# data[].attributes.body
Diego Andrade Morales A00571886

# data[].attributes.body
Manuel Madero A01285758

# data[].attributes.body
Marijose Noyola Castañeda A01654151

# data[].attributes.body
Rubén J Vera Ramirez A01734768

# data[].attributes.body
Diana Laura Sánchez Silva | A01068196

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah G. Martínez Navarro - A01703113

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
I'm excited to listen to @FloraHui as she discusses Visibility, barriers, and multiculturalism: Advancing as an early-mid career researcher from a migrant background in Australia. Kudos to @MdhsDiversity SWiM and @EyeResearchAus for supporting women in STEM! 🌟 #ECR #WomenInSTEM

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
I'm excited to listen to @FloraHui as she discusses Visibility, barriers, and multiculturalism: Advancing as an early-mid career researcher from a migrant background in Australia. Kudos to @MdhsDiversity SWiM and @EyeResearchAus for supporting women in STEM! 🌟 #ECR #WomenInSTEM https://t.co/vegQpg9BHt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
I'm excited to listen to @FloraHui as she discusses Visibility, barriers, and multiculturalism: Advancing as an early-mid career researcher from a migrant background in Australia. Kudos to @MdhsDiversity SWiM and @EyeResearchAus for supporting women in STEM! 🌟 #ECR #WomenInSTEM pic.twitter.com/vegQpg9BHt
— Shakira Onwuka (@ShakiraOnwuka) May 24, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
I'm excited to listen to @FloraHui as she discusses Visibility, barriers, and multiculturalism: Advancing as an early-mid career researcher from a migrant background in Australia. Kudos to @MdhsDiversity SWiM and @EyeResearchAus for supporting women in STEM! 🌟 #ECR #WomenInSTEM https://t.co/vegQpg9BHt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
I'm excited to listen to @FloraHui as she discusses Visibility, barriers, and multiculturalism: Advancing as an early-mid career researcher from a migrant background in Australia. Kudos to @MdhsDiversity SWiM and @EyeResearchAus for supporting women in STEM! 🌟 #ECR #WomenInSTEM https://t.co/vegQpg9BHt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
I'm excited to listen to @FloraHui as she discusses Visibility, barriers, and multiculturalism: Advancing as an early-mid career researcher from a migrant background in Australia. Kudos to @MdhsDiversity SWiM and @EyeResearchAus for supporting women in STEM! 🌟 #ECR #WomenInSTEM

# data[].attributes.body
We can apply some aspects of Nancy's theory to this post, as well as some elements from Axel's theory. Starting with Nancy's approach, she talks about how recognition can be a matter of self-realization. In the particular case of this tweet, we can only imagine how Dr. Flora might be feeling given her accomplishments and her Australian migrant background. We can also imagine some of the obstacles Dr. Flora might have faced throughout her career, and we can relate this to another element of Fraser's theory because she establishes that "some individuals are denied rights due to patterns of cultural value they didn't construct", therefore we can imagine the obstacles she faced because she wasn't as privileged as perhaps other Australian women. Moving to Axel's theory, we can once again identify the role that rights and solidarity played in this particular case. Solidarity because everyone was rooting for her and it made us aware of her abilities and how these make her stand out and be unique. Finally, rights because she was recognized by other organizations that showcased respect towards her.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Tonight, we celebrated the launch of the 38th @Carassauga festival, showcasing Mississauga’s rich multiculturalism. If you’re looking for fun activities during this weekend, consider visiting the various pavilions

