Eliminating Oppression Isn't Enough by Brandon Saunders

 “Justice should refer not only to distribution, but also to the institutional conditions necessary for the development and exercise of individual capacities and collective communication and cooperation.”

-Iris Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, pg. 39

Indeed, a concept of justice should include both, “distribution”, a tangible way of ensuring representation of the underrepresented in society, and “necessary institutional conditions”, prerequisites needed to guarantee human life development in an efficient way. Justice in the broadest sense means fairness. From a social perspective, the definition of justice is the relationship established between the individual and the state, such that the state creates for all persons, the ability to participate actively in the economic, political, social and cultural life of society. Iris Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression”, predominantly works on an intangible and covert level of society. The faces of oppression are covert in daily interactions between groups and individuals. Social transformation occurs by eliminating oppression. However, there are no tangible, affirmative solutions for “transforming” social structure. In contrast, Martha Nussbaum’s ten capabilities operate in a tangible and overt manner. Her list includes capabilities and concepts, where one can clearly analyze the functionality of her ten capabilities. These capabilities act as preconditions for basic human dignity in society.

The oppression theory and capabilities approach’s practicality are different in three key ways: completeness, efficiency, and institutional guarantees. By simply eliminating all forms or “faces” of oppression, the process of establishing justice is only halfway complete. The absence of oppression is not enough to guarantee justice. Institutions must provide a threshold level of capabilities for justice to hold. Establishing a threshold of capabilities enables society to use a pluralist approach, where society can simultaneously, use transformative and affirmative solutions that guarantee all the opportunity to succeed in society.

Iris Young’s concept of justice is based on opposition to oppression. The definition of oppression is, “some inhibition of their [a group’s] ability to develop and exercise their capacities and express their needs, thoughts and feelings.” (Young 40) Oppression is both structural (not determined by an individual’s actions) and relational (relative to the privileges of other groups). The ways society defines groups, causes a systematic reproduction of structural oppression. Oppression is experienced by groups as groups, or individuals as members of a group, not to individuals qua individuals. Not only are social groups oppressing one another, but now public institutions are exercising power over marginalized social groups unintentionally. These groups generally include the underrepresented in society. This allows the groups in power to control and keep down those who do not have power. Young uses five categories to describe oppression of groups: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Exploitation is the act of using people’s labors to produce profit while not providing fair compensation. In exploitive conditions, society may define everyone as free, yet still maintains a hierarchical system. Marginalization relegates and confines a group of people to a lower social place or outer edge of society. Marginalization limits group possibilities and power. Powerlessness happens when people are oppressed by simply not having power. The powerless are dominated by the ruling class. Additionally, powerlessness is the unreciprocated lack of control, status, influence, and voice in decision-making processes. Cultural imperialism involves taking the culture of those in power, and establishing it as the norm. Cultural norms oppress those people who do not share the same beliefs. Violence is the most visible and overt face of oppression. The use of violence oppresses people through humiliation, damage, harassment, intimidation, and physical harm. This form of violence is systematic, motivated by the want to demean and destroy the person based on membership of the oppressed group. These group members live in fear due to threats of potential violence. Together these five faces of oppression are identifiers used to recognize oppression.

Nussbaum’s ten capabilities establish a threshold level for which an institution (the state) must maintain in order to be just. It is important for each individual to have basic capabilities. People should be treated as an end, not as a means to an end because each person has intrinsic value. Included in this value is the ability to function, and the ability to choose. The capabilities are basic human entitlements as well as a moral set of goals for human development.  These capabilities are, “not just abilities residing inside a person but also the freedoms or opportunities created by a combination of personal abilities and the political, social, and economic environment”.  The purpose of the outcome-based capabilities approach is to focus what individuals are able to do, and are capable of.  This approach does not concern itself with preference utilitarianism or distribution of resources alone. The former concept is incorrect because of potential distortion of preferences, and the latter concept because these resources have no inherent value without human functioning.  Nussbaum seeks a capabilities approach that will express human powers, and provide opportunities for people. She provides a list of capabilities and activities central to human life. The capabilities are: 1) Life, 2) Bodily health, 3) Bodily integrity, 4) Senses, imagination, and thought, 5. Emotions, 6) Practical reason, 7) Affiliation, 8) concern for and in relation to Other Species, 9) Play, and 10) Control over one’s environment. As she states, “The basic idea is that with regard to each of these, we can argue, by imagining a life without the capability in question, that such a life is not a life worth of human dignity.” (Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice 78)

