1. Número 1 · Enero 2015

  2. Número 2 · Enero 2015

  3. Número 3 · Enero 2015

  4. Número 4 · Febrero 2015

  5. Número 5 · Febrero 2015

  6. Número 6 · Febrero 2015

  7. Número 7 · Febrero 2015

  8. Número 8 · Marzo 2015

  9. Número 9 · Marzo 2015

  10. Número 10 · Marzo 2015

  11. Número 11 · Marzo 2015

  12. Número 12 · Abril 2015

  13. Número 13 · Abril 2015

  14. Número 14 · Abril 2015

  15. Número 15 · Abril 2015

  16. Número 16 · Mayo 2015

  17. Número 17 · Mayo 2015

  18. Número 18 · Mayo 2015

  19. Número 19 · Mayo 2015

  20. Número 20 · Junio 2015

  21. Número 21 · Junio 2015

  22. Número 22 · Junio 2015

  23. Número 23 · Junio 2015

  24. Número 24 · Julio 2015

  25. Número 25 · Julio 2015

  26. Número 26 · Julio 2015

  27. Número 27 · Julio 2015

  28. Número 28 · Septiembre 2015

  29. Número 29 · Septiembre 2015

  30. Número 30 · Septiembre 2015

  31. Número 31 · Septiembre 2015

  32. Número 32 · Septiembre 2015

  33. Número 33 · Octubre 2015

  34. Número 34 · Octubre 2015

  35. Número 35 · Octubre 2015

  36. Número 36 · Octubre 2015

  37. Número 37 · Noviembre 2015

  38. Número 38 · Noviembre 2015

  39. Número 39 · Noviembre 2015

  40. Número 40 · Noviembre 2015

  41. Número 41 · Diciembre 2015

  42. Número 42 · Diciembre 2015

  43. Número 43 · Diciembre 2015

  44. Número 44 · Diciembre 2015

  45. Número 45 · Diciembre 2015

  46. Número 46 · Enero 2016

  47. Número 47 · Enero 2016

  48. Número 48 · Enero 2016

  49. Número 49 · Enero 2016

  50. Número 50 · Febrero 2016

  51. Número 51 · Febrero 2016

  52. Número 52 · Febrero 2016

  53. Número 53 · Febrero 2016

  54. Número 54 · Marzo 2016

  55. Número 55 · Marzo 2016

  56. Número 56 · Marzo 2016

  57. Número 57 · Marzo 2016

  58. Número 58 · Marzo 2016

  59. Número 59 · Abril 2016

  60. Número 60 · Abril 2016

  61. Número 61 · Abril 2016

  62. Número 62 · Abril 2016

  63. Número 63 · Mayo 2016

  64. Número 64 · Mayo 2016

  65. Número 65 · Mayo 2016

  66. Número 66 · Mayo 2016

  67. Número 67 · Junio 2016

  68. Número 68 · Junio 2016

  69. Número 69 · Junio 2016

  70. Número 70 · Junio 2016

  71. Número 71 · Junio 2016

  72. Número 72 · Julio 2016

  73. Número 73 · Julio 2016

  74. Número 74 · Julio 2016

  75. Número 75 · Julio 2016

  76. Número 76 · Agosto 2016

  77. Número 77 · Agosto 2016

  78. Número 78 · Agosto 2016

  79. Número 79 · Agosto 2016

  80. Número 80 · Agosto 2016

  81. Número 81 · Septiembre 2016

  82. Número 82 · Septiembre 2016

  83. Número 83 · Septiembre 2016

  84. Número 84 · Septiembre 2016

  85. Número 85 · Octubre 2016

  86. Número 86 · Octubre 2016

  87. Número 87 · Octubre 2016

  88. Número 88 · Octubre 2016

  89. Número 89 · Noviembre 2016

  90. Número 90 · Noviembre 2016

  91. Número 91 · Noviembre 2016

  92. Número 92 · Noviembre 2016

  93. Número 93 · Noviembre 2016

  94. Número 94 · Diciembre 2016

  95. Número 95 · Diciembre 2016

  96. Número 96 · Diciembre 2016

  97. Número 97 · Diciembre 2016

  98. Número 98 · Enero 2017

  99. Número 99 · Enero 2017

  100. Número 100 · Enero 2017

