Iris Marion’s Young...

5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM 185 De La Salle UniversityDe La Salle Collective Responsibility Collective Feorillo Petronillo A. Demeterio III, Ph.D. A. Demeterio Petronillo Feorillo oung was born in 1949 City in and New grew York up in the culturally diverse setting of Astoria, in the borough Standing on the philosophies and theories of such thinkers Iris Marion Young’s Theory of Structural Justice and Justice of Structural Theory Young’s Marion Iris Female Body Experience: “Throwing Like a Girl” and other Essays of Essays other and Girl” a Like “Throwing Experience: Body Female Responsibility and Determination Self War, Challenges: Global 2004, Justice for of 2007, and published the Responsibility posthumously political organization. It was her 1990 book Justice and the Politics Politics the and Justice book 1990 her was It organization. political political a as reputation international the her gave that Difference of “Throwing books: more six by followed was work This philosopher. like a Girl” and other Essays Theory in of 1990, Intersecting Dilemmas Voices: Feminist of Political Gender, Philosophy On 2000, of and Democracy and Inclusion Social 1997, of Policy and Philosophy 1995), John Rawls (1921-2002), Jurgen Michel Habermas Foucault (1926-1984), (born: 1929), and John Ronald Roemer (born: 1945), focused Young her Dworkin philosophizing (1931-2013), on gender, race, justice, equality, international democracy, relations, while globalization immersing and herself in activism and political science. She was an active member of the Radical Philosophy Philosophy Radical the of member active an was She science. political Association, the Society for Women in and Philosophy, the Society Philosophy. and Existential Phenomenology for as as Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), Emmanuel Levinas (1906- David David Alexander, who later on would become her husband. After earning her doctor’s degree in 1974, based on Ludwig a dissertation Wittgenstein on (1889-1951), she political taught theory philosophy Pittsburgh. of in University and and University Miami Institute, Rensselaer Polytechnic Polytechnic Institute, Worcester In 1999 she moved to the University of Chicago as a professor of of Queens. Her father died when she was polyglot mother very worked young, as an while interpreter her for the United Nations. After earning her degree in Queens College in Pennsylvania the at 1970, philosophy in she degrees doctor’s pursued and master’s her State There University. she met a graduate student in economics,

Y inside.indd 185 inside.indd 186 Demiterio III ... Croatian, Japanese, German, Italian, Portuguese,Slovakian,Italian, German, Spanish Croatian,Japanese, as such languages twenty than more to translated been had works for Justiceof2011thatwas prepared by herhusband,Alexander. an set: xliain mriaiain powerlessness, of agent or recipient the as group social the marginalization,of concept analytic her proffers Young chapter this In exploitation, violence. and imperialism cultural aspects: five in identifies oppression Young main which of in manifestations society, the American contemporary detail more in examines with theconceptsofoppression anddominationaskey categories. decision making processes, division society’s these of labor,given and a division with of culture,of terms side in tackled by be should side justice distribution discourses, that the suggests emphasize Young goods. to material tend of these as justice of concept the of totality discourses the cover to current sufficient not is the justice distributive on that argues Paradigm,” “Displacing Distributive entitled chapter,the first The theories. and movements social these by implied as justice social of notion and day present the equality and theory; on and politics century discourses twentieth late the socialist on democracy traditional of rooting the of postmodernism to political philosophy and philosophy in general; leaning social left movements the in America of to contentions political philosophy; the the of implication implications the as: such themes addresses and epilogue an and chapters eight of composed single argumentative lines. with dealing monographs of instead themes various on chapters, as presentedessays, inter-locking of collections are books selected four these of All feminism. and gender on focused more were that ones the aside setting after chosen were books four These Justice. Determination and Responsibility for Justice; and Responsibility for War,Self Challenges: Global Democracy; and Inclusion Difference; a close reading of four of her seven books: Justice and the Politics of her structuralcollectiveof and theory justice responsibilityon based is on section This cancer. throat against struggle of year a than Zealand. In 2006, Young died at her home at the age New of 57, and afterGermany moreAfrica, South Australia, Austria, to travel to her requiredprofessorships visiting and fellowships Her Swedish. and As an attestation to her international reputation, some of her h scn catr ette “ie ae o Oppression,” of Faces “Five entitled chapter, second The is 1990 of Difference of Politics the and Justice book The 186 5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM 187 The book Inclusion and Democracy of 2000 is composed of The sixth chapter, entitled “Social Movements and the Politics Politics the and Movements “Social entitled chapter, sixth The in decision-making; the structural, as well nature as society; civil in and institutions of formal through political representation both communicative, and jurisdictional impediments to political that her findings for the society and the city should also be projected projected be also should city the and society the for findings her that community. the global to chapters and seven addresses such themes as: “the and differences conflicts that generate problems for which authoritative decision- making seeks solutions; the meaning and role of public discussion Life and Difference,” Life resists and the Difference,” homogenizing force of the city and proffers that instead of unity the city should be more sensitive to heterogeneity. Young presents her four virtues of her envisioned city life: social differentiation eroticism, without exclusion, variety, and The publicity. epilogue, entitled “International yearns Justice,” Merit,” Merit,” supports affirmative action and critiques the assumptions of meritocracy that is supposedly undermined by a given society’s action sees not affirmative as a action. option Young for affirmative enabling an as but injustices past the for mechanism compensatory system to overcome oppression. The eighth entitled chapter, “City ableism on the other hand. ableism on the of Difference,” presents a pathway towards liberation and equality social that is founded on the affirmation instead of of group differences on the unrealistic The seventh insistence chapter, entitled Action “Affirmative and on the Myth of social homogeneity. root of unjust policies and practices. The fifth chapter, entitled “The entitled chapter, fifth The practices. and policies unjust of root Scaling of Bodies and the Politics of uses Identity,” Julia (born: 1941) notion Kristeva of abject to analyze the connection between a given society’s criteria on the beautiful, the the ugly, clean and the and ageism homophobia, sexism, racism, its and hand, one on filthy opening it to the public sphere to be threshed out more thoroughly. thoroughly. out more be threshed to the public opening sphere it to entitled “The Ideal The of fourth Impartiality chapter, and the Civic Public,” delves into the ideal of tendency impartiality to see to society uncover as that composed of its homogenous individuals instead of groups with different needs and conditions could be the such such forms of oppressions. The entitled third chapter, “Insurgency and the critiques Capitalist Welfare the Society,” welfare state that represses the political discussions of such discussions to the jurisdiction of the policy experts instead its of policies by relegating inside.indd 187 inside.indd 188 Demiterio III ... wa ae h nrs n cniin o icuie democratic inclusive of and conditions inequality structural of and question circumstances under communication norms the the with are grapples “what Justice,” chapter, and first “Democracy The 4). entitled 2000, (Young outcomes” fair and equality constituent cities, to deliberative democracies, as this would exclude the of the insistence of politically delineating the metropolis into its Youngas wellsegregations, as class racial and effectsof the studies (Young6). scope?” 