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Tonight, we celebrated the launch of the 38th @Carassauga festival, showcasing Mississauga’s rich multiculturalism. If you’re looking for fun activities during this weekend, consider visiting the various pavilions https://t.co/zA9zashYPQ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Tonight, we celebrated the launch of the 38th @Carassauga festival, showcasing Mississauga’s rich multiculturalism. If you’re looking for fun activities during this weekend, consider visiting the various pavilions pic.twitter.com/zA9zashYPQ
— Omar Alghabra (@OmarAlghabra) May 27, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Tonight, we celebrated the launch of the 38th @Carassauga festival, showcasing Mississauga’s rich multiculturalism. If you’re looking for fun activities during this weekend, consider visiting the various pavilions https://t.co/zA9zashYPQ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Tonight, we celebrated the launch of the 38th @Carassauga festival, showcasing Mississauga’s rich multiculturalism. If you’re looking for fun activities during this weekend, consider visiting the various pavilions https://t.co/zA9zashYPQ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Tonight, we celebrated the launch of the 38th @Carassauga festival, showcasing Mississauga’s rich multiculturalism. If you’re looking for fun activities during this weekend, consider visiting the various pavilions

# data[].attributes.body
This tweet is referring to Canada's largest multicultural festival and we can relate this event to Axel's theory on the struggles of recognition and Taylor's politics of recognition. Regarding the first author, we can link this post to his ideals because we feel that it emphasizes a lot on the distinct spheres of interaction, such as love, rights and solidarity. One can only imagine how these three elements can coexist inside a multicultural festival. It's important that countries throughout the world carry out events like this because they help prevent conflicts and disputes between minorities and cultural groups, and because, as the "Peace Initiative" video mentions, we need to have more news that uphold mankind and out values. We can imagine love being present because we're getting recognition from all the guests that are visiting the event; rights because of our aspiration to respect and value each other and solidarity because this is the main thing that can help us appreciate our differences and not showcase this in a bad way. Moving onto Taylor's theory, we can see his politics of equal dignity, because each group present in the festival is given an equal opportunity to present their beliefs and customs, and in doing so, this is bringing us closer together as a community. We can also apply a little bit of Nancy's theory, because if one cultural group or minority is given more recognition in the event, then this will promote differentiation and conflicts will arise, therefore we need to implement and establish good redistribution strategies.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Spectacular. The Buddhas day multicultural festival at Federation square with the light and fireworks show. 

A celebration of multiculturalism, respect for diversity and culture. #melbourne

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Spectacular. The Buddhas day multicultural festival at Federation square with the light and fireworks show. 

A celebration of multiculturalism, respect for diversity and culture. #melbourne https://t.co/o9bATbGQuD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Spectacular. The Buddhas day multicultural festival at Federation square with the light and fireworks show.

A celebration of multiculturalism, respect for diversity and culture. #melbourne pic.twitter.com/o9bATbGQuD
— Anth W. 🌏 (@anth0888) May 20, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Spectacular. The Buddhas day multicultural festival at Federation square with the light and fireworks show. 

A celebration of multiculturalism, respect for diversity and culture. #melbourne https://t.co/o9bATbGQuD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Spectacular. The Buddhas day multicultural festival at Federation square with the light and fireworks show. 

A celebration of multiculturalism, respect for diversity and culture. #melbourne https://t.co/o9bATbGQuD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Spectacular. The Buddhas day multicultural festival at Federation square with the light and fireworks show. 

A celebration of multiculturalism, respect for diversity and culture. #melbourne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
January 04, 2023 10:30 am | Updated 12:28 pm IST

The political predicament following the collapse of the Soviet Union posed a unique challenge to political philosophers around the world. Besides the end of the Cold War and the decline of communism, the last decade of the 20th century also witnessed the end of apartheid in South Africa and the crucial and continuing unfolding of the neoliberal economic ordering of the Global South. Theorists such as Francis Fukuyama were already positing the period as the "end of history" - "end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy [and capitalism] as the final form of human government". Another remarkable development during these times was the underlining of the political significance of various 'cultural' identities like race, sexuality, gender and ethnicity which have been making claims to recognition of their political space. This went hand in hand with widening economic inequality due to the implementation of the neoliberal order.

