civil society; he is interested in individual rights primarily when they are exercised in common—in the course of voluntary association or religious worship or cultural (...) elaboration—or when they are claimed by groups on behalf of their members. (shrink)

이 글의 목적은 아이리스 영(Iris Marion Young)의 차이의 정치에 대한 해명을 시도하 고 그에 관한 비판적 검토를 수행하는데 있다. 영은 기본적으로 사회정의의 관심사가 개인 이 추구하는 좋은 삶의 가치들을 각자 자유롭게 실현해 나가는데 필요한 사회 구조와 체계 를 마련하는데 있어야 한다고 생각한다. 영은 한 사회가 개인의 권리와 자유에 대한 동등 한 고려와 존중을 토대로 하는 정의의 원칙에 따라 개인과 집단의 행동을 규정하는 사회의 기본구조에 대한 도덕적 판단을 수행하는 것만으로는 정의로운 사회를 실현할 수 없다고 본다. 왜냐하면 영은 그러한 분배 지향적 정의론은 (...) 사회에 깊숙이 고착화된 구조적 부정의 의 문제를 직접적으로 다룰 수 없다고 생각하기 때문이다. 영은 이런 생각을 “정의관은 분배에 초점을 맞추기보다는 지배와 억압이라는 개념에서 시작해야 한다.”고 표현한다. 따라서 영은 분배 지향적 정의론의 한계를 극복하기 위해 사회에 존재하는 구조적 부정의 의 면면들을 드러내는 동시에 그런 구조적 부정의를 해결해나갈 수 있는 실천적 방법론을 모색한다. 영에게 있어 정의로운 사회는 개인이 자신의 고유성과 개별성을 자유롭게 표현 하고 의견을 제시할 수 있는 사회, 억압과 지배가 없는 사회다. 영이 볼 때 우리가 그런 사 회로 나아가기 위해 추구해야할 정치는 바로 차이의 정치다. 우리는 먼저 영이 분배 지향 적 정의론에 대해 갖는 불만이 무엇인지 확인한 후에 그녀가 추구하는 정의론과 차이의 정 치가 무엇인지 살펴볼 것이다. 이어서 차이의 정치를 비판적으로 검토하고 그 의의와 한계 를 정리하고자 한다. 결론에서는 아이리스 영의 차이의 정치는 억압과 지배를 양산하는 사 회 구조를 허물고 공론장에 타자성을 수용할 수 있는 다원주의 정치질서의 한 형태를 보여 준다고 평가할 것이다. 동시에 그러한 정치는 좋은 삶과 정의에 대한 문제들을 구분하지 않는 방식을 채택하면서 현존하는 질서의 틀을 수정하고 확장해나갈 때 차이의 인정을 통 한 구조적 부정의의 해체와 진정한 자유와 해방이라는 정의의 이념에 다가설 수 있다고 주 장할 것이다. (shrink)

Steven Epstein, Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007, reviewed by Richard E. Ashcroft.

In this paper, I examine Iris Marion Young's conception of power, arguing that it is incomplete in at least two ways. First, Young tends to equate the term power with the narrower notions of ‘oppression’ and ‘domination.’ Thus, Young lacks a satisfactory analysis of individual and collective empowerment. Second, as Young herself admits, it is not obvious that her analysis of power can be useful in the context of thinking about transnational justice. I conclude by considering one way in which (...) Young's analysis of power needs to be extended or perhaps modified in order to do justice to questions of transnational justice. (shrink)

The social sciences playa variety of multifaceted roles in the policymaking process. So varied are these roles, indeed, that it is futile to talk in the singular about the use of social science in policymaking, as if there were one constant relationship between two fixed and stable entities. Instead, to address this issue sensibly one must talk in the plural about uses of dif ferent modes of social scientific inquiry for different kinds of policies under various circumstances. In some cases, (...) the influence of social scientific research is direct and tangible, and the connection between the find ings and the policy is easy to see. In other cases, perhaps most, its influence is indirect-one small piece in a larger mosaic of politics, bargaining, and compromise. Occasionally the findings of social scientific studies are explicitly drawn upon by policymakers in the formation, implementation, or evaluation of particular policies. More often, the categories and theoretical models of social science provide a general background orientation within which policymakers concep tualize problems and frame policy options. At times, the in fluence of social scientific work is cognitive and informational in nature; in other instances, policymakers use social science primarily for symbolic and political purposes in order to le gitimate preestablished goals and strategies. Nonetheless, amid this diversity and variety, troubling general questions persistently arise. (shrink)

