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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

Iris Marion Young (1949-2006) was one of the most influential and innovative political theorists of her generation who had a significant impact on a wide range of topics such as democratic theory, feminist theory, and justice. She bridged many longstanding divides among political theorists, engaging in Continental and critical theory, but also insisting on the importance of normative argument: her corpus stands as a testament to the fruitfulness of engaging in both abstract theory and the 'real world' of everyday (...) class='Hi'>politics. This volume spans the several decades of her work, illustrating her intellectual development over time through three major areas of innovation: Gender: Maintaining that gender is both conceptually and politically meaningful, Young theorized gender in terms of structures that, in combination, position different people we call "women" in different ways, such that some women have some structures in common, without all women sharing all gendered structures in common. Justice: Young's early writings on a critical theory of justice evolved in her later and posthumously published works where she developed an account of justice that brought together her theorization of structure with her concern to respond to contemporary claims of injustice. The Politics of Difference: Young rejected universal and abstract theories of justice and maintained that justice instead required attending to the experiences of people marked by difference. (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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 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)

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.

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)

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)

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'(...).

The Politics of Well-Being argues that the relationship between well-being and ethical life has been overlooked. The more specific argument of the book is that ethical life requires political engagement, and the emergence of a society committed to critical thinking. It is argued that these conditions allow for our ordination and confirmation as ethical subjects. While well-being can be experienced in different ways, it is claimed that, after experience of ethical life, a more sustainable form of it is revealed (...) to us, a form which we would be drawn to preserve, a form which can be constituted as an object of hope. While the book draws on philosophical themes, its main focus is political. This is because its primary objective is to identify and to examine what needs to be done in order to realise ethical life. Its main focus in this respect is the identification and examination of the barriers which need to be overcome if ethical life is to be realised. It is acknowledged that this will not be an easy task. Indeed, it may be an impossible task. However, despite these barriers, and despite the dark days we are living through, the book is a call to hope rather than a surrender to despair. This book will be of interest to students of politics, psychology, cultural studies, philosophy and sociology, as well as anyone else interested in exploring new ideas about how the make the world a better place. (shrink)

In The Politics of Vibration, cultural theorist Marcus Boon offers both an anthropological and theoretical account of vibrational ontology. Boon focuses on the work of three contemporary musicians-Hindustani classical vocalist Pandit Pran Nath, Swedish drone composer and philosopher Catherine Christer Hennix, and Houston-based hip-hop creator, DJ Screw-each emerging from a different but entangled set of musical traditions or scenes, whose work is ontologically instructive. Written as a series of improvisations on the life and work of these musicians, The (...) class='Hi'>Politics of Vibration expands in the direction of considering the vibrational nature of music more generally. Vibration is understood in multiple ways, as a mathematical and a physical concept, as a religious or ontological force, and as a psychological/psychoanalytic determinant of subjectivity. (shrink)

It was only a few years ago that the central topic of academic political philosophy, at least in the English-speaking world, was distributive justice. The focus was very much on economic or material goods; the question being whether people were entitled to have what they had, or did justice require that someone else should have some of it. That the arguments about justice led to investigating the conceptions of self, rationality and community that underpinned them meant that the debate was (...) far from governed by economics and welfare, and was capable of moving in many directions and far from its starting-point. Yet that many of the leading participants in the ‘liberalism v . communitarianism’ debate should now have come to place diversity, pluralism and multiculturalism at the centre of their theorising, with the emphasis being on the justness of cultural rather than economic transactions, is surely not just a product of ‘following the argument to where it leads’. The change in philosophical focus is also determined by changes in the political world; by the challenges of feminism, the growing recognition that most Western societies are, partly because of movements of populations, increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial, and the growing questioning of whether the pursuit of a universal theory of justice may not itself be an example of a Western cultural imperialism. The politics I am pointing to is various and by no means harmonious, but a common feature perhaps is the insistence that there are forms of inequality and domination beyond those of economics and material distributions. (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 takes the form of intellectual histories of eight major representative figures of the twentieth century, who inherited and responded to the spiritual problematic left by Nietzsche. With each figure offering very different ethical and spiritual positions, all shed light on what we mean when we talk confusedly around the topics of politics and religion. With portraits of Max Weber, Georg Lukács, T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, George Orwell and Hannah Arendt, the author explores the (...) 'latent' content of their worldview - their moral (or immoral) intention - exposing a political position and the religious position of each figure, thus shedding light on their ultimate values and illuminating their particular picture of the soul, as well as the implications of their vision for religion and politics. As such, The Politics of the Soul will appeal to scholars of sociology and social theory, religion, philosophy, political theory and cultural studies. (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)

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)