  101. Número 101 · Enero 2017

  102. Número 102 · Febrero 2017

  103. Número 103 · Febrero 2017

  104. Número 104 · Febrero 2017

  105. Número 105 · Febrero 2017

  106. Número 106 · Marzo 2017

  107. Número 107 · Marzo 2017

  108. Número 108 · Marzo 2017

  109. Número 109 · Marzo 2017

  110. Número 110 · Marzo 2017

  111. Número 111 · Abril 2017

  112. Número 112 · Abril 2017

  113. Número 113 · Abril 2017

  114. Número 114 · Abril 2017

  115. Número 115 · Mayo 2017

  116. Número 116 · Mayo 2017

  117. Número 117 · Mayo 2017

  118. Número 118 · Mayo 2017

  119. Número 119 · Mayo 2017

  120. Número 120 · Junio 2017

  121. Número 121 · Junio 2017

  122. Número 122 · Junio 2017

  123. Número 123 · Junio 2017

  124. Número 124 · Julio 2017

  125. Número 125 · Julio 2017

  126. Número 126 · Julio 2017

  127. Número 127 · Julio 2017

  128. Número 128 · Agosto 2017

  129. Número 129 · Agosto 2017

  130. Número 130 · Agosto 2017

  131. Número 131 · Agosto 2017

  132. Número 132 · Agosto 2017

  133. Número 133 · Septiembre 2017

  134. Número 134 · Septiembre 2017

  135. Número 135 · Septiembre 2017

  136. Número 136 · Septiembre 2017

  137. Número 137 · Octubre 2017

  138. Número 138 · Octubre 2017

  139. Número 139 · Octubre 2017

  140. Número 140 · Octubre 2017

  141. Número 141 · Noviembre 2017

  142. Número 142 · Noviembre 2017

  143. Número 143 · Noviembre 2017

  144. Número 144 · Noviembre 2017

  145. Número 145 · Noviembre 2017

  146. Número 146 · Diciembre 2017

  147. Número 147 · Diciembre 2017

  148. Número 148 · Diciembre 2017

  149. Número 149 · Diciembre 2017

  150. Número 150 · Enero 2018

  151. Número 151 · Enero 2018

  152. Número 152 · Enero 2018

  153. Número 153 · Enero 2018

  154. Número 154 · Enero 2018

  155. Número 155 · Febrero 2018

  156. Número 156 · Febrero 2018

  157. Número 157 · Febrero 2018

  158. Número 158 · Febrero 2018

  159. Número 159 · Marzo 2018

  160. Número 160 · Marzo 2018

  161. Número 161 · Marzo 2018

  162. Número 162 · Marzo 2018

  163. Número 163 · Abril 2018

  164. Número 164 · Abril 2018

  165. Número 165 · Abril 2018

  166. Número 166 · Abril 2018

  167. Número 167 · Mayo 2018

  168. Número 168 · Mayo 2018

  169. Número 169 · Mayo 2018

  170. Número 170 · Mayo 2018

  171. Número 171 · Mayo 2018

  172. Número 172 · Junio 2018

  173. Número 173 · Junio 2018

  174. Número 174 · Junio 2018

  175. Número 175 · Junio 2018

  176. Número 176 · Julio 2018

  177. Número 177 · Julio 2018

  178. Número 178 · Julio 2018

  179. Número 179 · Julio 2018

  180. Número 180 · Agosto 2018

  181. Número 181 · Agosto 2018

  182. Número 182 · Agosto 2018

  183. Número 183 · Agosto 2018

  184. Número 184 · Agosto 2018

  185. Número 185 · Septiembre 2018

  186. Número 186 · Septiembre 2018

  187. Número 187 · Septiembre 2018

  188. Número 188 · Septiembre 2018

  189. Número 189 · Octubre 2018

  190. Número 190 · Octubre 2018

  191. Número 191 · Octubre 2018

  192. Número 192 · Octubre 2018

  193. Número 193 · Octubre 2018

  194. Número 194 · Noviembre 2018

  195. Número 195 · Noviembre 2018