2000, that restricting by enactedexclusions are entitled question “what chapter, is the proper scope of the democratic sixth polity, the Democracy,” addressesand how Regional and The Segregation “Residential model. democratic reigning the representative within government democracy inclusive some and participative and more sphere a of achievement public the for avenues and the mechanisms as institutions society, civil the potentials of the explored specifically more and chapter preceding the bytoresponded Limits,” question Its same and the toresponds Society “Civil chapter,entitled fifth democracy.representativeThe active and inclusive participation can be achieved in the modern day chapter,this In Young wayswhichand in mechanisms exploredthe democracy.deep or participative a be never could and democracy thin alwaysbe would representative democracy that idea the with societies with millions of people?” (Young 2000, 6). Young inclusive disagrees for theorized should be decision-making and “how communication democratic question the with engages Perspective,” the marginalization oftheinterests ofthelesspowerful groups. toresult would this oftentimes as good, common alwaysthe aim at preceding two the by with dealt chapters and critiques the question ideal that political communication same should the with Resource,”deals Political a as Difference “Social entitled chapter, third of The narrative. and forms rhetoric, acknowledgement, public communicative or greeting the here examines argumentation. Young dispassionate Specifically, and by orderly overshadowed of form otherwise idealized the are of that forms some communication into lookspolitical and chapter question preceding the same by tackled the tackles Communication,” Political “Inclusive chapter,second entitled The flaws. and shortcomings its critiquing while justice attaining for mechanism a as democracydeliberative on hopes her places Young 6). 2000, (Young difference?” cultural h fut catr ette “ersnain n Social and “Representation entitled chapter, fourth The 188 5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM 189 The book Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and and justification as its “Envisioning framework. a Global Rule of still Law,” on The war and violence, fifth is a work collaborative with the chapter, Italian economic and political entitled theorist resolve the conflict between Palestine and Israel. The fourth chapter, chapter, fourth The Israel. and Palestine between conflict the resolve entitled “Power, Violence and Intervention,” Humanitarian Legitimacy: and Brutality Police of A Age an in Reading Arendt of Hannah works on the theme of war and violence, and analyzes UN the the without hidden Serbia, in NATO of intrusion the in involved injustice authorization, using the distinction made by Arendt on legitimacy model of federalism that puts emphasis on the among vertical relations the self-determining entities and the central government, and her preferred model of federalism that puts emphasis on the horizontal relations among self-determining entities. She suggests that this preferred model of federalism could be a viable model to among nations and states at the global context. The third chapter, entitled “Self-Determination as Non-Domination: Ideals Applied to still on Palestine/Israel,” the theme of self-determination, explores further the concept of self-determination based on the idea of non- a makes distinction between the domination. more common Young and states. The second chapter, entitled still Determination,” on “Two the theme of self-determination, compares Concepts of Self- the on based is that self-determination of concept the contrasts and idea of non-interference, and self-determination that is based on that proffers self-determination the idea of non-domination. Young interaction federal a for model viable a is non-domination on based Federalism and the Postcolonial Project,” proceeds on the and theme the Project,” of Federalism Postcolonial self-determination and studies the historical confederation of the six Iroquois nations, namely Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora, in order to glean some lessons on how to conceptualize modern day models for the interaction of nations democracy should also be instituted in the international setting. international in the be instituted should also democracy and of 2007 is composed of nine Justice chapters for Responsibility and violence, and war self-determination, as: themes such addresses Iroquois Democracy: “Hybrid entitled chapter, first The justice. global individuals individuals and groups within a given polity. The seventh chapter, grapples entitled with “Self-Determination and Global Democracy,” the same question grappled by the preceding chapter and argues that in the age of globalization and interdependency deliberative inside.indd 189 inside.indd 190 Demiterio III ... ln f cin ht s ae o te ue f a ad international and law of rule the on based is that action of plan September 2001 terror attacks, and instead lay down an alternative response of the United States of America in Afghanistan after the 11 military the critique authors The 1958). (born: Archibugi Daniele to alleviate theconditionsandcircumstances insuchsweatshops. their world duty their first and sweatshops these of the perpetration the in of complicity people the to demonstrates social connection of idea Young’s circumstances. and conditions sub-human world setting are often manufactured in the poorer countries under first the in consumed and marketed are that items clothing system,where sweatshop global the in involved injustice structural the uncoversjustice, global of theme the Justice,”on Labor runs Global and Connection, “Responsibility,Social chapter, entitled ninth The transnational issues and concerns are being discussed and planned. whenever themselves representeffectively can states and races, nations different from people where order democratic global a up putting of vision its with contrasts to order in dictator global a as reflects on the war in Iraq and represents President George W. Bush angrily violence, and war of theme the Democracy,”on Global still and Hegemony on “Reflections chapter,entitled and eighth The nations states. between interaction of norm a as context global the in adapted easily more be could de- democracy deliberative a centered that thinks Young time. and space across scattered be may that fora of multiplicity involvea could but dialogue face to face a on based merely not is democracy deliberative that proposes and sphere public the of notion Habermas’ on builds violence, and war “De-Centering the Project of Global Democracy,” still on the theme of toexpress autonomysevenththeir rights.The and chapter, entitled allowed be also should war at government a of citizens the rights, and autonomy their on insist to want would children these and women as just that argues Young obedience. total their them from exacts and children and women his protects that patriarch a dissent, and of threats internal and violence of threats external from on a governmentwar,at overthat aggressivelybetween both citizens protectsits still parallelism a State,”presents violence, and Security war of theme Current the the on Reflections Protection: of terrorism. problem the to address term long effective an as co-operation h sxh hpe, nild Te oi o Masculinist of Logic “The entitled chapter, sixth The 190 5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM 191 The book Responsibility for Justice of 2011, with a foreword foreword a with 2011, of Justice for Responsibility book The life of Sandy and the poverty and inequalities in the United States of States United the in inequalities and poverty the and Sandy of life shared our of realize all us make to context global the unto America, in exist that inequalities structural the with grapple to responsibility citizen can still be responsible in working towards the Connection elimination Social “A entitled chapter, fourth The injustice. an such of Model,” returns to the story of Sandy and examines her fifth The situation responsibility. and guilt on distinction Arendtian the using social the projects Borders,” across “Responsibility entitled chapter, the of context domestic the in discussed she that model, connection to to effect such poverty. The third Responsibility: a chapter, Reading entitled and Partial Critique “Guilt of Hannah versus Arendt,” looks at the distinction made by Arendt on guilt and responsibility pinpointed be cannot citizen a if even that idea the forward puts and as guilty of instituting or perpetrating a structural injustice, such a life life a woman named a Sandy, single parent who could not find an affordable and appropriate housing for herself and her Young children, illustrates that in some cases we could not the exact causes even of as individual pinpoint poverty, the aspects of a complex system may only be just contributing one tiny circumstance each situation wherein citizens responsibilities to acknowledge rectify such their structural entitled injustices. “Structure as the chapter, demonstrates Subject of Justice,” share The second political an using addressed and analyzed sufficiently be cannot poverty that interpretive frame that only emphasizes individual responsibility and not structural injustices and inequalities. By talking about the Lawrence Lawrence Mead (born: 1943) that their poverty. tend Young argues that to by doing blame so, these two the theorists swayed poor our attention for from looking at the injustices embedded in the social proposes structure. that Young the analysis of structural proactive a in but game blame useless a in up end not need injustice world, world, how people conceptualize structural poverty, injustice, and the distinction between guilt and responsibility. The first chapter, entitled “From