Iris Marion Young Research Articles

Whither Difference, Whither Recognition? Iris Marion Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference Revisited

Whither Difference, Whither Recognition? Iris Marion Young’s <i>Justice and the Politics of Difference</i> Revisited

On the Limits of Liberalism: Teaching Iris Marion Young in Scotland

On the Limits of Liberalism: Teaching Iris Marion Young in Scotland

The Many Faces of Birthing Freedom

Abstract What would birth be like in a feminist world? In this essay, I explore this question, asking what feminist freedom means in relation to birthing. Engaging in an imaginative inquiry that is rooted in respect for plurality, I explore the multifaceted dimensions of what we, as feminists, are fighting for in relation to birth. Building on a diverse array of feminist theories and philosophies of freedom (including the work of Simone de Beauvoir, Drucilla Cornell, and Marilyn Frye) and inspired by the work of Iris Marion Young on the five faces of oppression, I outline five faces of birthing freedom, namely: (1) freedom from oppression, (2) freedom to labor, (3) freedom to be-in-relation, (4) freedom from violence, and (5) freedom to imagine. I argue that these faces are all necessary conditions for the realization of birthing freedom. At the same time, the five faces of birth freedom that I outline here are only provisional and are grounded in my specific standpoint. My approach recognizes plurality and is not meant to be exhaustive but rather hopes to spark imaginings, invite extensions and revisions, and initiate conversations.

Surveying adult support for child and youth voice on environmental governmental decision-making in Australia and New Zealand

The global movement of student strikes for climate action illustrates that many children and youth want to have a voice on governmental decisions on the environment. Yet in most nations, an electoral voice is not granted to those under the age of 18. From prior research, we see the main barrier for child and youth voice to parliament is adult attitudes towards children and youth. To find out who supports their voice on government decisions for the environment, we added such a question to the Australia and New Zealand iterations of the International Social Survey Program 2020 survey. The results indicated that the majority of surveyed adults support 11–14 year olds (Aus 62 %, NZ 59 %) and 15–18 year olds (Aus 79 %, NZ 80 %) having opportunities to influence government decisions on the environment. Analysis of responses to this question in relation to demographic survey data indicated variations in preferences for different age groups of children and youth, and that age, gender, education, concern for the environment, environment organisation membership and prior election political party preference of respondents were variables of significance for both nations. Recommendations for policy and practice to broaden support for child and youth voice to contribute to government decisions on the environment are suggested with application of Iris Marion Young’s propositions for more inclusive democracy.

Faces of Oppression: Future directions for Ergonomics and Human Factors

The growing interest in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) centred work in the field of Ergonomics and Human Factors (EHF) can greatly benefit from Iris Young’s Five Faces of Oppression theory, which details how well-intentioned systems can perpetuate harm in a number of ways. We call for a greater focus on systems of oppression in EHF research and practice along with increased collaboration with social sciences to tackle important societal issues. This article reviews the current state of research in the child welfare domain and provides examples for how cognitive engineering approaches can take inspiration from the social sciences to help create a more equitable future. These examples outline the potential mutualism between social sciences and EHF and the way this collaboration might dismantle various oppressive systems.

Unveiling the veil: an examination of gender oppression in Hosseini's A Thousand Splendid Suns

ABSTRACT The Taliban administration (1996–2001) undoubtedly inflicted unimaginable suffering on Afghan women, but the struggle for gender equality in Afghanistan has deep roots. In his novel, ‘A Thousand Splendid Suns’, Afghan-American author Khaled Hosseini vividly portrays the harrowing experiences of women before, during, and after the war. To scrutinise the oppression of Afghan women as depicted in the novel, this study draws upon Iris Marion Young's theory of oppression. Young contended that women in a society endure oppression when they confront exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence at the hands of men. This research unveils the physical, mental, and sexual abuse experienced by female characters, examining their inferior status through the lens of Young's ‘Five Faces of Oppression' and connecting it to the actual suffering of women in Afghanistan's male-dominated society. Therefore, it becomes unequivocally clear from this study that the female characters in Hosseini's narrative endure lives of oppression under the relentless dominion of patriarchy. The study further substantiates that Afghan women live lives marked by oppression, shedding light on their subjugation by patriarchal forces in Afghanistan's socio-cultural landscape.