This paper examines Young’s conception of power, arguing that it is incomplete, in at least two ways. First, Young tends to equate the term power with the narrower notions of ‘ oppression ’ and ‘domination’. Thus, Young lacks a satisfactory analysis of individual and collective empowerment. Second, as Young herself admits, it is not obvious that her analysis of power can be useful in the context of thinking about transnational justice. Allen concludes by considering one way in which Young’s analysis (...) of power needs to be extended or perhaps modified in order to do justice to questions of transnational justice. (shrink)

‘여성주의는 그 자체로 차이의 학문이다’. 남성 중심사회에서 노동, 섹슈얼리티 심지어 경제이슈 까지 다른 목소리를 냈다. 그러나 다른 목소리로서의 여성주의는 모성, 가족, 여성성, 성매매, 재생산기술 등 전반에 걸쳐 다른 목소리를 내는 여성들을 만나야 했다. 이러한 다른 목소리는 여성들의 정치적 연대를 방해하거나 학문으로서의 페미니즘 가능성에 의문을 제기하는 것처럼 보였지만, 시간이 지나며 페미니즘은 차이를 다루는 과정에서 다양한 인식론을 정교하게 발전시켰다. 다른 목소리는 ‘우리 안의 타자’, ‘사이보그’ 혹은 ‘키메라’로 명명되었고, 차이가 생성되는 메커니즘을 정치적 개념으로 설명하는 상호 교차성 이론이 등장하기도 했다. 사람들은 다양한 페미니즘의 공존을 (...) 이야기했지만, 그것이 갖는 의미성을 충분히 이해했는지는 의문이다. 이 연구는 차이의 철학개념들을 가져와 ‘차이’가 갖는 근원적인 의미성을 고찰하여 여성주의 이론을 확장하고자 한다. 니체의 관점주의는 다양한 관점들이 문제 해결을 위한 객관성을 갖는다고 보았고, 들뢰즈는 리좀 개념을 가져와 지식 생산 과정이 동일의 원리가 아니라 차이를 만나 형성된다는 주장을 하였다. 푸코는 계보학을 통해 시대별 차이를 드러내어 우리가 침윤되어 보지 못했던 시대적 에피스테메를 비판할 수 있는 근거를 제시한다. 연구자는 최근 우리나라에서 일어났던 아시아 여성운동의 사례를 가져와서, 어떻게 ‘다른 목소리’가 페미니즘 지식 생산에 기여할 수 있는가를 차이의 철학에 기반해 살펴보았다. 아시아 페미니즘은 서구중심의 페미니즘과 다르다는 점에서 차이의 페미니즘이며, 식민지, 가부장 문화, 빈곤 등 교차적 억압으로 인해 다른 목소리를 낸다는 점에서 차이의 페미니즘이다. 아시아 여성운동의 사례가 우리의 문제를 해결할 수 있는 객관적인 지식을 줄 뿐 아니라, 새로운 생각을 가능케 하는 상상력의 단서가 되고, 우리가 당연하게 받아들이는 가치에 비판적 관점을 줄 수 있다는 주장을 하였다. (shrink)

In the last few years of the twentieth century, there is emerging a significant shift in the sensibilities and outlooks of critics and artists. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that a new kind of cultural worker is in the making, associated with a new politics of difference. These new forms of intellectual consciousness advance new conceptions of the vocation of critic and artist, attempting to undermine the prevailing disciplinary divisions of labor in the (...) academy, museum, mass media, and gallery networks while preserving modes of critique within the ubiquitous commodification of culture in the global village. (shrink)

Problemi identiteta i razlike u okviru politicke teorije artikulisani su u vidu spora koji se od uspostavljanja liberalnih demokratija intenzivira, spora o nacinu na koji se politicka zajednica uspostavlja i opravdava, u relaciji sa pitanjem odnosa pojedinca i kolektiva. Rad analizira najaktuelnije refleksije evropske politike na problem razlike i verovatnost teze o kraju multikulturalizma koja se cula na konferenciji za bezbednost odrzanoj u Minhenu 2011. godine, kroz objasnjenje geneze problema i razmatranje ponudjenih resenja. Pored toga, rad obrazlaze pojam moderne drzave (...) kroz principe gradjanstva i nacije u relaciji sa pitanjem identiteta i razlike, sa posebnim akcentom na konceptima neutralnosti i tolerancije kao kljucnim tackama u sporu. Kao zakljucak, iznose se razlozi zasto problem razlike ne moze tako lako da bude prevazidjen i na koji nacin diskurzivna demokratija potencijalno moze da bude buduca smernica za drugaciji fokus spora. PR Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 179049: Politike drustvenog pamcenja i nacionalnog identiteta - regionalni i evropski kontekst. (shrink)