Personal to Political Responsibility,” critiques the thoughts of the American (born: and 1943) welfare and American scholar on Murray poverty libertarian political theorist Charles by the American philosopher is Martha composed Nussbaum of (born: seven 1947), chapters economic and inequalities in addresses the United such States of themes America and as: in the inside.indd 191 inside.indd 192 Demiterio III ... tutrl nutcs n ieulte. on mnin fu such four mentions Young inequalities. and injustices structural through which people brush aside their responsibility to act against practice and “Avoidingways different Responsibility,”the explores the interaction among nations and states. The sixth chapter, entitled primarily found intheessaythe Distributive “Displacing Paradigm” Critique oftheDistributive ModelofJustice and Inclusion andDemocracy.Difference, are of Politics ideas the and these Justice books of her in bulk contained The injustices. structural addressing proposed in her justice, of of headings model alternative the distributivestructural model of justice, and the under her envisioned strategies of discussed critique be her may justice structural of THEORY OFSTRUCTURAL JUSTICE are sub-themes and themes discussed inmore detailsinthefollowing sub-sections. These countries. other in justice of analysisthe to theories her of applicability the on views her 4) and of collective theory responsibility; Young’s3) her c) call for a 2) global discourse on justice; and evil; structural justice, addressing in of strategies model her structural alternative proposed her b) justice, of model distributive the of critique her a) into subdivided be may which justice, structural of theory Young’s 1) themes: key following the contain books four these concerned, is responsibility with thehistoric injusticesuffered by theblackAmericans. dealing in approach acceptable and effective more a proposes she responsibility,of model connection social own her offering by But responsibility. of model liability a on call his basing is Fanon that present and futural tasks of inventing his new identity. Young claims the on focus to colonized the for order in wrongs colonial past the of forgetting a for call surprising (1925-1961) FanonFrantz reads seventhchapter, Injustice,”Historic“Responsibility and entitled re- The attitude. job” my not is “that the and immediacy, of demands the heading connection, of denial reification, practices: and ways on’ ciiu o te itiuie oe o jsie is justice of model distributive the of critique Young’s theory Young’s paragraph, preceding the in mentioned As collective and justice structural of theory Young’s far as In 192 5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:56 PM 193 More More important than these empirical Young counter-proofs, But empirically speaking, social justice as distributive justice distributive as justice social speaking, empirically But delves delves into the philosophical problems distributive and model of implications justice of as the the sole model where she for finds two major social ones. The justice, first one of these is that the and some organizations of clerical workers arguing against their plight of spending the numbers and data 1990, emphasizes (Cf. 19-20). that Young Young entire working day these in issue the not simply is burdens encoding or goods of distribution the mindless America. justice in contemporary appeals for treatment treatment plant in the locality; a city in Ohio being outraged by a major employer’s sudden announcement of the closure of its plant critics Black some employment; of out city the of half almost pulling complaining about the unfair stereotyping of Black Americans in popular culture; a similar grievance from some Arab Americans; cannot thoroughly make sense out of some demands and clamour from some of the recent social movements in the United States of America. cites Young five examples: a rural town in Massachusetts rallying against a state decision to set up a hazardous waste scholar William Galston (born: 1946), the British political theorist David Miller (born: 1946), the American economist Edward (born: Nell 1935), the British philosopher Onora O’Neill (born: 1941), the American-Canadian philosopher Kai Nielsen (born: 1926), and the American philosopher Michael Walzer (born: 1935) (Cf. Young 1990, 16-18). respect” (Young 1990, respect” (Young 16). explains that Young this understanding of social justice can be found in the writings the of American philosopher such Rawls, thinkers the British as historical sociologist G. W. Runciman (born: 1934), the American constitutional scholar policy and governance American the 1943), (born: Ackerman Bruce model, social justice is defined as “the morally proper distribution of social benefits and burdens among society’s members,” where benefits and burdens are mainly understood as “wealth, income, and other material resources” but is nonmaterial entities often such as “rights, stretched and opportunity, power, self- to include from from the book Justice and the Politics of Difference. It starts with the claim that contemporary philosophical discourses on had narrowly justice focused on distributive justice at the expense of the this Under justice. of model such by covered be not may that themes inside.indd 193 inside.indd 194 Demiterio III ... with material things, Young claims, would prevent us from asking from us prevent would Youngclaims, things, preoccupation material with This 15). 1990, (Young jobs and positions, social the to justice social allocation of material of goods, like things, resources, discussion incomes, wealth, the limit to tend would model more structural and dynamic analysis of social justice that would that justice social of about analysis dynamic a and issues forstructural more proposes Young the why reason all main the tackle is to This justice. sufficient social not is justice of model distributive the that clear becomes it burdens, and goods material of amultitudeactionsandpractices” (Young 1990,26). and the broader structural possibilities produced by the confluence way other people treat one in the context of specific social relations, the resultand practicesof some“rules govern that the one’saction, is opportunity having not or having Instead, goods. of bundles or packages them handing as easily as opportunity less with those to distributable, this would active. mislead something us as to examined and think is opportunity example, can inter-relationalanother be as opportunity,given Once something as of more thought be effectively should power that Foucault with agrees 1990, Young Young (Cf. 30-33). inert something it make and it reify would this distributable, something as conceptualized is example, power,for goods and burdens would in the end distort their very nature. Once goods and burdens as something distributable just like the material (Cf. Young 1990, 16). Young argues that treating these non-material self-respect and opportunity, power, rights, as such burdens, and goods non-material include would that something to burdens and goods material involvingmainly from distribution of coverage the social for model sole the justice springs from as the efforts of some political theorists to stretch justice of model distributive the of goods andburdens. of distribution fair no wherethereis point starting its to back slide some groups over other groups, sooner or later the situation would favour to tendency the have contexts institutional and structures social its if but members, its among distributed fairly are burdens and time in trying to come up with the situation where the goods and of such material goods. A society may spend all its energy, resources and structures social distribution of patterncurrent the the cause contextsthat institutional are what of question radical more the Hence, whether social justice talks about material or non- or material about talks justice social whether Hence, negativeimplication and problem philosophical second The 194 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM 195 To To further sharpen her concept of the social group she Young’s structural and Young’s dynamic analysis of justice is at the sociologist/ethnographer/investigator based sociologist/ethnographer/investigator on a given attribute or set of attributes, the social individuals group is not with just a particular collection of attributes, because social groups and men, age groups, racial and ethnic groups, religious groups, 1990, 42-43). (Young and so on” contrasts it with the more common concepts of argues She philosophers. “aggregate” and theorists and social by used “association” the by created individuals of collection a is aggregate an while that forms, practices, or way of life. Members of a group have a specific have Members of of a life. group or way practices, forms, affinity with one another because of their similar experience or way of life, which prompts them to associate more than with with those not 1990, identified with the (Young group” one another 43). For her example of social groups, she enumerates: “women the social classes introduces of therefore, the Marx. “social Young, group” as her main analytic concept while admitting that this fully concept more develop to yet theory have and philosophy social (Young 1990, 43). She defines “social group” as: “a persons collective differentiated of from at least one other group by cultural from from the book Justice and the Politics of Personal to Difference; Political Responsibility” and “Structure and as the Subject “From of Justice” from the book Responsibility for Justice. As her theory is structural, it is but expected that post- her also is theory analysis her as but would individuals; than focus rather collectivities on Marxist, it is but expected that such collectivities should not be Alternative Structural Model of Justice Structural Alternative heart of her theories of Oppression” of Faces justice “Five and essays the in collective found primarily responsibility be can this and structures structures or practices, the rules and norms that guide them, and the language and symbols that mediate social interactions within the as well as society, civil and family, state, of institutions in them, 22). 