  196. Número 196 · Noviembre 2018

  197. Número 197 · Noviembre 2018

  198. Número 198 · Diciembre 2018

  199. Número 199 · Diciembre 2018

  200. Número 200 · Diciembre 2018

  201. Número 201 · Diciembre 2018

  202. Número 202 · Enero 2019

  203. Número 203 · Enero 2019

  204. Número 204 · Enero 2019

  205. Número 205 · Enero 2019

  206. Número 206 · Enero 2019

  207. Número 207 · Febrero 2019

  208. Número 208 · Febrero 2019

  209. Número 209 · Febrero 2019

  210. Número 210 · Febrero 2019

  211. Número 211 · Marzo 2019

  212. Número 212 · Marzo 2019

  213. Número 213 · Marzo 2019

  214. Número 214 · Marzo 2019

  215. Número 215 · Abril 2019

  216. Número 216 · Abril 2019

  217. Número 217 · Abril 2019

  218. Número 218 · Abril 2019

  219. Número 219 · Mayo 2019

  220. Número 220 · Mayo 2019

  221. Número 221 · Mayo 2019

  222. Número 222 · Mayo 2019

  223. Número 223 · Mayo 2019

  224. Número 224 · Junio 2019

  225. Número 225 · Junio 2019

  226. Número 226 · Junio 2019

  227. Número 227 · Junio 2019

  228. Número 228 · Julio 2019

  229. Número 229 · Julio 2019

  230. Número 230 · Julio 2019

  231. Número 231 · Julio 2019

  232. Número 232 · Julio 2019

  233. Número 233 · Agosto 2019

  234. Número 234 · Agosto 2019

  235. Número 235 · Agosto 2019

  236. Número 236 · Agosto 2019

  237. Número 237 · Septiembre 2019

  238. Número 238 · Septiembre 2019

  239. Número 239 · Septiembre 2019

  240. Número 240 · Septiembre 2019

  241. Número 241 · Octubre 2019

  242. Número 242 · Octubre 2019

  243. Número 243 · Octubre 2019

  244. Número 244 · Octubre 2019

  245. Número 245 · Octubre 2019

  246. Número 246 · Noviembre 2019

  247. Número 247 · Noviembre 2019

  248. Número 248 · Noviembre 2019

  249. Número 249 · Noviembre 2019

  250. Número 250 · Diciembre 2019

  251. Número 251 · Diciembre 2019

  252. Número 252 · Diciembre 2019

  253. Número 253 · Diciembre 2019

  254. Número 254 · Enero 2020

  255. Número 255 · Enero 2020

  256. Número 256 · Enero 2020

  257. Número 257 · Febrero 2020

  258. Número 258 · Marzo 2020

  259. Número 259 · Abril 2020

  260. Número 260 · Mayo 2020

  261. Número 261 · Junio 2020

  262. Número 262 · Julio 2020

  263. Número 263 · Agosto 2020

  264. Número 264 · Septiembre 2020

  265. Número 265 · Octubre 2020

  266. Número 266 · Noviembre 2020

  267. Número 267 · Diciembre 2020

  268. Número 268 · Enero 2021

  269. Número 269 · Febrero 2021

  270. Número 270 · Marzo 2021

  271. Número 271 · Abril 2021

  272. Número 272 · Mayo 2021

CTXT necesita 15.000 socias/os para seguir creciendo. Suscríbete a CTXT

Nancy Fraser / Feminist Intelectual

"Clinton embodies a neoliberal kind of feminism which mostly benefits privileged women"

Álvaro Guzmán Bastida 20/04/2016

<p>Nancy Fraser</p>

Nancy Fraser

Fotografía cedida por Nancy Fraser

A diferencia de otros medios, en CTXT mantenemos todos nuestros artículos en abierto. Nuestra apuesta es recuperar el espíritu de la prensa independiente: ser un servicio público. Si puedes permitirte pagar 4 euros al mes, apoya a CTXT. ¡Suscríbete!

