“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
No comments:
Post a Comment