Foucault and Young

Foucault in Discipline and Punish describes a world which is dominated by a system of discipline. He asserts that modern society individuates people on the bodily level and as a result categorize them according to their tasks, for training, observation, and control. How do you think that Marion Iris Young would respond to this? Would she agree with Foucault about the idea that oppression and control are inherently built within the system or would she argue that oppression and control are merely a product of a faulty system?

Young and Liberalism

In chapter 2, Young states "We cannot eliminate this structural oppression by getting rid of the rulers or making some new laws, because oppressions are systematically reproduced in major economic, political, and cultural institutions." (41)

In liberal society there is oppression, but is it just an unfortunate by-product of liberalism or is it a sort of necessary evil? Even with the progress that the new social movements have made, will there always be some degree of oppression? Young goes on to say that oppression affects groups, but liberalism is focused on individuals. Do all individuals benefit from living in a liberal society? If not, who does liberalism benefit? Is it necessary to have a sort of balance of power through oppression for liberalism to work in the real world?

Note for Thursday's Class

All excellent questions/comments on Iris Young (et. al.) so far this week. Great job.

A note for Thursday's class: bring a copy of your first paper or an outline of your final paper (or something of that sort). For the second half of the session on Thursday we are going to split into small groups based on the topic of your final paper (email me if you want a topic change from your first paper) and you will share your paper topic with others in your group in order to solicit feedback, to exchange notes on secondary readings, and to get your ideas into gear by discussing them with others. Try to work up a short one or two sentence thesis statement which you can quickly offer to those in your group as a summary of your project.

Rawls, Young, Feminists, Future

After learning about Rawls' original position: individuals putting aside their own principles under a "veil of ignorance," how do you think Iris Marion Young would view this theory of Rawls? How might Rawls respond back? I believe that what Young is saying is that society needs to look at what is the most important to us and work together to change things. Society must debate collectively and progressively. Why spend time worrying about social ethics when we can work together to change things. For example, take the education system or health care. If society is so caught up in the importance of these systems, why shouldn't the education system get more funding? How about paying teachers or physicians a higher salary? In addition, I think Young also looks at the important of the role of women the in the world of politic and culture. This leads me to wonder how feminists, such as Young, has changed the philosophy of politics and how feminists might continue to change this philosophy for the future. How do you think Young has changed the philosophy of politics in the past? How might her work change things for the future?

The Distributive Paradigm and Econ

Can distributive paradigm relate to Rawl's reflective equilibrium? Young quotes Rawls extensively, and focuses on the dominance of the upper social elite class. There is a scenario of monopoly, if I have a taco stand and I sell my tacos at two dollars a piece. Another person comes along and also starts a taco stand business, but he sells his tacos at one dollar each. In order for me to stay in business, I play the game of how low can one go, as we switch off lowering our prices until one of us hits equilibrium. If a 3^rd party monopoly decides to come in and buy out our supplies to make tacos, then the prices for equilibrium would change. Should 3^rd party monopoly or private corporate decision makers have the power to change the economy? Young states, “Class domination is certainly enacted by agents deciding where to invest their capital- a distributive decision; but the social rules, rights, procedures and influence that structure capitalist decision-making are not distributed goods” (21). She wants to distinguish the idea of class and mode of production…

“Economic domination derives at least as much from the corporate and legal structures and procedures that give some persons the power to make decisions about investment, production, marketing, employment, interest rates, and wages that affect millions of other people” (23). Back to the scenario, if the governments distribute wealth equally, would it solve the problem of monopoly? Would other issues emerge? Young states, “Public discussions of social injustice tend to revolve around inequalities of wealth and income,, and the extent to which the state can or should mitigate the suffering of the poor” (19).

The Philosopher vs. The Economist

We started off this course with authors such as Mills and Rawls, who debated the abstract theories of Justice. These philosophical debates of justice such as if the first world countries are obligated to aid third world countries are fascinating as well as important. Young, on the other hand, realizes the importance of looking beyond these abstract theories. If it is agreed that we should aid the third world countries, the equally important and complex debate stems of how we should help them. As a Business Management Economics major my mind often drifts towards imagining new strategies on what would be the most efficient way in which we could do this. As a business has many different departments, there are many different aspects of this goal that require innovative and thorough plans. For example, marketing – how can we get the people of the first world to want to help the people of the third world? Perhaps if we try to better relate the individual people and families in the first world to the individual people and families of the third world. Of course another main focus, which Young discusses, is distribution. I’m not sure if I completely agree with his idea that we should only seek to equally distribute material goods. As an economist, I think the distribution plans should focus on what is the most efficient way we can stimulate their economy so that they will be able to increase their own revenue and GDP. Self-respect, opportunity, power, and honor are issues Young argues distribution should not cover, but distribution of opportunity through distribution of resources such as education (which is not material) should, in my mind, be the key focus.

Self-Respect

On page 27, Iris Marion Young says that, "Self-respect names not some possession or attribute a person has, but her or his attitude toward her or his entire situation and life prospects." She goes on, "People have or lack self-respect because of how they define themselves and how others regard them, because of how they spend their time, because of the amount of autonomy and decisionmaking power they have in their activities, and so on." Young argues that distributive theories have shortcomings when it comes to nonmaterial goods (such as self respect) because "the distributive paradigm tends to conceive of individuals as social atoms, logically prior to social relations and institutions...such an atomistic conception of the individual as a substance to which attributes adhere fails to appreciate that individual identities and capacities are in many respects themselves the products of social processes and relations. Societies do not simply distribute goods to persons who are what they are apart from society, but rather constitute individuals in their identities and capacities." I see what she is getting at, in that how you regard yourself is influenced by how others regard you but I think she is putting too much emphasis on public influence. There is a difference between the private self and the public self; I feel like Young does not thoroughly separate the two. Personally, I feel like there is more to people than what the public expects from them and it seems like Young is saying that people come to be what society expects them to be. In the nature vs. nurture debate, I feel like Young is too far on the nurture side and while I don't 100% disagree, I do think there is more of a balance between the two, and if either side dominates, I think it would be the nature side. Again, I do agree that society has a major influence on individuals' actions but I think people have a private self that knows better, so to speak. For instance, a man in prison can have self respect without having the respect of the public, especially if he knows he is innocent. What do you guys think?