Discussion Thread: Iris Young
For any discussion of Iris Youngs essays.Some suggested topics:
Does Young show any influence of Foucault's thinking about power?
Is her typology of oppression missing anything, or including some things that shouldn't be there?
Do you agree with her critique of the distributive paradigm?
Do the five faces of oppression give us a sufficient conceptual map of the real world of (unjust) power?
As always, your own questions and comments are welcome.
posted by djw @ 4:32 PM
18 Comments:
I believe that Young does show influence of Foucault's thinking about power. Foucault believes that power shapes and constrains us. Young's five dynamics is somewhat similar to this. For example, one of the five dynamics is exploitation and in class we discussed exploitation in terms of car companies where the men work as the executives and in the assembly line and women work as secretaries. This division of labor is exploitation because men are in positions that pay more money. This is similar to Foucault's idea of power because this division of labor is related to how power is shaped gender roles.
I would say i agree with the five faces of oppression..i think its interesting because some of those ideas of oppression i would never think about! I just think thats how things are and thats how thigns have always been! HOwver, its the system that sets up how things are and the system contributes to these dynamics of oppression. I loved her take on the dynamics of oppression and her social justic approach on power..
I like Young’s critique of the distributive paradigm for reasons similar to why I like Isaac’s critique of behavioralism. They both look to expand the scope of the discussion. Isaac thought that a realist approach was better than a behaviorlist approach because realism included looking at the nature of the issue being discussed, not just the results of experiments. I feel that Young is very similar to Isaac in that she feels it necessary to look deeper into the issue to find underlying things that lead to something being just or unjust, not simply look at the just or unjust results themselves. Going one step further is important and essential in these issues of justice. Realism and the non-distributive approach to justice are more enlightened in my opinion because they succeed is asking “why” one more time when others felt comfortable ending the debate prematurely.
i agree w/youngs critique of the distributive paradigm because i believe that the process is much more important and should be the focal point when analyzing power, and NOT the outcome. if you spend time thinking about the process or patterns of a specific result, than you would more likely end up altering the outcome [in a positive sense]; rather focus on the outcome in relation to power, there is a less chance of obtaining a reasonable result. For example, i mean "reasonable result" and "positive sense" to be the same--such as men and women receiving equal pay. In regards to income distribution, it should be analyzed "how" the income is being distributed, rather than "who" the income is being distributed to.
I beleive that Youngs critques of the five faces of dynamics are interesting. I feel that there is a relationship between Young and Issac,but I also think there is a relationship between Young and Foucaults because of there ideas of power are similar in the labor division area as well
Iris Young describes exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and systematic violence as five faces of oppression. her criteria allow us to see how the faces of oppression impact different groups differently. However she claims that her criteria are objective, but she doesn't say that they are value-free. she says "I have no illusions that such assessments can be value-neutral. But these criteria can nonetheless serve as a means of evaluating claims that a group is oppressed, or adjudicating disputes about whether a group is oppressed."
One thing which jumped out at me about the concept of freedom presented in class today, and in Pettit's "Freedom as Antipower," is the similarity to Young's concept of justice. This similarity begins with Young's statement that "social justice means the elimination of institutionalized domination and oppression." This is very similar to Pettit's claim that he sees liberty as "emancipation from the domination." These definitions are almost identical, which would seem to mean that justice and freedom are the same thing (if justice=lack of domination and freedom=lack of domination, then justice=freedom), but we seem to think of justice and freedom as different things. Is there anyway to get around this without dismissing one of the authors? We got a detailed definition of domination from Professor Watkins. Young didn't give a great definition of domination, but her references to participation: "For a norm to be just, everyone who follows it must in principle have an effective voice in its consideration and be able to agree to it without coercion (34)." This sounds a lot like the definition of domination given in class today. So, is domination the opposite of freedom, or justice, or both? Or are freedom and justice really just the same thing?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Young's useage of these five types of oppression are just more tools we can use to understand her view of power and how it shapes social interaction. Again I will stress, as the commentors above have, that Young clearly reflects the same "shaping and constraining" idea presented by Foucault. Overall I think that marginalization is one of her best dynamics because it seems to be overlooked not only by us, but also by many other theorists who tend to focus broadly on race, class and gender and tend to ignore issues that may seem smaller, but are clearly more structurally enforced.