Identity and economy

It is in this milieu that a novel theoretical perspective by Nancy Fraser (New Left Review 1995) contributed to the theory of justice by balancing both the issues of cultural identity, along with that of widening economic inequalities. Fraser, known for her philosophical work on the concepts of justice offered a dual perspective of 'Recognition and Redistribution' in order to correct the injustices in society. The recognitory aspect of Fraser's integrated theory of justice entails correcting the history of misrecognition and suffering caused to multitudes of people due to their cultural devaluation. Culture here is obviously imparted in a wider sense which covers varied social identities on the margins of a society. The redistributive aspect of Fraser's dual perspective aims at removing injustices rooted in the economic structure of the society, for example issues of exploitation, economic marginalisation and deprivation. For Fraser, only by connecting these two political problematics of recognition and redistribution was it possible to address the political demands of our age.

Other perspectives

Fraser, however, is not alone in her search for a critical framework connecting claims of culture and economics. There have been numerous attempts to theorise socioeconomic inequalities, chief among such work remains that of Iris Marion Young (1990) on the 'Politics of Difference' arguing for a "non-redistributive" theory of justice. However, it was Fraser who conceived and incorporated the two political faultlines emerging from the misrecognition or the cultural devaluation of people based on ethnicity, sex, gender, race or religion and that of maldistribution resulting in widening economic inequalities. This integrated justice theory attracted a good number of discussions within academia to grapple with such questions.

In a long and insightful exchange with philosopher Axel Honneth (2003), Fraser emphasised that claims of identity and that of class are not the case of either/or choice, but that they both form a single continuum for a justice theory of our time. The desired idea was to decenter the 'essentialism' inherent within the claims of cultural identity and to link it up with the equally important subject of economic hierarchy. For her justice is only possible when one is cognisant of oppression caused by social dominance and economic exploitation, both at once. Honneth on the other hand argued that 'recognition' itself covers the issue of maldistribution and can actually accommodate economic redistribution. He has maintained that it is the sphere of recognition which emanates most social suffering including that of economic status.

Looking at caste

We can actually apply these philosophers' perspectives closer home in order to understand the workings of the caste system. Fraser's dual perspective on India's social reality when applied presents itself as a singular political puzzle which could be addressed through the politics of social justice, where cultural devaluation and economic inequalities both have significant presences in the political context. India's caste hierarchy, however, is singularly unique when it comes to understanding social exploitation and economic marginalisation.

While Fraser's dual perspective certainly enables us to understand the politics of caste, it runs short in explaining political dynamics for the simple reason that unlike other cultural claims of oppressed people world over, caste in India goes a long way in constituting economic privileges too. Unlike the social prejudices against cultural claims of oppressed people elsewhere, caste is more foundational to Indian society as it has been normalised and accepted into the prevalent socio-religious norms otherwise known as Brahmanism. Hence, while in the political domain the dual perspective of recognition and redistribution certainly enables us to address the widening socioeconomic inequalities in India; in the domain of the social the two are knotted together in the prevailing social acceptance of caste and its attributes.

The fact that most of the political organisations marshalling politics of social justice are primarily led by Dalits, illustrates how caste affects different people differently. In other words, caste, while it does affect all of us, affects us differently. And the difference is vast enough to offset a united struggle against the social hierarchy that coheres well with the economic hierarchy.

Although affirmative and transformative legal actions as conceived by Fraser have long been thought of, debated and put into the constitutional frame of Indian polity way back in the middle of the 20th century, such measures couldn't arrest the issue of caste apartheid in India completely.

The need for representation

Fraser's framework is far reaching in understanding Indian politics which by and large orbits around the claims of caste assertion and its corresponding economic deprivation. Looking at the recent political struggles in the country, the salience of recognition can be unequivocally seen, which sometimes tends to obfuscate the politics of redistribution. Moreover, if the politics of recognition is being accommodated without the associated redistributive aspect, that is without addressing economic exploitation, chances are that cultural hegemony will invariably find its way into the political lexicon. Consequently, we will have a society which celebrates politics of recognition alone, and that too not the recognitory claims of the oppressed people but that of recognition as understood and celebrated by the dominant social forces. This is the current scenario in the post-Mandal dominant politics of north India.