Oppression Towards Main Female Characters in Rao’s Girls Burn Brighter

The perception of the women's inferiority in society has created significant issues in the form of oppression of women. Furthermore, literary works portrayed these issues to raise awareness because it has an important role as one of the means to address the issue of oppression against women. Shobha Rao's novel Girls Burn Brighter is a feminist literary work that highlights the oppression of women. This study aims to examine the oppression of main female characters as revealed in the novel through literary devices. This study used a sociological approach since the novel raise the social phenomena of female oppression which is examined through the perspective of feminist literary criticism. The researcher applies Iris Young's theory of oppression to explore the forms of oppression and Kimberly Crenshaw's theory of intersectionality to look out the factors of oppression experienced by main female characters. The results of this study found that the main female characters, namely Poornima and Savitha, experience oppression in the form of marginalization, exploitation, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Their experiences of oppression manifest in the form of marginalization of job opportunity, sexual and labor exploitation, powerlessness to speak up, cultural imperialism of the dowry system, and physical and sexual violence. These forms of oppression are influenced by intersecting factors such as gender, social class, political power, skin color, and dominant culture. Keywords: oppression, intersectionality, feminist literary criticism

Automated decision-making as domination

Machine learning ethics research is demonstrably skewed. Work that defines fairness as a matter of distribution or allocation and that proposes computationally tractable definitions of fairness has been overproduced and overpublished. This paper takes a sociological approach to explain how subtle processes of social-reproduction within the field of computer science partially explains this outcome. Arguing that allocative fairness is inherently limited as a definition of justice, I point to how researchers in this area can make broader use of the intellectual insights from political philosophy, philosophy of knowledge, and feminist and critical race theories. I argue that a definition of injustice not as allocative unfairness but as domination, drawing primarily from the argument of philosopher Iris Marion Young, would better explain observations of algorithmic harm that are widely acknowledged in this research community. This alternate definition expands the solution space for algorithmic justice to include other forms of consequential action beyond code fixes, such as legislation, participatory assessments, forms of user repurposing and resistance, and activism that leads to bans on certain uses of technology.

Preventing the Exploitation of Activists’ Care

Care exploitation is a pervasive yet undertheorized injustice that emerges in both our interpersonal and structural relationships. Among those that are particularly vulnerable to this injustice are activists, those invested in bringing about positive change precisely because of how deeply they care about a given cause. Care exploitation occurs when an individual with caring attitudes is called to aid in the flourishing of a subject (e.g., LGBTQ + rights, anti-racism, conservation) by another that presumes they will answer said call simply because they care. In this work I offer an account of what it takes to prevent care exploitation in the narrow context of activism. Drawing on the work of Iris Marion Young, I argue that we have a political responsibility to (at the very least) adopt a stance of solidarity with activists by virtue of our structural relationships with them. This demands two things of us: (i) being sensitive to activists’ well-being and (ii) supporting their capacity for self-authorship.

Forward‐Looking Responsibility and Political Corporate Social Responsibility

AbstractThis paper contributes to the literature on political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) by considering the forward‐looking, political responsibilities of corporations in relation to structural injustice, based on a critical engagement with Iris Marion Young's Social Connection Model (SCM) of responsibility. Although Young's SCM serves as a key reference point in the PCSR literature, engagement with her work tends to be superficial and lacks critical engagement. By offering a more developed engagement with Young's SCM, this paper addresses several themes that have been highlighted as being insufficiently developed in the PCSR literature. In particular, this paper considers (i) the grounds for corporate political responsibility in relation to structural injustice rather than globalization; (ii) the scope of corporate political responsibilities vis‐à‐vis other actors; and (iii) the role of power in relation to deliberative processes and in relation to scope.

Dispelling the Fantasy of Innocence: Complicity and the Cultivation of Transgression in Settler Colonial Contexts

Abstract This article critically engages with the Canadian framing of settler colonial/decolonial politics in terms of guilt and innocence. I argue that centring innocence, even as something to be snatched away from settlers, as with the theorization of settler moves to innocence, can corrupt the practice of moral responsibility. Furthermore, I argue that the desire for and expectation of innocence, in the face of structural injustices such as settler colonialism, are illusionary and that complicity is widespread. In contrast, I follow Iris Marion Young's focus on political responsibility, but I argue that public collective actions need not be as centred as she suggests. Given the nature of settler colonialism and of coloniality, I argue for the acknowledgment of the political significance of daily individual acts and for the cultivation of dispositions that disrupt unjust structures, such as a disposition to transgress.