Nancy Fraser (Baltimore, 1947) has been at the forefront of feminist struggle and critical theory since the late 1960s. A critic of what she calls ‘neoliberal feminism,’ her theories on recognition and redistribution as terms to understand social inequities have become hugely influential. She met with CTXT in her office in the Philosophy department of the New School for Social Research, in Manhattan, to discuss the pre-eminence of identity politics in our time, the importance of Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and why she felt compelled to introduce a third concept –that of ‘representation’ in her latest book (‘Fortunes of Feminism’) in order to explain both what ails contemporary society, and where the struggles to fix it ought to focus.  

Fifteen years ago you wrote about a term you borrowed from Hegel, ‘recognition,’ saying it was the keyword of the time when it came to understanding questions of difference and identity. How did Hegel understand it and why is it salient?

In Hegel you have essentially two actors encountering one another and each is a subject, but in order to be a full subject, each needs to be recognized by the other. Each affirms the other as a subject in its own right that is simultaneously equal and different from me. If both people can affirm that, then you have a reciprocal egalitarian, symmetrical process of recognition. But, famously, in the master-slave dialectic, they encounter one another on highly asymmetrical, unequal terms, terms of domination or subordination. Then you get non-reciprocal recognition.

Why has it been so en vogue since the early 2000s? 

It has to do with what at the time I was calling the post-socialist condition. This was a moment in the history of post-war societies, in which the problematic of distributive justice had lost its hegemonic capacity to organize the overwhelmingly largest majority share of social struggle and social conflict. Up until this point, in the post-war period, this redistribution paradigm was hegemonic, and almost all social discourse and conflict was organized in those terms. This meant that many issues had a hard time getting heard. Many claims were relegated to the margin because they didn’t fit the distributive grammar. Basically, what we can now see with hindsight is that the rise of the politics of recognition coincides with the rise of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is in effect displacing the social-democratic imaginary and in its attack on egalitarian distributive justice, that whole social-democratic model is, if not totally collapsing, at least fraying, loosing its hold, losing its ability to organize political space and discourse, and in a way that opens room for the various recognition claims and struggles.

What are some examples?

After 1989*, the collapse of communism and whole Soviet Bloc, What do we get? Very quickly, a rise of religious antagonism, of national antagonism –Now we are on the terrain of recognition. Earlier, those claims were repressed –they were excluded. So there was a communist version of the distributive discourse. That’s destroyed. In the West, it’s the loss of social democratic hegemony. Aside from the rise of neoliberalism, part of it has to do with what’s happening to the new social movements that came out of the 1960s. The New Left had a radical, you could even say anti-capitalist ethos, so it was focused both on redistribution and recognition, I would say, in very radical ways. But as the decades passed, and the sort of radical anti-capitalist spirit of the New Left faded away, what you were left with, the successor movements – a new kind of feminism, a new kind of anti-racism, the sexuality politics of the LGBT movement- they tended to ignore the political economy side of things and focus on questions that I would analyze in terms of status or recognition. 

You connect those questions to identity politics. To what extent is that a pejorative term?

Part of what I tried to do in my analysis was to detach a very quick identification between politics of identity and politics of recognition. I have tried to say, politics of recognition is a legitimate dimension of justice, and claims to overcome injustices of recognition are important; they cannot be simply reduced to distribution claims as a vulgar Marxism would have it. I wanted to fend the importance, the legitimacy, the relative autonomy, of recognition claims. But, I want to suggest that there is more than one way to understand them – it doesn’t have to take the form of identity politics. In fact, often, recognition claims do take the form of identity politics. This is unfortunate in my view. It creates all sorts of problems and it’s often better if you can find a non-identitarian understanding of what it means to struggle for recognition.

What should it mean?

What a movement like feminism should be struggling for is not the idea that there is some distinct identity or ethos of femininity that needs affirmative recognition, so that it’s equal with masculinity. No, I would say that the politics of recognition in a feminist movement ought to be a struggle against the forms of status inequality that are linked to gender terms. And that leaves it quite open whether this should be revaluing ‘the feminine’ whatever that is. So I’m trying to detach the politics of recognition from identity politics.