The caste question definitely gains more clarity if understood with Fraser's perspective. However, the fact that the caste goes in making and disseminating economic hierarchies has presented a real problem for critical theorists in India. Perhaps anticipating similar predicaments, Fraser did add the third aspect of representation to her dual model (2004). This idea of representation has been a quintessential axis of Ambedkar's philosophy of annihilating caste which is foundational to Indian politics and society.
Moggallan Bharti teaches at the School of Development Studies at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Delhi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recognition and Redistribution: balancing identities and economic disparity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
January 04, 2023 10:30 am | Updated 12:28 pm IST The political predicament following the collapse of the Soviet Union posed a unique challenge to political philosophers around the world.

# data[].attributes.body
It is essential to acknowledge and resolve the issues and injustices suffered by marginalized cultural identities. Fraser's emphasis on cultural recognition coincides with the need to recognize and correct historical injustices, such as discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Peace initiatives can promote inclusiveness and nurture a sense of belonging and dignity for all members of society by recognizing and valuing diverse cultural identities.

The redistributive aspect of Fraser's theory also refers to the economic aspect of peacebuilding. Inequalities and disparities in the economy frequently contribute to social tensions and conflicts. Peace initiatives can work toward establishing more equitable societies by addressing issues of exploitation, marginalization, and privation. Redistributive measures, such as economic development programs, strategies for reducing poverty, and inclusive economic policies, can help resolve financial problems and promote long-term peace and stability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his book, The Struggle for Recognition, the German Philosopher Axel Honneth remarked that people fight for change when they are on the receiving end of either social insult, disrespect or denigration.

Furthermore, and in total opposition to what would normally be familiar territory for economists, he points out that economic issues would play second fiddle in such socio-political calculus.

It is our view that the critical mass of voters that voted for change in the last general election held similar views to the one that was propounded by the German philosopher.

This is to point out that their votes were based not so much on economic calculations as on the overriding perception that the last government was ultimately guilty of violating their moral expectations.

In other words, it was not the fact that we are languishing in a cesspool of economic debt that drove the FijiFirst party across to the Opposition chambers of "the house".

On the contrary, it was the related issues of social injustice and moral outrage among the discontent.

Allegations of deliberate harassment of political dissenters by the police, the suppression of civil liberties, the weaponisation of the disciplinary apparatus of the State, the politicisation of the civil service, the arrogant style of their leadership, suppression of group rights and personal vendettas became the hallmarks for the authoritarian viciousness displayed callously by the last regime.

Many would argue that the perceived loss of dignity, self-respect and social esteem in the general population is a direct result of their style of leadership, with its emphasis on form rather than substance.

Tragic as these maybe, they are not the reason for this opinion piece.

What is more concerning for us, at this very moment, is the recent abandonment of political duties by five key members of the Opposition in the span of three months.

All of them occupied ministerial positions in the last government.

Indeed, for students of politics, governance and jurisprudence, this would amount to an anomaly in any democracy.

What is the driving motivation behind what, in our humble opinion, is simply an abdication of duty to their country?

In other words, what kind of men and woman have we been entrusting our country and, by extension, our lives with in these last few years?

Let us start with some preliminary observations.

By every conceivable measure, there is not a single one of them that has not done well after landing a ministerial portfolio in the last government.

Irrespective from where they had worked previously, most, if not all, enjoyed a pay rise when they became ministers in the last government.

Additionally, they had power and prestige, that usually accompany such positions.

They also happen to be the leading lights in their political party - a former commander of the army, a corporate lawyer, a former university professor, an educator and a surgeon.

They lost it all in the metaphorical blink of an eye.
What happened?
Once the FijiFirst party took their seats in the Opposition benches, it began to implode.

It started with the main orchestrator within the last government - the former attorney-general.