1990, (Young workplace” complement complement the short her that known it makes comings already she point early this at But justice. of the distributive of justice analysis structural goes the beyond Marxist focus on the model of analysis of the modes of production, as this would include “any inside.indd 195 inside.indd 196 Demiterio III ... oil ru, t s dniiain ih cran oil tts the status, social certain a with identification is it group, social certain a to belonging as others or oneself classifying for condition necessary a are attributes objective sometimes “though explains: Young members. its of identities the of creation the to contribute (1905-1980) notion of the “practico-inert field” that is shaped by shaped is that field” “practico-inert the of notion (1905-1980) Sartre’s Paul Jean philosopher French the on based is constraint, objective as processes structure/social-structural social account, first The consequences. unintended as 4) and action, in produced something as 3) position, considering as 2) objectiveconstraint, as 1) generalillustratemeaning: ordertogiveits in just accounts four to opted context/space/she definition, clear a concept such this giving of Instead of field. dynamism the emphasize to processes” she calls the “social structure,” and sometimes the “social-structural analysis, this main subject is set on a context, or space, or field, that or thevictim,thanperpetrator ofstructural injustices. recipient, the often more is group main social the because responsibility the is group social analytic The concept in Young’s 43). theory of structural 1990, justice and collective Young (Cf. collectivity and reference; another defining/identifying of act of collectivity’s one throughthird, points similar other and gender, or culture, or through second, collectivity; some social processes that differentiates people based on economy, another relation self- collectivity’s in a differentiation through first, ways: three in emerge groups such into (1889-1976), groups where their identities are shaped. Young Heidegger believes that social the Martin of sense philosopher the in German thrown, be may individuals that and groups social already are there that assumptions the on she based that is proffers model group social The collectivity. a of part become to the assumption that there are individuals first on and that they based happen are collectivity of models association the and aggregate the both that Youngout (Youngunion”44). points or 1990, college party,church, political corporation, “club, a to different no it make would that bylaws and group constitution organizational a some on such based with up the come to by members its constituted of not agreement formal is group social the aspirations, common argues She with individuals of collection 44). a is association an 1990, while that (Youngfurther group” a as group the define that self-identification and produces, status social that history common If the social group is the main subject of Young’sstructural of subject main the is group social the If 196 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM 197 The third account, social structure/social-structural often uncoordinated with others. often uncoordinated many The combination of actions affects the conditions of the outcomes actions not intended by of any of the participating others, agents” (Young often producing processes processes as unintended consequences, is based on Sartre’s notion the of situation “counter-finality,” in which people are scampering to pursue their various ends that adds into a cumulative situation that works against their desired ends (Cf. of the outcomes to accumulated . clarifies: . “Social refers structure. Young 2011, 63). She projects, own their enacting individuals of masses the of actions the individuals individuals act, they are doing two things and (2) they intend, that they of affairs bring about a state trying to at once: (1) They of are relations positional the properties, structural the reproducing are rules and resources, on which they draw for these actions” (Young 2011, 60). The fourth account, social structure/social-structural initial positions in such context/space/field. initial positions in such context/space/field. processes as something produced in action, is based on the British sociologist Anthony Giddens’ (born: 1938) theory of structuration and Bourdieu’s concept of “habitus.” Young explains: “when group or individual in given context/space/field that would later on later would that context/space/field given in individual or group determine the range and possibilities of its action and interaction with the other social groups or individuals. This account is already alluded to in the first account in the sense a given context/space/ field channels their of differences and the on based is differences these and differently, constraints social groups and individuals of different social positions,” as well as on field the the of thought (1930-2002) French Bourdieu’s Pierre sociologist philosopher and as a context of different social positions (Quoted by Young 2011, 57; Cf. Young 2011, 57). In this account,structural processes social refer to structure/social- the initial standing of a given social investment decisions, cultural preferences, and racial hegemonies of hegemonies racial and preferences, cultural decisions, investment the 2011, mid-twentieth century” 54). The (Young second account, position, considering as processes structure/social-structural social is based on the Austrian-American sociologist Peter Blau’s (1918- 2002) idea of the social structure as “as a multi-dimensional space past past actions and affects the present by channeling and some blocking actions others. Young clarifies: “Many of the about physical most facts metropolitan regions policies, of social of combination a the of products structured are United example, States today, for inside.indd 197 inside.indd 198 Demiterio III ... oppression in a social structure or social structural processes that processes structural social or structure social a in oppression injustice are founded on the presence or absence of domination and 2011, 62-63). of structural injustice according to Youngtoaccording structuralinjustice the of in conceptualized are conceptualized with reference to work, the four other manifestations non- the (Young 1990,57). self” of of sense and powerlessness status, authority, the “lack the the as professionals defines She powerlessness. of and the non-professionals, with the latter being the specific victims she framework post-Marxist professionals the of groups social her the between distinction a makes With work. to reference with and like exploitation and marginalization this is still conceptualized PowerlessnessYoung’sis third manifestation structuralof injustice disabled. mentallyphysically and the and mothers, single aged, the as such circumstances, other some by but marked be Asians; also could Africans, they North Europeans, Eastern Indians, Blacks, the as such marked, racially often are people marginalized These 53). Young1990, (Cf. workers of pool the from groups social some of exclusion systemic the to pertains it and injustice structural of manifestation second Young’s is Marginalization colored. the and workersthe womenthe ownersand capital, whites of the men, and be (Cf. could hereinvolved groups group social binary privilegedThe 49). Young1990, the from wages the with group oppressed dominated/ the of power/energy of exchange un-symmetrical and systemic the as conceptualized is framework post-Marxist her in which exploitation, is her injustice structural in of manifestations First of manifestation. list more one as exclusion political adds she Justice, for Responsibility and Democracy and Inclusion book furthermore,manyin essays,other her of especially the in ones the administration of society as another manifestation of such injustice; over- the adds she Society” WelfareCapitalist the essay and “Insurgency her in but manifestations; such five only suggests, title the structural of manifestations primary as mentions, Oppression,”she of Faces “Five her essay the In injustice. at look a take first to more examining before But beneficial more be would it this, exactlyby she means whatclosely possibilities. its of attainment and givengroup’sa social hinder exercise or capacities may assist its of t h bto ln, on’ dfntos f utc and justice of definitions Young’s line, bottom the At f xliain mriaiain n pwreses are powerlessness and marginalization exploitation, If 198 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM 199 After After grasping Young’s notions of the social group, and of wider social and political sphere. wider social and political sphere. the social structure/social-structural processes, as well as her manifestation manifestation of structural injustice, is about political some social groups’ exclusion, lack of opportunity which to participate in the creation of policies and laws that would affect their lives and communities. As such this manifestation of injustice from powerlessness which tied Young only is to the context of different work. Political exclusion for her is an injustice that occurs in the much lifeworld lifeworld that stifles the individuals’ spontaneity and freedom. She asserts: the “increasingly activities of work and everyday life come under rationalized bureaucratic control, subjecting people to the discipline of authorities and experts in many areas of life” (Young seventh Young’s is essays a number of through Scattered 76). 