If one were to apply only the concepts stated by Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression” towards a full process of justice, the application would produce incomplete justice. Young is correct by arguing that those in power are the ones who oppress. Without power people cannot: make hierarchical class systems, decide who works, have power and influence to tell others what to do, force others to accept their culture, and commit violence against other groups of people. With power, people subjugate themselves to the five faces of oppression. Eliminating these forms of oppression greatly benefits society. However, the absence of oppression doesn’t help reestablish oppressed victims in society. Oppression’s absence only guarantees that will people will not be hurt, it doesn’t lay real groundwork for the oppressed person to fully become human. We understand how to end the pain, but we don’t ensure a potential resurgence, nor help the victim become an active member in society. We also don’t consider how to [re]establish the victim’s place in society.

This scenario becomes analogous to retributive (Young) vs. restorative (Nussbaum) justice.  “Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime, by providing satisfaction and psychological benefits to the victim, the offender and society.”  Financial reparations are also generally involved for the oppressed or victimized party. Contrasting, “Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of the need to satisfy the rules of law or the need of the community to give out punishments.”  Restorative justice is seen in situations where a particular ethnicity experiences discrimination. One theory focuses on punishing the offender, while the other focuses on the needs of the victims, and seeks to establish an active place in society for them. Retributive justice accomplishes half of the goal by focusing on the offender/oppressor, but does not consider the victim’s place. Restorative justice on the other hand, enables society to make a list of prerequisites and capabilities needed for the victim to fully become a citizen and human in society. Young’s theory is analogous with retributive justice because it identifies and eliminates the source of oppression. Nussbaum’s theory is analogous with restorative justice because it focuses on the oppressed, and creates a plan to institute and include them back into society.

Another variance between the oppression theory and capabilities approach involves the respective methods’ universal level by way of efficiency. The use of the capabilities approach is more efficient than eliminating forms of oppression. Nussbaum’s capabilities are more universal. It allows sole focus on the individual, and the individual’s human qualities. The capabilities are applicable to all types and forms of societies. As she states, “The capabilities approach is fully universal: the capabilities in question are held to be important for each and every nation, and each person is to be treated as an end.”(Nussbaum, FOJ 78) Nussbaum’s capabilities set up a base criterion and standard for what is right.

Contrasting, simply eliminating oppression is less universal because of two reasons.  The first reason involves an inherent particularity, unique to each society. Each society is in its own situation equipped with a different hierarchy in place, different relationship dynamics between groups, and different circumstances (historical or evolving) supporting the hierarchy and relationships. Multiple groups colluding to oppress one group, is one hypothetical scenario.

The second reason involves oppression as a structural concept. Oppressive structures are not overt. Disadvantaged groups discover oppressive structures through reflection of their own experiences. Young states that oppression’s causes “are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules”. (Young 41) Oppression is generally found in “ordinary interactions, media and cultural stereotypes, and structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms…..the normal processes of everyday life”. (Young 41) Structural oppression, to the extent, suggests the existence of oppressors. The oppressors don’t always understand or recognize their role in oppression. When trying to situate oppression, it’s harder to identify covert forms of oppression, in order to eliminate them. Additionally, the multiple group presence (blacks, whites, homosexuals, disabled people, etc.) causes the five faces/forms of oppression to create different subcategories. Ideologies such as: racism, classism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism, etc. are present. The groups’ and ideologies’ presence create a myriad of relationships. Some group or someone will always be oppressed. Therefore, these five simple identifiers create countless situations, where a solution is needed, and implemented. The capabilities approach sets criterion, which eliminates a need for proper identification. The process is now cleaner and more direct.