Looking back, I get the sense that –correct me if this is a wrong analysis- there’s been great progress on issues of recognition in the U.S., marriage equality and so on, and even on issues of visibility, with things like having a black president. Has there been too much of that and too little emphasis on redistribution? We live at very unequal times, and that doesn’t seem to be going any better.

It’s not a question of too much-too little, but that there’s not been a balance. There’s been an imbalance and a one-sidedness. For example, the gay movement, the LGBT movement, focus on marriage equality and on access for military service. Now, these would not be my first choices for places to wage the fight on. However, both of them, interestingly, do have a distributive element. The military is one of the few routes to a paid college education, for instance, so there are economic benefits to it. And to have the right to marry carries economic and social entitlements as well as symbolic ones of recognition.

What would have been alternative routes that you would have liked better?

Well, I would have preferred a struggle to make basic social entitlements simply the social rights of individuals, independent of their marital status, I would have preferred a society that deemphasizes who is married and who isn’t. Instead of saying, we want to get married too! Why not say, you get your health benefits, tax and you get all kinds of other benefits just by being a person, a citizen, a resident, living in the country. 

Because those are on par in terms of the redistributive elements but they emphasize status. Is that why? 

Yes, and the marriage equality thing introduces its own invidious status comparisons, between those who are married and those who aren’t and so on. We don’t need to reinforce that.

In the early 2000s you were writing about a problem of “displacement,” in which “questions of recognition were serving to marginalize and exclusivize redistributive struggles.” Again, it’s been almost two decades- How do you take stock of this period?

The landscape of social conflict and claims-making in the United States at least, is very different from when I was writing. The most dramatic illustration is the current presidential primary electoral campaign, where we have on the one side Bernie Sanders, who claims to be a ‘democratic socialist,’ who is essentially putting out a strong class line that is overwhelmingly focused on distribution. He also supports all the good progressive recognition struggles, but front-and-center, the real weight of gravity is about this question of the billionaire class, the one percent and so on.

Is that surprising to you that he could get that far in the primary by emphasizing class? 

Yes! It’s fantastically surprising. I’m very happy about it, and I would have never predicted it and it shows me, first of all, how far we’ve gone from the end of the Cold War. The fact that you can use the term socialism and it doesn’t carry that baggage or inspire the same kind of red-baiting and craziness, that’s interesting. On the other side, the Donald Trump side, there we definitely have a certain kind of right wing authoritarian nationalist populism that also kind of evokes the sort of class problematic but it colors it in an exclusionary, quasi-racist and certainly nationalist way. So it’s as if these two figures differ very sharply on recognition politics –as well as their programmatic proposals- but they both express a new salience of distribution. That is new, when I was writing in the mid 90s about it, distribution was on the margins, and everything was recognition, recognition, recognition. That is no longer the case. Recognition doesn’t disappear and it should not disappear, but I think they’re in a different kind of balance. 

Since you brought up the elections –What about the other candidate on the democratic side, Hillary Clinton? A lot of second-wave feminists, such as Gloria Steinem, have argued vocally that women should support her because she’s a woman and she’s the feminist candidate. Is she the feminist candidate?

Well, I would not say that she is. But there’s something very interesting going on. Clinton has been a card-carrying feminist for decades, she started her career doing advocacy for children and women, she’s famous for her UN speech about women’s rights are human rights, she’s been reliably pro-choice and so on. So if that all fits into this sort of recognition side, she’s been there, and in a more explicit, and front-and-center way than Sanders. But, on the other hand, What kind of feminism is this? Clinton embodies a certain kind of neoliberal feminism that is focused on cracking the glass ceiling, leaning in. That means removing barriers that would prevent rather privileged, highly educated women who already have a high amount of cultural and other forms of capital to rise in the hierarchies of government and business. This is a feminism whose main beneficiaries are rather privileged women, whose ability to rise in a sense relies on this huge pool of very low-paid precarious, often racialized precarious service work, which is also very feminized that provide all the care work.  And at the same time, Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is very implicated with Wall Street, with financial deregulation, and with this whole neoliberalization of the economy. So the kind of feminism that Sanders represents has a better chance of being a feminism for all women, for poor women, for black women, for working-class women and so on, and that is closer to my kind of feminism. 