1990, and other Spanish-speaking Americans must fear such “Insurgency violence as essay the mentioned, already As 61). 1990, (Young well” over-administration the presents Society” Capitalist Welfare the and of sixth society manifestation as of Young’s structural injustice and it alludes to Habermas’ idea of the system’s colonization of the Violence is Young’s fifth manifestation of structural members on inflicted harm injustice emotional and physical and the to refers this of members are they that reason sheer the for groups social some of Blacks, women, society American “In elaborates: Young groups. such Asians, Arabs, gay men, and Chicanos, Ricans, Puerto Jews, lesbians regions some least at in and live violence, under such threats of universalization of a universalization experience and dominant culture, and group’s its establishment as the norm” (Young 1990, 59). cultural imperialism would The range from effects the invisibility of of the non- dominant social groups, to their construction as deviants. as marked being their to or Others, representations, stereotypical to their scholar on and race gender Elizabeth Spelman, in particularly their Theory, Feminist You: for Theory a Got We “Have essay collaborative Cultural Imperialism and the Demand Related to the Italian for philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s (1891-1937) the Woman’s Voice.” defines “cultural Young imperialism” as notion “the of “hegemony,” much much wider contexts of culture, day to day existence and politics. Cultural imperialism as fourth Young’s manifestation of structural injustice is based on a term that was first used by the Argentine- American feminist philosopher Maria Lugones, and the American inside.indd 199 inside.indd 200 Demiterio III ... injustice and by asking four crucial questions: 1) who is the victim the is who 1) questions: crucial four asking by structural and injustice by means she what understanding by do may we This we may now attempt to understand her theory of structural justice. injustices, structural of manifestations main the of enumerations policies. Its causes are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, norms, or unquestioned in choices embedded are people’s causes few Its policies. a of sense result this the than in rather “Oppression structural, is clarifies: She injustice. structural of perpetrator the is collectivity their in processes social-structural structure/ social the question: second the for answer same the be to out turns question third the for answer The theory. twist Young’s dramatic in the to us lead will this for injustice,” structural of significant as we address the third question, “who is the perpetrator neutralitynon- of the social structure/social-structuralThis processes is very place. first the in intentioned well be may that actions past of effect cumulative negative as described are they account, that action sooner would determine in other succeeding actions; producedand in the fourth something as pictured are they thirdaccount, the in positions; initial unequal as and and portrayeddifferent of are totality actions the they account, some second her facilitates in that others; constrains something as presented are In her first account, the social structure/social-structural processes stage. empty an to similar or neutral something not are processes structure/social-structural social such that point a it made Young context/ the space/field where structural injustice occurs. It was as noticeable how serve that processes structure/social-structural in different respects” (Young 1990,42). person same the for oppression and of privilege entail can multiplicity that ways a in lives individual across cut differences “group special a in group way, he/she will particular also be victimized in a special way. a Young explains: to belongs individual an because Furthermore,group. particular a to belongs he/she that reason the for victimized is he/she injustices, structural by victimized is who individual an undeniably is it line bottom the at Although injustice. structural of victim the as stands group social the answered: been such moral wrongto and related of to specific injustice injustice? structural perpetrator The is first howquestion the had 4) already and is injustice?; structural who 3) such occurs?; where context injustice the structural is what 2) injustice?; structural such of The second question had also been settled already: the social 200 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM 201 Young’s philosophy reflects her Young’s life as a political activist. As The fourth question can help us in further sharpening our from the book Justice and the Politics of Difference; and “Democracy “Democracy and Difference; of Politics the and Justice book the from and and Justice,” “Representation and Social from Perspective” the her main strategies In these essays, book Inclusion and Democracy. for for viable and doable ways and systemic wrongs that she had means just exposed. Her main strategies on in how to the in found substantially be can injustices structural to address responding the “The Scaling Capitalist Society,” and “Insurgency the Welfare essays of Bodies Merit” and of the Myth Politics the and of “Social Action Identity,” Movements and “Affirmative the and Difference,” of Politics soon as justice, analyze she or how proposes to how structurally to situations of injustice, she just would pinpoint particular structural not pause on her armchair and let the other political theorists and policy makers think of looking in suitable animated more even is she that appear would it solutions contrary, and remedies. On the rectified. rectified. Injustices Structural in Addressing Strategies of such actions or policies. Young, of course, possibility that structural does injustice may occur simultaneously with not close the an immoral action or with another wrong founded questionable on action a or specific policy. But because structural injustice systemic, it will recur even if is attendant individual immoral actions are punished or questionable specific actions or policies are (Young 2011, 45). (Young Structural injustice is different from an immoral agent specific pinpoint not could injustice structural because action, or agents perpetrating such action. Structural injustice is different from a wrong emanating from a specific action or policies of states network a of effect an is injustice structural because institutions, or understanding understanding of Young’s structural injustice. Young writes: “the wrong is structural injustice, which is distinct from other at forms least of two harm or wrong, namely, that the attributable to is which that and interaction, individual through which comes about institutions” powerful other or states of policies and actions specific and symbols, in the assumptions institutional underlying rules and the consequences collective of following those 1990, rules” (Young 41). inside.indd 201 inside.indd 202 Demiterio III ... difference, 4) a call of to re-politicize politics the the depoliticized aspects on of policy emphasis an 3) action, affirmative for support a 2) discrimination, of root the of psychologicalexplanation a 1) are: lv ad be oid Te oiat ujc fas n despises and fears subject dominant The bodied. able youthful/ and alive heterosexual, strong, pure, something as self- construction of project subject’s dominant abjects disrupting of are capable disabled are that the and aged, the homosexual, the color, the of woman, man the appropriation, Young’s In 142-145). 