Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World (New Directions in Critical Theory)
Nancy Fraser
Language: English
Pages: 224
ISBN: 0231146817
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Until recently, struggles for justice proceeded against the background of a taken-for-granted frame: the bounded territorial state. With that "Westphalian" picture of political space assumed by default, the scope of justice was rarely subject to open dispute. Today, however, human-rights activists and international feminists join critics of structural adjustment and the World Trade Organization in challenging the view that justice can only be a domestic relation among fellow citizens. Targeting injustices that cut across borders, they are making the scale of justice an object of explicit struggle.
Inspired by these efforts, Nancy Fraser asks: What is the proper frame for theorizing justice? Faced with a plurality of competing scales, how do we know which one is truly just? In exploring these questions, Fraser revises her widely discussed theory of redistribution and recognition. She introduces a third, "political" dimension of justice& mdash;representation& mdash;and elaborates a new, reflexive type of critical theory that foregrounds injustices of "misframing." Engaging with thinkers such as Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls, Michel Foucault, and Hannah Arendt, she envisions a "postwestphalian" mapping of political space that accommodates transnational solidarity, transborder publicity, and democratic frame-setting, as well as emancipatory projects that cross borders. The result is a sustained reflection on who should count with respect to what in a globalizing world.
Twentieth-Century Marxism: A Global Introduction
Global economy for the maximum benefit of the worst-off individuals in the world.21 In this debate, therefore, the choice of the “who” comes down, in large measure, to how each philosopher answers the following questions: Does there exist a global economy with sufficient influence over the relative life-chances of individuals to count as a global “basic structure”? Or are the relative lifechances of different people determined exclusively or primarily by the constitutional structures of their.
Civil society, publicity is supposed to hold officials accountable and to assure that the actions of the state express the will of the citizenry. Thus, a public sphere should correlate with a sovereign power. Together, these two ideas – the normative legitimacy and Transnationalizing the Public Sphere 77 political efficacy of public opinion – are essential to the concept of the public sphere in critical theory.2 Without them, the concept loses its critical force and its political point. Yet.
Discretionary character insulates them from public scrutiny.17 The result is a ruling apparatus whose composition is so complex and shifting that the distinguished internationalrelations theorist Robert F. Cox has named it “la nebleuse.”18 Its shadowy quality notwithstanding, postfordist governmentality evinces some recognizable qualitative traits. This mode of regulation relies far more heavily than its predecessor on marketized ordering mechanisms. In the guise of neoliberalism, it vastly.
1995); June Nash, Mayan Visions: The Quest for Autonomy in an Age of Globalization (London: Routledge, 2001); and Ronald Niezen, The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). 6 Robert O’Brien, Anne Marie Goetz, Jan Art Scholte, and Marc Williams, Contesting Global Governance Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 7 Brooke A. Ackerly, Political Theory and.
Frame. No longer addressed exclusively to national states or debated exclusively by national publics, claims no longer focus solely on relations among fellow citizens. Thus, the grammar of argument has altered. Whether the issue is distribution or recognition, disputes that used to focus exclusively on the question of what is owed as a matter of justice to community members now turn quickly into disputes about who should count as a member and which is the relevant community. Not just the “what”.