Three key contributions of Iris Young to democratic political theory, and three challenges that have arisen in response to Young's theory, are examined here in relation to education. First, Young has argued that oppression and domination, not distributive inequality, ought to guide discussions about justice. Second, eliminating oppression requires establishing a politics that welcomes difference by dismantling and reforming structures, processes, concepts and categories that sustain difference‐blind, impartial, neutral, universal politics and policies. The infatuation with merit (...) and standardized tests, both of which are central to measuring educational achievement, are chief amongst the targets in need of reform. Third, a politics of difference requires restructuring the division of labour and decision‐making so as to include disadvantaged social groups but allow them to contribute without foregoing their particularities. The challenges that have arisen in response to Young's theory are first, that difference is merely another way of getting at inequality of resources or opportunities, and if it is not, then, second, a politics of difference values difference for the sake of difference rather than for the sake of alleviating social disadvantage. Third, in theory and in practice a politics that focuses on difference putatively jeopardizes a politics whose aim is to improve the redistribution of resources. (shrink)

Three key contributions of Iris Young to democratic political theory, and three challenges that have arisen in response to Young's theory, are examined here in relation to education. First, Young has argued that oppression and domination, not distributive inequality, ought to guide discussions about justice. Second, eliminating oppression requires establishing a politics that welcomes difference by dismantling and reforming structures, processes, concepts and categories that sustain difference‐blind, impartial, neutral, universal politics and policies. The infatuation with merit (...) and standardized tests, both of which are central to measuring educational achievement, are chief amongst the targets in need of reform. Third, a politics of difference requires restructuring the division of labour and decision‐making so as to include disadvantaged social groups but allow them to contribute without foregoing their particularities. The challenges that have arisen in response to Young's theory are first, that difference is merely another way of getting at inequality of resources or opportunities, and if it is not, then, second, a politics of difference values difference for the sake of difference rather than for the sake of alleviating social disadvantage. Third, in theory and in practice a politics that focuses on difference putatively jeopardizes a politics whose aim is to improve the redistribution of resources. (shrink)

Explores the problems posed by identity politics and the possibilities for non-exclusive cultural and gendered positions. The essays are by feminist theorists from several disciplines from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States.

Providing a novel multi-disciplinary theorization of memory politics, this insightful Handbook brings varied literatures into a focused dialogue on the ways in which the past is remembered and how these influence transnational, interstate, and global politics in the present. With case studies from Africa, East and Southeast Asia, Europe, South America, and the United States, the Handbook focuses on the political features of historical memory in international relations. Chapters examine key concepts of memory politics, including accountability, commemoration (...) and memorialization, the Europeanization of memory, and the politics of trauma and victimhood, as well as analyzing different sites of memory, from the human body and memorial sites to media, film, and television. It also answers essential questions such as who and what determines the relevance of the past in the present; how does memory become a political question; and what are the political effects and ethical implications of its mobilization? Exploring the links between the politics of memory, international ethics, law, and diplomacy, this stimulating Handbook will be essential reading for students and scholars of politics and international relations, cultural studies, history, and transitional justice. Its discussion of notable agents and practices of memory politics will also be beneficial for practitioners working in human rights, politics, and public policy. (shrink)

This essay identifies a point of convergence between economically oriented, distributive approaches to social justice and culturally oriented, identitarian ones.The primary problem of difference politics, I claim, is insuring that disadvantaged groups have equal abilities to participate in the social processes that construct and value identities. I argue that this is best accomplished through a conception of equality promoting human agency in both the cultural and economic spheres.

In what ways might we best, and justly, allow for cohabitation between individuals and groups with plural conceptions of the good? Confronting this question, students of political philosophy in the past two decades have encountered a routine contrast between liberal universalism, with a focus on equal individual rights and uniform application of the law, and on the other hand various versions of a 'politics of difference'(...).