1990, Young(Cf. Kristeva from abject of notion the borrows security she system, basic the of level the subjectivity, of level deepest the at basic security system. and To consciousness explain practicalfurther the persistence the of discrimination of levels the at necessarily checked effectively not but havediscursiveconsciousness, the of level the at discrimination might discrimination against laws the of integrity that is Young’spoint ontological 131). Young1990, (Cf. situated the is subject the where system, security basic but the consciousness of level the of at or fringes subject; the the by monitored reflexively at nevertheless are activities, routine and habitual as they, where consciousness, practical of level the at or verbalized; be can and are theywhere discursive consciousness, of structures. level the social at occur may interaction and action and that thought latter Giddens relations the social with that grappling subjectivity in of utilized theory the three-levelled changed Giddens of these use makes she discrimination insight this explaining In discrimination. eradicating of modes of discrimination, She instead on impact phenomena. an but had such indeed prohibit laws these that that thinks laws modern persisted the phenomena the despite why question the with starts and abilities age preference, sexual gender, race, against discriminations details inthefollowing paragraphs. more in discussed be shall fivestrategies These exclusion. political injustice, namely and respectively: colonization of the lifeworld and strategies fifth and fourthdirectly answer her sixth and seventh main manifestations of social the cultural While violence. powerlessness, and imperialism, marginalization, exploitation, injustice, social of namely: manifestations main five her answer directly strategies three first The democracy.deliberative for faith lifeworld,5) and the of aspects colonized the decolonize to and making on’ pyhlgcl xlnto o te ot of roots the of explanation psychological Young’s 202 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM 203 Young’s Young’s support for affirmative action is presented as a the paradigm of social justice as distributive justice. Under institutions the such paradigm, and state, the private local governments, are indeed pressured to equally distribute opportunities and jobs affirmative affirmative action is largely conceptualized as a system of redress to some past injustices suffered by some social groups (Cf. Young 1990, 194). This creates a big question because the beneficiaries of affirmative action are supposedly no suffered injustices longer in the the past. same Second, that she the individuals indicates objections against who affirmative action were framed under intention intention of counter-acting the discrimination suffered other against discrimination of forms new to resulted groups social by some unpacking by this reasoning counter-critiques Young social groups. three problematic assumptions of the and current practice debates surrounding affirmative action. First, she points out that currently that such practice as embodied in policies that prioritize and give advantage to the underprivileged groups and in the underrepresented spheres of employment, social education and business, is contrary to the basic principles of non-discrimination action’s affirmative that (Cf. out points simply critique This 192). 1990, Young of consciousness raising among themselves, and of consciousness raising among the dominant social groups (Cf. Young 1990, 150- 154). response to the theorists and policy makers who thought are the against on such hinged is action affirmative of critique Their practice. investigations on justice not only actions that flow from the level of on actions the justice that level not flow from only investigations discursive consciousness but also those that flow from the levels of practical consciousness and basic security system; and 2) for a cultural consisting revolution of the identity self affirmation disabled, of the the and aged, the homosexual, the woman, the color, of man that the man of color, the woman, the homosexual, the aged, and the the and aged, the homosexual, the woman, the color, of man the that as system security basic of level subject’s the to threats are disabled they can potentially unravel his/her ontological integrity. Young’s with comes discrimination of roots the of explanation psychological two calls: 1) for philosophy and political theory to include in their the abject, but at the same time fascinated by it. His/her fear and disdain come from the threat that the abject would become part of he/she that reality the from comes fascination his/her and him/her; needs the abject in affirming his/her It superiority. is in this sense inside.indd 203 inside.indd 204 Demiterio III ... to the assumption that merit, as the sole criteria of the distribution the of criteria sole the as merit, that assumption the to 192-193). Third, and related to the second, she invites our attention such as their being part of particular social groups (Cf. Young 1990, considerations, other any on not and merit on based individualsto h fmns mvmns ad h mr cret a ad lesbian Americans, and gay Native current more the the of and of movements, Power Power feminist Black the Red the the are Afro-Americans, movements the social these of Examples policies. certain of abolition or creation the and demanding rights specific for towards mobilization eventual and together coming their of foundation the it made and Otherness their affirmed had movements social of number a century 20th the of half second the during how recalls Young 164). 1990, (Youngdisadvantage” their perpetuate policies assimilationist reason that for and standards, however, tend to put them at a disadvantage in measuring up to these real differences between oppressed groups and the dominant norm, “the clarifies: She good. common the of conceptualization the even society,given a of norms values, directions, the define be to ones an would the groups in social groups dominant social the as subordinate condition the unfavourable put practice in would goals are, its society. egalitarian how homogenous matter no a assimilation, that achieve argues She aims to that and policy differences the assimilation, eradicate of to idea the of critique a with starts and affirmation, self for advocacy this of radicalization and that groups. Her emphasis on the politics of difference is a politicization revolution cultural for call social oppressed and dominated these a for affirmation involvesself with comes abilities and age gender,race,preference, sexualagainst discrimination of roots the dominant socialgroups. the of comparablethose toless moreor be would that playingfield a attain process the in and injustices, structural the counteract groups to social underrepresented and underprivileged the enable as this would construe affirmative action as a mechanism that would the debate under the paradigm of social justiceasstructural justice Young(Cf. male minded thereforeShe 193). 1990, proposes to shift eventually favourwould the white, heterosexual, that young, able-bodied, able- something as merit of criteria innocuous hitherto the unbiased and measure clear that a could have guaranteecan fairness. that Youngsomething is deconstructs jobs, and opportunities of As already mentioned, Young’sof explanationmentioned, already psychological As 204 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM 205 Young’s Young’s call to re-politicize the depoliticized aspects of existing public spheres, creating other public spheres, and bringing and public spheres, other creating public spheres, existing meant Young what are spheres public these to policies questionable by re-politicizing the depoliticized aspects of policy making and of the lifeworld by questioning specific policies and pushing back the welfare state’s rational encroachment. She writes: “they seek to loosen social life from the colonizing influence of welfare state and corporate bureaucracy, to forms and independent discussion” 1990, (Young 82). create To be more alternative specific, vigilance institutional against seemingly innocuous policies, cultivating this manifestation of structural injustice victimizes everyone practically but groups, social not subordinate the of members only the Young circumstances. and degrees varying in although society, the in recalled again how the social during movements the second half of the 20th century against the had depoliticized reacted colonization claim legitimacy for their plans and actions based on the grounds of grounds the on based actions and plans their for legitimacy claim by enacted policies active “most states: Young rationality. and science in government the capitalist welfare society are not laws, however, but regulations established by agency without department any heads, public often discussion” (Young 1990, 74). Furthermore, lifeworld lifeworld is her response to the mode of oppression brought about by the welfare state’s tendency to make more and more areas private of life subject to bureaucratic planning and this What injustice sinister of manifestation makes more structural administration. is that its policies were depoliticized, meaning the taken public away sphere from and given to the charge of experts who in turn be framed on a relational discourse, implying that the disadvantage disadvantage the that implying discourse, relational a on framed be of group a is social given due only structures to some unfavourable 1990, 157). (Cf. Young practices and cultural policy making and to decolonize the colonized aspects of the that the dominant social groups had imposed on them in the past. She