African Americans and Socioeconomic

Redistribution and Recognition

The desire for recognition has increasingly become a major driver of political conflict and mobilisation in the contemporary world. Groups organised under the banners of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and sexuality now demand greater recognition -- they want their rights and identity to be acknowledged and upheld. Nonetheless, given that the struggle for recognition is driven by material inequality, a significant dilemma arises -- the dilemma of redistribution (socioeconomic justice) and recognition (cultural justice) (Fraser, 1995). In other words, can socioeconomic equality and cultural recognition be achieved at the same time, or should one be given priority at the expense of the other? This is a fundamental question warranting critical thought and attention. For Fraser (1995, p. 93), redistribution and recognition, though distinct, must be pursued simultaneously.

Without a doubt, cultural recognition is now a forceful movement. Several examples in the real world -- in both developed and developing countries -- attest to this. For instance, owing to the injustices they have endured throughout history, ethnic and racial minorities now want to be recognised as equal members of the society. This is particularly true in the U.S., where indigenous communities, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latin Americans, and immigrants all want to be accorded the same treatment as the majority. Equally, women want to be given the same recognition as men. Similar to ethnic and racial minorities, women in most societies across the globe have grappled with gender discrimination and other forms of cultural injustices. Whether at work, home, or school, women have endured a world that treats men as superior to women. For the banner of sexuality, transgender and homosexual individuals now want to be recognised and accepted in the society. They desire a world where they are not seen as abnormal or akin to wild animals, but as human beings just like everyone else. In essence, cultural injustices compel the affected groups to take action or rise against undertakings or nuances that appear to exacerbate the injustices.

Struggles for recognition have been brought to the political stage. For instance, due to historical injustices against women, feminism and other similar movements have been on the rise, with women seeking greater recognition in the society. In many countries around the world, political discourses advocating for equal gender recognition are now commonplace. Some countries have even enacted legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and to give women more seats in political decision making arenas such as the legislature. Also, government policies aimed at equalising gender representation have been adopted. Though women are still underrepresented in the workplace in most countries, commendable progress has been made. Tremendous progress has also been made in terms of recognising transgender and homosexual members of the society, with the U.S. and a number of countries around the world introducing legislation forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Though trans-sexualism and homosexuality are still viewed as unusual or unacceptable in most societies, there is reason to believe that transgender and homosexual individuals will have a better future.

It is important to note that the struggle for recognition is fundamentally driven by material inequality -- in terms of income, wealth, employment, education, health care, and so forth (Fraser, 1995). In most societies around the world, it is evident that material inequalities manifest on the lines of race, ethnicity, nationality, and gender. For instance, poverty and poor health outcomes tend to be more prevalent amongst racial and ethnic minorities compared to the majority. Similarly, women have historically endured lower incomes and wealth compared to men. Regrettably, material inequality has depicted an upward trend, meaning there has been increased desire for recognition. How then can the problems of redistribution and recognition be addressed? Answering this question is important for not only public policy, but also social change.

Clearly, the pursuit of socioeconomic redistribution cannot be done oblivious of cultural recognition, and vice versa. In other words, redistribution and recognition must be pursued concurrently. This is the overarching argument in Fraser's (1995) article. For instance, it makes little or no sense to promote socioeconomic inequality without upholding the rights of women or ethnical and racial minorities. The need to pursue redistribution and recognition at the same time particularly emanates from the close intertwinement between culture and the political economy in the real world. In other words, cultural norms are normalised in politics and the economy, resulting in what Fraser (1995, p. 73) calls "a vicious circle of cultural and economic subordination."

It is not difficult to observe this phenomenon in the real world. In the U.S., for instance, prejudice against racial minorities has historically been institutionalised into politics and the economy. Prior to the 1950s, there were rules and regulations that systematically blocked African-Americans from full or free participation in the political and economic arena or even mixing with Whites. With institutionalised racism, African-Americans could not live in certain residences or get decent jobs. These injustices were the heart of the civil rights movement, through which African-Americans sought to secure legal recognition -- they wanted their civil rights recognised, respected, and upheld. The movement led to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, opening a new chapter in the rights of African-Americans.

While Fraser (1995) emphasises the importance of addressing socioeconomic, economic and cultural injustice simultaneously, she posits that a significant dilemma is presented, particularly in today's post-socialist world. More specifically, though redistribution and recognition are significantly intertwined, recognition politics often override redistribution claims. The conflict emerges from the fact that the means for achieving each tend to be different. While addressing socioeconomic injustice requires restructuring the political-economy (e.g. incorporating democracy in decision making, redistributing income and wealth, and rearranging the division of labour), addressing cultural injustice requires cultural change (e.g. changing attitudes and perceptions about identity and embracing cultural diversity).

Broadly speaking, socioeconomic equality is about parity in terms of income, wealth, health, education, employment, and other indicators of socioeconomic wellbeing. The government achieves socioeconomic equality by creating a level playing field for everyone. The government may, for instance, increase infrastructural investment in disadvantaged communities and increase access to employment, health care and education for everyone. When it comes to cultural change, however, focus shifts. Cultural change essentially involves changing (in large scale) how groups within a society are represented (Fraser, 1995). How are women represented in the society? How does the society view racial minorities or people of colour? Such are the kind of questions cultural change discourses seek to answer. Answering such questions is important for changing societal perceptions and attitudes. Achieving cultural change, however, may not be as easy as achieving socioeconomic justice. For instance, it may be quite easier to create employment opportunities, but changing deeply held negative attitudes towards racial minorities can be a daunting task.

In essence, though related, redistribution and recognition do not necessarily seek to achieve the same objective. On one hand, the pursuit of recognition involves affirming the specificity of a given group (Fraser, 1995). As an example, feminists advocate for gender equality in terms of access to employment opportunities. On the other, redistribution seeks to eliminate socioeconomic structures that reinforce group specificity (Fraser, 1995). In other words, redistribution claims do not advocate for group differentiation. For example, improving socioeconomic redistribution encompasses eradicating structures that hinder equal access to employment opportunities. This means that redistribution and recognition claims can work against one another, hence creating a dilemma.

One interesting aspect of Fraser's (1995) article is the argument that redistribution and recognition are both important despite their conflicting goals. To get a better understanding of this importance, consider the case of homosexuals, for instance. Viewed as a strange form of sexuality, homosexuality is loathed and ashamed in many societies. Worse still, homosexuality is subject to unfriendly socioeconomic structures. For example, it is not uncommon for homosexuals to be denied jobs and legal rights and protections just on the basis of their sexuality. This means that societies establish structures that oppress homosexuals not only culturally, but also socioeconomically. Denying a homosexual individual an employment opportunity is tantamount to denying that individual the means for achieving socioeconomic prosperity -- the individual is deprived of the opportunity to lead a comfortable, healthy life. Essentially, homosexual individuals suffer socioeconomic injustices as a result of cultural interpretations of sexuality.

Accordingly, addressing homophobia should involve both recognition and redistributive remedies. In other words, the acceptance of homosexuality in the society requires changing not only societal attitudes towards the behaviour, but also structures that do not tolerate the behaviour. It means accepting homosexuality, giving homosexuals equal protections before the law, as well as increasing their access to socioeconomic opportunities. Focusing on both redistribution and recognition achieves a better outcome compared to focusing on one.