In this article I consider Foucault's credentials as a postmodern `champion' of the `politics of difference'. First, however, I note that the familiar expression `the postmodern politics of difference' is in fact self-contradictory, or at least it is a contradiction in terms (1) if we concede that the ongoing ethical/normative task confronting politics is the unifying or synthesizing of differences and (2) if we accept, with pleasure or dismay, that postmodernism exhibits a profoundly suspicious attitude (...) towards this ethical task and towards moral principles and normative positions generally. I then ask whether or not Foucault adopted a normative position that could provide the necessary ethical support for a `politics of difference'. I argue that it is possible to find an element of genuine normativity in Foucault's work (of the kind required for a `politics of difference') by considering his views on the role of the intellectual, on the font of legitimacy, on grand theory and on essence. I also consider the work of some well-known recent commentators on Foucault (Judith Butler, William Connolly and John Ransom) who discuss this normative/political dimension of his work. (shrink)

Though it is often taken for granted that feminists necessarily must condemn the exclusion of women from the Roman Catholic priesthood, the author demonstrates that the "politics of difference," if pursued consistently, reopens this question. International feminist arguments for honoring gender differences, the teachings of John Paul II concerning women, and Catholic social justice teachings, taken jointly, suggest that the current Catholic exclusion of women from the priesthood is unjust not because the reservation of a social role to (...) a single sex is inherently unacceptable, but because of the asymmetry in power between the roles accorded men and women in the governance of the Catholic Church. To be just, sex-specific reservation of roles must meet the criteria of balance, proportion, power, and particularity. (shrink)

The most influential theories of oppression have argued that belief in some shared human essence or nature is ultimately responsible for the injustices suffered by women, First Nations peoples, blacks, gays and lesbians, and colonised people and have insisted that struggles against oppression must be mounted from the unique and different perspectives of different groups. Jeff Noonan argues instead that such difference must be seen to be anchored in a conception of human beings as self-creative. Unless freedom and self-determination (...) are accepted as universal values, the moral force of arguments against exclusion and oppression is lost. Noonan shows that at the core of postmodern philosophy, with its claim that culture creates humans, is a concern to dethrone the modern understanding of human beings as subjects, as builders of their world and free when those world-building activities are the outcome of free choices. He explains that because the postmodern conception of human being does not capture what is universal in all humans it is incapable of critically responding to the forcible subordination of different cultures to European "humanity." When oppressed groups explain why they struggle against oppression, they invoke just that idea of human being as subjectivity that postmodern philosophy claims is the basis of oppression. Noonan argues that the voices of cultural differences, when they struggle against the forces of hatred and exclusion, do not ground themselves just in the particular value of their culture but in the universal value of human freedom and self-determination. (shrink)

Although World of Warcraft utilizes ethnic and gender stereotypes in the construction of its playable characters, the structure of the gaming environment provides a modest utopian vision that is structurally just, maximizing both liberty and equality among participants in a way consistent with John Rawls's Theory of Justice. As a result, class, race, and gender are much more a matter of human (humanoid) variety, rather than a tool for hierarchically differentiation. Nevertheless, in players' engagement with the game, class, race, and (...) gender differences take on meaning well beyond the strucuture of the Warcraft universe demonstrating how real world values infect our imagination. (shrink)

The authors first focus on the diversity of traditions in connection with the texts of Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Sartre, and De Beauvoir.

This paper attempts to follow the changes in the concept “state” over the last two hundred years, by tracing changes in the aims of public education. Four major stages are identified. The first is characterized by the establishment of the nation-state, when a national and civic education are fused together. The second is marked by the erosion of the identity between state and nation, and by attempts to prevent this process through the development of contradictory educational strategies: ‘neutral civic education’ (...) and nation building through the mechanism of the ‘melting pot’. At the third stage, despite the above-mentioned efforts, the awakening of national minorities demanding special national education sharpens the distinction between civic and national education. This leads to the last stage, the politics of difference, when the nationally homogenous nation-state is replaced by a consciously heterogenous state. Such a state can grant all its members equal civil and national rights only if it endorses traditional liberal values. Hence, despite the fact they firmly criticize liberalism and attempt to revive particular national education supporters of the politics of difference cannot deny that liberal values and civic education offer the best protection for their own ends. (shrink)