makes it that clear, however, politics of difference should not be taken as an essentialist discourse, as this and would nature imply weaker that the to the due is group social given a of disadvantage constitution of its members. Instead, politics of difference should movements movements (Cf. Young 1990, 1959). Young’s politics of difference is about subordinate social groups’ political empowerment so that they will have their say in defining the directions, of values, a and given society, in norms contesting the myth of the common good inside.indd 205 inside.indd 206 Demiterio III ... o epltcz te eoiiie apcs f oiy aig and making policy of aspects depoliticized the re-politicize to call her in as well as difference of politics the on emphasis her in decolonizing thecolonizedaspectsoflifeworld. legislative halls and get connected to other public spheres, such as such spheres, public other to connected get and halls legislative the from decentered is it which once inclusive, democracybe still representativecan nevertheless with contented be should but democracy,direct of template Greek the to return longer no could democracies modern that realize should democracy deliberative that first proposes she critiques, these (Cf. Following 18). Youngorderliness2000, of myth norms the follow the 4) and by good; captivatedcommon the be of 3) communication; primary political the of as argument form the take 2) deliberation; face to face a alwaysis deliberation political that assume 1) to: tends model this currently practiced as in some contemporary model societies. She claims deliberativethat the critique to proceeds she democracy, of model aggregative the over model deliberative the are of superiority agrees collective the proposals supported by the best reasons” (Young which 2000, 23). After showing the determining by support, but numerical greatest have preferences what determining by not decision a Youngarriveat upon. “participants says:debated alternativealternativesand all aftercritiqued have discussed, been rational most the is which on members these of consensus the on based is it instead society,given a of members the of preferences rawthe on based deliberativenot of is democracy making decision tediousdeliberativeprocessand of more laborious democracy. The groups.social smaller areThese reasonsthe why Young prefers the the preferencesof the drown to betweentend would it and views, thoughts opposing of exchanges for room little very leaves it But pulse of the people through elections, referendums, polls and votes. (Young 2000, 19). It is an efficient model because it will society just feel the given a of members the of preferences” held strongly and widely most “the on founded is that process making decision the about all is democracy.aggregativedemocracyAggregative model, competing its with it contrasts first she is, democracydeliberative structural functioning deliberative democracy. In laying addressingdown her idea of what a in of context the effectivenessin fullest their find only can strategiesinjustice these But mentioned lifeworld. previously the of two aspects colonized the decolonize to Young’s faith for deliberative democracy is already implied already is democracy deliberative for faithYoung’s 206 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:57 PM 207 The liability model of responsibility aims to mobilize an So far, Young’s five strategies in addressing structural individual individual or group to do something compensatory or reparatory because they have been found to be guilty or liable fault or harm. for Courts function a this way and does certain Young not intend the individuals’ social roles and positions (Cf. Young 2011, The 104). first sense of responsibility serves as the foundation of what she calls the “liability model connection “social of the calls she what responsibility;” of foundation the while as serves the one second model of responsibility.” is found in the book Responsibility for Justice, particularly in the essays Social “A Connection Model,” and Responsibility.” “Avoiding Her theory stands on the crucial distinction between two senses of the word “responsibility”: responsibility as something originating from originating something as responsibility and fault, or guilt from a need for the other more privileged social groups social and groups all to other help them in the is her responsibility Her theory of collective their political struggle. various aspects and stages of way of enjoining all social groups in concerted efforts of working for justice. The bulk of Young’s theory of collective responsibility capacity groups’ subordinate the on dependent largely are injustice to organize and mobilize themselves and be able group to specific political assert goals. their But their subordinate status would severely limit their capacity to do so. Young realizes that there is communication communication should be expected to deviate norm of restrained and from controlled debates of the powerful and the the orderly of the society. members educated RESPONSIBILITY OF COLLECTIVE THEORY protest protest arts had and already Young the expressed her like. Thirdly, of the common and good her invitation the myth objections against to all social groups to present to the specific public goods. sphere their Fourthly, group- as political political of modes other the counter-arguments, communication and arguments the transcends “the streets, squares, church basements, and theatres of civil society” civil of theatres and basements, church squares, streets, “the 2000, (Young 168). aside Secondly, from the formal argument and counter-argument, political communication should also recognize other forms of expression such as speeches, graffiti, placards, inside.indd 207 inside.indd 208 Demiterio III ... hrcmn o ti mdl ol b is nblt t da wt a with deal to inability situation its in be which the would guilty model or the this liable of first agent cannot The shortcoming be injustice. satisfactorily structural of context the in inadequate model this finds certainly she responsibility.But of model this belittle to of their being victims. Freed from a possible animosity, the social the animosity, possible a from Freed while victims. being their posture, of thoughts defensive the with preoccupied a be not would assume groups subordinate a would groups dominant Thus, anyone. blaming in interested not is it unnecessary because game the blame trigger not would model This structures. social moreis it because interested agents, defectsthe the at in looking at liable and guilty most the are who or liable, and guilty the are who pinpointing about bother not does model this Hence, 105). 2011, bear their actions by to the individuals processes contribute that produce they unjust outcomes” (Young that because injustice structural says for responsibility responsibility of model connection social “the writes: She injustice. structural concerning matters in responsibility of model connection social the use to proposal her backward lookingthathintsitslackofdynamism. and reactionary being its is model this of shortcoming fourth The justice. for work to responsibility the having from them exempting therebygroup, and individuals liable less and guilty seeminglyless The third shortcoming resentment. of this model destructive is its predisposition spiritually to exculpate with victims the consumed the be be tocould supposed were who ones the while defensive, become would liable and guilty being of accused arewho ones The justice. for working from it prevent and society the paralyze just mayline bottom the at whichgame, blame processof the trigger to tendency its is model this of shortcoming second The 100). 2011, traced directly to any particular contributors to the process” (Young structural processes that their potentially harmful effects cannot be to according normally acting accepted rules and practices, people and it is in the nature of of such numbers large by reproduced and apply to issues of structural injustice is that structures are produced Young argues: “the primary reason that the liability model does not not guarantee that such structural injustices would no longer recur. would liable most the and guilty most the be to appear who agents specific sanctioning and fault at are that structures social the is it injustice structural of cases many in that reason the for pinpointed Young’s theory of collective responsibility is constituted by constituted is responsibility collective of Young’stheory 208 5/13/2014 4:13:58 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:58 PM 209 Young’s discourse Young’s on global justice is an implication of her Young notes Young four common reasons used by individuals and social connection model of responsibility. The practice of international international of practice The responsibility. of model connection social relations, whether in the of area analysis structural the to subject are of that structures create would economics, politics or culture, Young 2011, 166). Young ON JUSTICE DISCOURSE A GLOBAL CALL FOR the on as well as justice at looking of way structural the on insistence rationalize rationalize that we cannot address structural injustice because our time and attention are consumed by the more immediate demands of relationships and everyday lives (Cf. fourth of these is to accept that something Young must be done about the 2011, 161). The structure but assert that changing the structure is not our task (Cf. way way and that there is nothing we can do about it except just deal with it (Cf. Young 2011, 154). The second of these is reality to deny of the interconnectedness and accept responsibility those faults and harms only that can be directly for traced to us (Cf. Young to but interconnectedness accept to is these of third The 158). 