For Young’s theory, the covertness of her oppression leads to injustice becoming hidden within society. This makes our understanding of “what is injustice?”, into a subjective metric. Objective metrics satisfy the public’s demand for basic criterion applying to the structure of society. The capability approach is an objective metric which focuses on ends rather than means, is sensitive to individual variations in functioning that have democratic import, and delivers public services, especially education and health, in an efficient manner because of guidance by public institutions.

Perhaps what makes Nussbaum’s capabilities approach better than Young’s oppression theory, is that the capabilities approach creates more institutional guarantees than oppression theory. Yes, oppression guarantees an elimination of attitudes associated with oppression. However, eliminating these attitudes is a transformative (changing social constructions) fix. This solution is at best, informal with no real tangible policies supporting the oppressed party. While the oppression theory tells us what needs to change, it gives us no practical method of eliminating the attitudinal problems, or implementing a system that will reestablish victims into society. We can guarantee you there will be no oppression, but we cannot simultaneously guarantee you that the environment (economic, political, social and cultural life) will produce equality. The capabilities approach guarantees effective access to levels of functioning, and effective access to a package of capabilities sufficient for standing as an equal over the course of an entire life. This theory guarantees lack of oppression, and at the same time, creates a standard of living. The lack of oppression’s fundamental guarantee is found in Nussbaum’s bodily integrity capability.  It states, “Being able to move freely from place to place; to secure against violent assault.” (Nussbaum, FOJ 76) This coincides well with Young’s notion that oppressed people are trapped within their bodies, and are only a product of their inherent characteristics. The ten capabilities are formal because they show a necessary threshold level for full justice. 

Now we can apply a pluralist approach, using transformative fixes, as well as affirmative fixes (fitting groups/individuals within current society). Using both types of solutions enables recognition and elimination of the oppressor, while reconstructing the individual as an active human participating in society. The pluralist approach is effective because of its flexibility. It sets a standard of living, but allows for attention to unique situations of oppression. This approach finishes the process of justice by making victims active in society. The pluralist approach completely establishes justice for all people.

References:

-Iris Marion Young, “Five Faces of Oppression,” in Geographic thought: a praxis perspective eds. George L. Henderson, Marvin Waterstone. 55-71
-Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, pp 122-155
-Martha Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice, pp 55-95, 96-103; 179-195; 216-223

Philippians 4:13

Many of you guys might wonder why I have the Philippians 4:13  biblical scripture posted on my blog. As you can see from the visual evidence to the right, it is a big part of my life.

In terms of disability, this scripture, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" empowers many to work through their inherent disadvantages in order to live life. As a person who has Crohn's disease, it truly gives me strength to work through my struggles, both associated to general life, as well as those caused by my illness.

Please excuse if this post is too much of a personal message, but this scripture, at least in the world of Christianity has been used as a pseudo-slogan for those going through difficult times.

Edit:

Here is even a sports camp helping people with disabilities in Arkansas with the Title,
Camp 4:13

Check it out!

A follow up to the previous blog post. This article explains how disabilities can be seen as workplace assets.

Link

The Benefits of Disability in the Workplace

This is an article on Forbes.com by Judy Owen outlining the possible benefits of being disabled in the workplace. You never really hear this angle of the conversation, so it interesting to receive this perspective.