Sexual Violence and Two Types of Moral Wrongs

AbstractAlthough the idea that sexual violence is a “structural” problem is not new, the lack of specification as to what that entails blocks effective responses to it. This paper illustrates the concept of sexual violence as structural in the sense of containing a type of moral wrong called “structural wrong” and discusses its practical implications. First, I introduce a distinction between two types of moral wrongs—interactional wrongs and structural wrongs—and I argue that the moral problem of sexual violence includes both types, each of which calls for a different set of moral responses. Second, drawing on Iris Marion Young's social connection model of responsibility, I argue that recognizing the structural-wrong element of sexual violence does not reduce individual perpetrators’ responsibility for it. Instead, it implies that a broader group of agents are required to join collective actions to reform the social structure. I conclude by evaluating some preventive programs against sexual violence through the lens of structural wrongs and providing directions to advance them.

The Root of Femininity: A Merleau-Pontian Approach to Iris Marion Young

The Root of Femininity: A Merleau-Pontian Approach to Iris Marion Young

Minding the Gap

Grounded in and influenced by the work of thinkers such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Frantz Fanon, Iris Marion Young, and Lewis Gordon, critical phenomenologists such as Lisa Guenther, Linda Martín Alcoff, George Yancy, and Sara Ahmed have recently provided accounts of whiteness through a phenomenological lens. In these analyses, whiteness is often figured as a "transcendental norm," a "background to experience," a "natural attitude," and a "sociogenic force," which remains invisible while structuring the world. In this article I suggest that such accounts ultimately collapse whiteness and the white subject, imagining the latter simply as an embodiment of the former. Consequently, these approaches to whiteness lack explanatory power. I argue that a critical phenomenological account of whiteness must examine more closely the relationship between white subjects and whiteness, and specifically point to the tensions, gaps, and contradictions between them, as these are not accidental but central to the very constitution of whiteness and to the power it wields over its subjects.

아이리스 영의 정치적 책임에서 주체의 문제: 사회구조적 부정의에의 참여는 책임의 필요충분조건인가?

아이리스 영의 정치적 책임에서 주체의 문제: 사회구조적 부정의에의 참여는 책임의 필요충분조건인가?

Global injustice and the production of ontological insecurity

This article argues that a renewed focus on how dominant international practices produce ontological insecurity can help better orient ontological security studies (OSS) to injustice in world politics, particularly as it affects structurally marginalized political actors at multiple levels. It makes this case by bringing the work of Iris Marion Young to bear on OSS, particularly her theory of justice as the elimination of domination and oppression. Drawing on Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression,” this paper argues that multiple injustices endemic to the international system should be understood as key producers of ontological insecurity in the international system, both in their direct ability to destabilize identities and in their undermining of disadvantaged actors’ ontological security-seeking practices. On international scales, these processes transcend levels of analysis, affecting individuals, social groups, and even states in differing ways. Incorporating Young’s work into OSS not only helps build a vital bridge between the oft estranged sub-disciplines of political theory and IR, but also can provide scholars a means of better theorizing how ontological insecurity is so often a product of the international system’s injustices. The paper thus concludes by proposing a normative turn within OSS, asking whether global justice should be understood as a precondition for ontological security-seeking among multiple co-existing actors.