Young is similar to Foucault in the way she focuses on social aspects of justice whereas other views of power focus only on the distribution of wealth and power. The societal image of minority groups in the media is an important aspect to consider. The power being used to shape the image of a race is of the same nature of creating discourses toward sexuality or other applications for discrimination.
I was particularly intrigued by Young's discussion of cultural imperalism. Young's argument that the oppressed (homosexuals, minorities, etc) are defined by the majority, and that they conform to and internalize the majority/white's stereotyped view of them is completely opposite of what should be happening. I didn't think of it as an aspect of oppression, but it's totally true. Everyday, minorities, whether it be racial or lifestyle choice, struggle to defind themselves outside of the mold that the majority has created for them.
I also agree with Iris Young's 5 faces of oppression. A society cannot be deemed "just" if everyone in that society has jobs, but a certain group always retains the best, highest, most influencial jobs over another group. This secondary group is thus at a disadvantage not in terms of quantitative divisions, but instead, along the lines of qualitative divisions.
I also agree that the scope is expanded by stepping back and looking at the social structures and institutions, instead of the simple form of justice of "who gets what and how much." This is similar to Isaac's arguement because they both take a look at the structures, and by doing so they analyze the power in a society not based on the relationships from A to B, but instead by analyzing relationships and institutions. They both take a step back and look at the macro, instead of the micro view.
I would argue that Iris Young's five faces of oppression are particularly ineffective. The reason for this is the signifigant overlap between her categories. She seeks to double and triple the factors involved in oppression, rather than keeping at the thread that courses through her dialogue. Oppression is defined by the will of groups and individuals to reduce people to their otherness, to segregate, and initiate various actions against them due to this otherness. She didn't need five faces, because all of the "faces" are merely aspects of one structure.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In response to greg's inquiry as to whether freedom and justice are really just the same thing, I believe that Young makes an important distinction in the final paragraph of her Distributive Paradigm article. Young defines injustice with two social conditions; domination and oppression. It is this inclusion of the idea of oppression that is the important distinction between Young and Pettit. While Pettit asserts that liberty (in this case taken to mean freedom) is attained with emancipation from domination, Young defines justice as both the emancipation from domination (allowing for self-determination) and the emancipation from oppression (allowing for self-development) I interpret this clarification to mean, loosely, that freedom is the presence of opportunity, and justice is the equality in which one is 'allowed' to pursue those opportunities.
I agree with Young's critique of the distributive paradigm. I think Young brings up a good point when explaining that it is not the distribution of goods that is important, but instead how the distribution of power leads to the distribution of goods. The non distributive factors, such as social arrangements that lead to things like a gendered division of labor, are an important aspect that Young covers in the critique. By looking at the cause instead of only the effects, Young's critique becomes important.
Young presented very organized ways of defining power by breaking down to five faces of oppression. But young could point out the other forms of oppressions such as oppression by the social means and personal charisma and charm as well. Those are the things I could think of other than 5 faces of power that Young laid out. We often see that in everyday life especially in informal context.
This may be out of the subject, but I was watching the film North Country. What I found to be interesting is how I can see Young's view on exploitation in the film. The main character, which Charlize Theron plays, is one of the few women who work in a mining company. This type of job is male dominant and is looked as no place for woman. However, she and the other women took the job because the pay was good. To get to the point, the society has been shaped to believe that mining is a job only for the men and is no place for women. In that case, it was difficult to press charges on sexual harassment on their male co-workers. I just thought I would share in how I saw the connection of the film to Young, and how Young was influenced by Foucault’s thinking of power.
Post a Comment
<< Home