Link

From Redistribution to Recognition? by Nancy Fraser

Nancy Fraser seeks to schematize two types of demands for justice, redistribution and recognition, and two forms of political demands affirmative and transformative. She develops this scheme in order to highlight a dilemma she sees in the two types: redistribution requires the elimination of group difference, and recognition requires the maintenance of that difference. Redistribution produces political and economic changes that result in greater economic equality. Recognition redresses the harms of disrespect, stereotyping and cultural imperialism. Similarly, affirmative demands maintain the underlying structures that cause group differentiation while transformative demands radically pluralize the field of norms such that we have many more groups than before. Fraser articulates these schemes as an attempt to re-center theories of justice on the needs of economic transformation, which she sees as lost in current focuses on cultural recognition. She argues that race and gender based movements are most susceptible to these contradictions because they include both demands for redistribution and recognition.

However, Iris Young criticizes Fraser stating, “Her dichotomy between political economy and culture leads her to misrepresent feminist, anti-racist and gay liberation movements as calling for recognition as an end in itself, when they are better understood as conceiving cultural recognition as a means to economic and political justice.” (Young 148) In other words, while redistribution and recognition are both pursued by the social movements, often recognition is used as a means of redistribution. Young also mentions that Fraser’s dilemma is due to her use of two arbitrary poles for justice claims.

I tend to believe that Young is unfairly criticizing Fraser, and being a little short-sighted. First, her main criticism involves using a dichotomy to polarize her justice claims. However, Young uses only 5 forms of oppression, to express all different types of oppression. Additionally, simply eliminating these forms of oppression, most likely won’t produce justice in and of itself. Fraser uses these two types of demands for justice as a scale to situate where the goals of the movement lay.

Young claims that the goal of recognition movements is only to receive redistribution. However, she fails to consider the reverse. It is a possibility that groups pursue redistribution schemes because the groups feel that is their only way of receiving recognition. Then, once that recognition is established, a change in the environment is more likely. The African-American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s took this path. Once these political and economic policies were pursued, the marginalized group received recognition. Fast-forward 40 years later, many of the same stereotypes, disrespect, and preconception do not occur. What is interesting is that Young doesn’t criticize the related affirmative/transformative model. This model is simply the result of pursuing redistribution/recognition. In simpler terms, we use recognition with the hope of transforming the social environment, and we use redistribution with the goal of establishing political and economic policies. Both of these models represent a valid method of scaling the type of pursuit, as well as the goals (end result) of social movements.

References:

Nancy Fraser, “From Redistribution to Recognition?” in Justice Interruptus, pp 11-39
Iris Marion Young, “Unruly Categories: A Critique of Nancy Fraser’s Dual Systems Theory,” New Left Review 222 (March-April 1997)

Radical Democracy by Chantal Mouffe

The above video is the Keynote Address from the 2013 Radical Democracy Conference Social movements that want to create social and political change need a strategy that challenges common concepts associated with democracy. This strategy needs to expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on equality and freedom to include difference.  According to Chantal Mouffe, liberal democracy, while seemingly an open form of government oppresses differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews. Radical democracy seeks to implement these differences. Radical democracy doesn’t just except these differences, but is dependent on it. If democracy is built to include difference, relationships of oppression will come to the forefront. Then these oppressive relationships will be challenged.

Particularly, Mouffe challenges universalism and abstract individualism. Universalism has never been truly universal; it is always a space inhabited by the hegemonic ideal or identity. Abstract individualism tries to take the person out of history and out of social contexts. This means that the individual is always a product of her traditions and contradictory experiences.

Mouffe really is proposing a radical form of democracy. Essentially, she is saying that we can take all of these different ideologies, views, and opinions, and fit them into political formations in our society. It is important to note, that the differences don’t exist to take over democracy, but just improve democracy by introducing new, innovative concepts not normally associated with democracy. She makes a compelling argument stating, “the so-called communitarians who, while they all share a critique of liberal individualism's idea of a subject existing prior to the social relations that form it, have differing attitudes toward modernity.” (Mouffe 42) In other words, similarities don’t always hold everything together, producing harmony and continuity. As I see it, there are differences, but that is not always a bad thing. Thinking about differences helps secure our own ideologies. Differences also allow us to borrow and incorporate other concepts to improve upon our own understandings and methods.