You introduce a third term in your book, where you don’t just talk about recognition and redistribution, but you offer representation also. Why did you feel the need to do that?

Because it thematizes the idea in an explicit way, that apart from questions of economic distribution on one side and questions of status and recognition on the other, there is a whole other set of questions that have to do with the political itself as a fundamental dimension of society. And I think in our time, the whole question of who has political standing, in a world of refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented people- becomes a very important question. This is not specifically about recognition or redistribution, even though it definitely intersects with them. It’s also about having political voice. 

To what extent do those transcend borders?

When I think about political voice and who has it and who doesn’t, I think one should think not only about the bounded political community of a given nation state, like the U.S. or any other, but also in the larger international, transnational, global context. There’s also the question of a world in which states are very unequally empowered. So, suppose you’re a citizen of, say, Somalia, and you have, if not a failed state, a very weak state that is deeply under the thumb of large global powers or of global financial institutions, like the IMF and so on –there are big questions about political voice that have to do with this larger level and not just within your state but in the world system as such. And I think that the only way to get at those is through this concept of representation. So the idea would be now to think about three dimensions of justice – three different forms of injustice if you like, maldistribution, misrecognition and mis-or non-representation, or the misframing of questions of politics. 

So how do you articulate that in terms of social movements or politics? I’m thinking of Europe, for example –there’s a debate about how to articulate political subjectivities, whether that can happen without identity politics taking hold, or even taking over. Because you introduce the concept of representation or transnationality, Can one build collective power in a globalized world without emphasizing identity, and putting an emphasis on, for example, representation? How do you propose that could happen?

Well I think for example, the whole structure and problem of the European Union is in part a question about representation. Just simply by virtue of the fact that the European Central Bank and the global financial institutions now, in connection with the so-called Troika, hold an enormous amount power, such that they are capable, through the enforcement of austerity and so on, of invalidating elections. They can tell the Greeks, “We don’t care who you voted for! You can’t have those policies!” So, there are just basic questions about where political power and political voice lie that are in the structure of the European Union as it intersects with the global financial order. That’s above and beyond, or, let’s say intercuts with problems of recognition and distribution. Because you can have a kind of recognition politics in Europe where wealthier Northern countries look down on the so-called PIGS- the Southern countries, as being lazy and tax-evading, etc. That’s an old familiar recognition story. But where it becomes really lethal is where it intersects with this structural problem so that –and of course it has to do with the creation of the Euro itself- in which then you get imposed austerity against democratic voice. 

--------------------------------------------

*In the first version of this article, it said 1999. The correct date is 1989. 

Autor >

Álvaro Guzmán Bastida

Nacido en Pamplona en plenos Sanfermines, ha vivido en Barcelona, Londres, Misuri, Carolina del Norte, Macondo, Buenos Aires y, ahora, Nueva York. Dicen que estudió dos másteres, de Periodismo y Política, en Columbia, que trabajó en Al Jazeera, y que tiene los pies planos. Escribe sobre política, economía, cultura y movimientos sociales, pero en realidad, solo le importa el resultado de Osasuna el domingo.

Suscríbete a CTXT

Orgullosas
de llegar tarde
a las últimas noticias

Gracias a tu suscripción podemos ejercer un periodismo público y en libertad.
¿Quieres suscribirte a CTXT por solo 6 euros al mes? Pulsa aquí

Artículos relacionados >

6 comentario(s)

¿Quieres decir algo? + Déjanos un comentario

  1. Moira

    great interview, thanks for sharing!

    Hace 5 años

  2. Salim

    Delighted to discover Nancy Fraser, a thinker emphasizing basic rights/justice issues in such an intelligent and readable way!

    Hace 5 años

  3. Salim

    Delighted to discover Nancy Fraser, a thinker emphasizing basic rights/justice issues in such an intelligent and readable way!

    Hace 5 años

  4. Miette

    This is a wonderful piece. Thank you.

    Hace 5 años

  5. Adele Eisenstein

    After 1999, the collapse of communism and whole Soviet Bloc, - After 1989!

    Hace 5 años

Deja un comentario


Los comentarios solo están habilitados para las personas suscritas a CTXT. Puedes suscribirte aquí