Troubling the spatial politics of Green New Deals: Towards a Youngian approach to global justice

As a whole, the Green New Deal (GND) is discussed as one of the most promising political projects to address social justice targets together with climate goals. Yet, as most individual GNDs focus on the national level, concerns about global justice have largely remained absent from early debates, leading some to conclude that the GND reproduces neocolonial and extractivist schemes. To analyse programs for a GND in relation to issues of global justice requires an analytical framework able to evaluate justice claims in extended geographies. Drawing on the later work of political theorist Iris Marion Young, we develop a framework that foregrounds three principles: shared responsibilities for environmental harm of global reach, self-determination for those effected by these harms, and a forward-looking political responsibility to address the structures producing and sustaining injustice. We employ this framework to conduct a qualitative content analysis of four selected GND proposals from the UK, the EU and the US. This analysis indicates that all selected GNDs acknowledge in principle the global reach of responsibilities and formulate (limited) proposals to address these in different fields. However, they do not think of global justice in terms of a forward-looking notion of political responsibility that acknowledges the need of structural reforms and the self-determination of those experiencing harm. Instead, when addressing justice beyond the level of the nation state, these GNDs fall back on a notion of distributive justice. Based on the work of Young, we conclude with a set of propositions for global democratic structures that would support the outlined principles of global justice.

Taking responsibility responsibly: looking forward to remedying injustice

ABSTRACT What does it mean to be responsible for structural injustice? According to Iris Marion Young, the ongoing and socially embedded character of structural injustice imposes a future-oriented obligation to work with others toward creating remedial, institutional change. Young explains, ‘Political responsibility seeks less to reckon debts than to bring about results’ (Young, 2003, p. 13). This paper conceptually develops how the goal of remediation bears on responsibility in relation to structural injustice. Does the attribution of responsibility in this context call upon individuals to simply do anything in efforts to affect progressive change? If not, then to what extent are these attributions of responsibility action guiding? On what basis do they direct agents to effectively intervene on relevant conditions and processes rather than act in ways that exacerbate the injustice? I explore the role of etiological explanation in the attribution and acceptance of corrective responsibility, which refers to diagnosis of the operative causation of unjust outcomes. After probing tensions within prominent models of corrective responsibility, I offer my own model attempting to resolve those issues. I argue the forward-looking nature of the call to participate in remedying social problems includes a demand for agents to do so in a way that is itself responsible. I theorize a framework of taking responsibility responsibly. This framework accounts for the moral difference between a conscientiously formulated program of remedial action and a quixotic exercise in reckless delusion.

Justice and the Politics of Identity

Abstract In this article I recuperate a structure-oriented account of a politics of becoming from the work of Iris Young, one that rejects identity politics to focus instead on redressing structural injustice. Young offers a theorization of democracy that at once acknowledges our inner multiplicity and our individual capacity to shape our identity, and views equality and inclusion as important political goals that require eliminating structural injustice. For Young, fully embracing the multiplicity and fluidity of groups entails a shift away from conceptualizing groups in terms of identity, toward viewing groups as structural positions. Emancipation thus cannot be achieved through including marginalized identities (e.g., through group-based representation) but only through attention to how particular social positions become the site of structural advantage or disadvantage.

Whatever the problem, entrepreneurship is the solution! Confronting the panacea myth of entrepreneurship with structural injustice

A topic of growing interest in entrepreneurship research is how entrepreneurial ventures address grand challenges. This literature, we argue, tends to produce a panacea myth by suggesting that entrepreneurship is the universal remedy for existing social and environmental ills. Starting from the claim that the persuasive power or ‘stickiness’ of the panacea myth depends not only on what it explicitly says (in terms of ideas and beliefs) but also on what it leaves out, we suggest that the exclusion of explicitly political and holistic explanations of grand challenges such as Iris Marion Young's theory of structural injustice, which we use as an illustrative example, precipitates a ‘constitutive absence’ whose mythic function is to sanitize the image of entrepreneurship as the preferred solution to grand challenges. In an effort to denaturalize the panacea myth, we first identify three ‘figures of thought’ – coined ‘extrapolation fallacy,’ ‘political agnosticism,’ and ‘positive acculturation’ – that define the content of the panacea myth while simultaneously excluding theoretical concepts and frameworks, such as structural injustice, that conceptualize grand challenges as structural, multidetermined, and inherently political problems that are not necessarily amenable to stand-alone entrepreneurial approaches and solutions. Second, to loosen the grip of the panacea myth, we suggest rethinking entrepreneurship research in terms of who is involved, what methods are used, and how we talk about it. Taken together, these tactics create an opening in entrepreneurship research for a more complexity-sensitive and political understanding of grand challenges that cultivates a more humble and realistic depiction of entrepreneurship's problem-solving capacity.