Personally, I like radical democracy. In a melting pot such as the United States, we should be very open to several different methods of thinking. Obviously though, there will always be a tradition of liberal democracy, but a place as the United States has the capacity to have these differences. The million-dollar question concerning theories such as radical democracy, “How do we make this theory practical?” This is the issue I have. If this theory were to be put in action, all of the differences could not possibly be incorporated. Only those that are not too radical will be given credence. In classical democratic fashion, the overwhelming majority will suppress  the radical minority.

References:

Paul Holdengräber and Chantal Mouffe, 1989, “Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?” Social Text, No. 21, Universal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism (1989), pp. 31-45

The Difference Principle by John Rawls

I'm not the biggest fan of John Rawls' content, but you cannot have a disability blog without him.

Background (courtesy of worldhistoria.com)

“The difference principle was formulated by the renowned political philosopher, John Rawls in his 1971 scholarly publication, A Theory of Justice and reinforced in his 2001 revised text, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. The difference principle is one of the three components of Rawls' "special conception of justice" and through the difference principle, Rawls essentially argues that inequality is unjustifiable, unless the existence of inequality is operating to benefit the least advantaged in society. As he states, "Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all".

Rawls' "special conception of justice" is encapsulated in Rawls' two principles of justice, where the first principle stipulates that each person has an equal right to "the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others" while the second principle instructs that social and economic inequalities are required to be arranged (a) according to the difference principle and (b) based on fair equality of opportunity. Hence, subject to the constraints of the other two principles, the difference principle requires that one should "arrange social and economic inequalities so that everyone benefits", thereby through its leximin formulation its operation is permitted on the condition that the fair value of political liberties are not compromised. Therefore the difference principle is essentially based on the simple notion that social and economic inequalities are justifiable "only if the difference in expectation is to the advantage of the representative man who is worse off". This is fundamentally achieved through existing social and economic institutions who are permitted to initiate schemes which encourage better prospects for the most advantaged on the basis that it will also simultaneously benefit the less fortunate. As Rawls argues, "Their [the most advantaged] better prospects act as incentives so that the economic process is more efficient, innovation proceeds at a faster pace and so on. Eventually the resulting material benefits spread throughout the system and to the least advantaged".”

My View

All people are not created equal. Every person has their own set of unique strengths and weaknesses. Thus, society needs to put those better suited, into more difficult jobs for the sake of society. This ensures maximum efficiency. This is an old management principle. Rawls is seen as a genius for creating this principle, but this principle is very old. Rawls seemingly combines various other concepts, principles, and ideologies of other authors to create the difference principle. In saying that, Rawls has created an operative principle that avoids equality at any price, and maximizing aggregate without regards to distribution.

Economically, the difference principle works because it is compatible with efficiency. An economy becomes inefficient and stagnant if everyone is paid the same rate. However, the difference principle works because it provides people with an incentive to still work hard. Incentives lead to greater efficiencies. The end result in this process, is the industry advancing at a quicker pace, with greater material, and more benefits to distribute throughout the system. Socially and morally it works because the principle cannot operate unless everyone is benefitting. Plus, Rawls makes a good argument by bringing up the veil of ignorance. Individuals are more likely to accept this principle because they (or their offspring) could end up in an unwanted position in society.    

References:

Rawls, John. 2005. A Theory of Justice. Original ed. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press. 

Disability and Sports

It would not be a true blog done by me, if sports were not somehow on the blog. Excuse the previous double negative, but I really love sports, and they need to be on my blog!

Disabled Sports USA is a nonprofit organization found in 1967 based in Rockville, MD (go DC metro area!). They provide opportunities to youth and adults with disabilities to develop independence, confidence and fitness through participation in disabled sports. It really is a great organization that helps people participate in my favorite hobby.

Please check out there website at: www.disabledsportsusa.org