2011, the task of addressing structural injustice does to not specially groups, social belong all to but to alone, groups social the subordinate society. given in any the dominant social groups social groups to turn from away The their collective responsibility. first of these is reification or the reasoning that society works that under the social connection model is proactive and forward looking forward and proactive is model connection social the under injustice, structural given a of recurrence the stop to aims it because and it is dynamic because it enjoins society all to work hand in the hand in rectifying the problematic members aspects of a given of their social structures. Hence, Young was able to establish that part of a society with defective social structures. Young explains: injustices, finding that structural some people are are there “where guilty of perpetrating specific wrongful actions does not others absolve whose actions contribute to Responsibility 106). 2011, (Young way” different a in responsibility the outcomes from bearing groups can more easily cooperate in working to rectify problematic problematic rectify to working in cooperate easily more can groups social structures. Instead of conceptualizing responsibility as individualistic the and social sectoral duty, connection an model casts being individuals’ each of virtue by duty collective a as responsibility inside.indd 209 inside.indd 210 Demiterio III ... end at political borders; hence the call for responsibility certainly responsibility for call the hence borders; political at end not obviouslydo connections Furthermore, social not. or countries they result in the oppression and domination of peoples from other whether they are just or unjust, or in the language of Young, whether proposes to replace this with non-domination. She explains: “in so “in explains: She non-domination. with this replace to proposes on Youngself-determination, for insisting concept key the of as non-interference instead Thus, injustices. supported have already interconnectionsexistingmight these justice, on discourse global a arepolitically, economically culturallyand interconnected. Without practiceactuallyin not that is sense realisticstatesthe a in concept operationallyNon-interferencejustice feasible. on discourse global self- a for of call her idea make to order this in non-interference as deconstruct (Youngdetermination to outsiders” has therefore, to She, respect 257). with 2000, obligations inherent no has entity self-determining each that entails concept this jurisdiction, interferencea of in rightsby outsiders denies it as elaborates: “just Youngnon-interference. of concept the on founded is which states of self-determination of idea entrenchedmore the contradictoryto mediate thevarious states’ claimto justice. own its to organization suitable effectiveand more tweak a become to structures can Organization Nations United the how on and body governing global a for need the on proposals practical more her by followed is which interconnectedness, structural for room the meaning of self-determination of states to give more conceptual of reconstruction her of consists discourse such for call her justice, justice is already very compelling under Young’s structural theory of Inclusion and Democracy. As the necessity for a discourse on global book the in Democracy” Global and “Self-Determination essay the in developed fully already she that thoughts the a of applications and elaborations actually are essays component its but Justice, for book Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility the in found is justice on discourse global a Young’sfor of call bulk take The opportunities. and goods of fairowncaredistributions their of borders our beyond peoples the let model, say latter easily the can everyone In justice. of model distributive the in are they than justice of structuralmodel contextof the aremorepressingin should also not end at such borders. The concerns for global justice A global discourse on justice would immediately appear to be 210 5/13/2014 4:13:58 PM Iris Marion’s Young... 5/13/2014 4:13:58 PM 211 Whereas Whereas Young is convinced that the broad points of her Young’s Young’s faith on deliberative democracy to address structural theory of justice and used collective as a framework responsibility in putting up a can deliberative system of global be regimes. regimes. THE ANALYSIS TO THEORIES APPLICABILITY OF YOUNG’S COUNTRIES IN OTHER OF JUSTICE of the more powerful member states. In terms of infrastructure, this infrastructure, of terms In states. member powerful more the of hindered by organization its is lack severely of reliable and neutral military force, as well as its lack of funding. substantial Nonetheless, and the independent United Nations Organization can serve as the momentary global public sphere until the world realizes the urgency for the need set up more and effective efficient regulatory 267). Young thinks that 267). the presently Young United Nations Organization, although it is the most promising international body in its membership, comprehensive terms is not yet of prepared for the task of providing global public spheres. One of the most glaring problems wishes the to vulnerability its is Organization Nations United the of proposes proposes that there be at least seven such public spheres, she which calls “regulatory regimes” to take care of the following areas: “(1) peace and security, (2) environment, (3) trade (4) direct and investment finance, and capital utilization, (5) communications and transportation, (6) human rights, including labour standards and welfare rights, (7) citizenship and migration” (Young 2000, injustices that might have emerged from some given states’ practices practices states’ given some from emerged have might that injustices relations. on international questions and claims to justice necessitates the existence of global She settled. be may claims and questions such where spheres public that when they themselves affect a people, the latter can legitimately legitimately can latter the people, a affect themselves they when that claim that they should have their interests taken into so account far as in they may be adversely affected” 2000, (Young 259). The switch from whatever addressing non-interference discursively of possibility the to to determination non-domination opened self- far far as outsiders are affected by the activities people, of those others a have legitimate self-determining claim to their have interests and needs taken into account even though government they jurisdiction. are outside Conversely, outsiders the should recognize inside.indd 211 inside.indd 212 Demiterio III ... ht e tere wr dvlpd n h seii cnet f the of context specific the in developed were theories her that warningYoungDifference, her expressesof Politics the and Justice theories on other individual countries. In the “Epilogue” of the book justice, she is not certain about the appropriateness of imposing her Young, IrisMarion.R Young, IrisMarion. Young, IrisMarion. Young, IrisMarion. Struhl, Karsten. Scheuerman, William. Patchen, Markell. Injustice.” Mann, Bonnie. “Iris MarionYoung, 1949-2006.” conditions are different from thoseofherhomeland. where globe the of parts other the to brought are they as changes and modifications undergo will theories her that expects She 257). injustices in “the Southern studying or in Eastern frameworkHemispheres” analytic(Cf. Young as borrowed1990, be unreflectively be just not should and America of States United the of welfaresociety 2011. Princeton University Press, 1990. 2002. Responsibility for Justice. University Press, 2009.Pp.33-38. Dancing withIris:ThePhilosophy ofIrisMarionYoung. Oxford: Oxford Political Theory. Volume 34,Number6(December 2006).Pp.687-689. 2007). Pp.184-185. of theAmericanPhilosophicalAssociation.Volume 80,Number5(May Press, 2009.Pp. The Philosophy ofIrisMarionYoung. Oxford: Oxford University Date Published:02August 2006.Date Accessed: 29June2013. At: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060802.young.shtml. “Iris MarionYoung: Phenomenology andStructural Between “Letter to IrisYoung.” “Iris MarionYoung, 1949-2006.” InFerguson, Ann&NagelMechthild,Eds. DancingwithIris: Justice andthe Politics ofDifference. Inclusion andDemocracy. Global Challenges: War, Self Determination and esponsibility for Justiceesponsibility “InRemembrance: IrisMarionYoung (1949-2006).” 79-91. InTheUniversity ofChigaco News Office. REFERENCES Cambridge:Polity, 2007. In Ferguson, Ann&NagelMechthild,Eds. 212 . Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford: In Proceedings andAddresses

Oxford University Press, Princeton, NewJersey: In 5/13/2014 4:13:58 PM