It is our view that Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum deliberately disqualified himself from Parliament.

The reason for this is quite straightforward and, ultimately, revolves around his personal disposition to power.

He is a man who cannot play second fiddle to anyone else.

Anything less than complete control is taken as an insult for him.

The absence of his usual centre-stage position and the glamour that goes with it would have made the Opposition chambers unattractive.

It was, therefore, preferable for him to take himself out entirely rather than facing the political taunts of his opponents who are now in government.

He was absolutely stripped of the political and social power that he was so used to and deployed relentlessly against his political foes.

The daunting task of facing these foes from a position of relative weakness was too much for him.

Mr Bainimarama's exit, on the other hand, is more complex compared to his chief lieutenant.

We believe that the former prime minister suddenly realised the enormity of the task before him without the constant guidance of Mr Sayed-Khaiyum.

His days in Parliament were numbered from that point onwards.

His personal failings would have been amplified for all to see if he had attempted to face off his inquisitors from the other side of the house - men and women - who would have been at the receiving end of his personal vindictiveness during his stint in power.

These weaknesses would have been compounded by his lack of acumen and the necessary stage skills to continue mesmerising the impressionable in Fiji in the way Mr Sayed-Khaiyum was, supposedly, renowned for.

His "rockstar" status and messianic pretensions were in danger of being ridiculed at in the largest stage of all - our Parliament.

Mr Bainimarama, given this, found it preferable to fall on his own sword.

This is to say that the spiel in Parliament that led to his suspension and ensuing resignation came out of professional frustrations and thwarted personal desires.

Indeed, for us, his so-called political gaffe and subsequent unrelenting stance was, ultimately, a face-saving measure.

Rosy Akbar resigned on medical grounds according to mainstream media.

If social media is anything to go by, she was known to be sick even before the election.

This begs the question: would she have voluntarily resigned if she had a ministerial position to hold on to and the perks that go with the
position?

Unfortunately, we will never know the answer to that one.

However, the optics surrounding her latest actions do not look good at all.

It suggests, at the very least, that self-serving interests were at play.

Mahendra Reddy, a university doctor, and Ifereimi Waqainabete, a medical doctor, following their colleagues, just simply gave up after festering in the Opposition side of the house for less than three months.

They are presumably, given their qualifications, looking for better opportunities elsewhere.

By better, we mean better than the $50,000 they were getting paid with as members of the Opposition.

If recent reports are anything to go by, the former minister for health has been appointed professor of surgery in one local university.

If our analysis is true for each one of the former ministers discussed above, then it suggests a deplorable portrait of their personal views and beliefs on good governance and democracy as well as their place in them.

It seems they have no idea of the importance of these concepts apart from what they can bring to their pockets and self-esteem.
Why is that?
Don't they realise the important role of the Opposition in any democracy?

That without an effective Opposition, government could become its own worst enemy let alone the people's?

Do they think that it is below them to hold government in check?

These are just some of the questions that come into our minds when we are confronted with the resignations of these former ministers.

Political analyses and social commentaries have highlighted the fact that most of the votes that FFP attained in the last election have been
"rendered redundant" with the unceremonious exits of these former members of Parliament.

As a result, the argument goes, the FijiFirst party has lost its political legitimacy and is only in Parliament, in the way they are represented, on a legal technicality.

Don't they think that the questions above are important to them on a personal level?

Contrary to ideas peddled around the streets of Suva, the Opposition is quite critical to the working of any democratic government machinery.

They are there to curb government excesses.

They are important members of our society.

These ministers need to learn that contrary to popular opinion in Fiji, politics is not a zero-sum game where the winner gets to take all his or her winnings home.

Politics is about patient negotiations with your political rival in the hope that Fiji and its people will ultimately benefit from these personal interventions in our political landscape.

It is about patience in the face of adversity.

It is about being steadfast in whatever circumstances life throws at you knowing that these are just passing moments.

Alas, it seems that our former ministers do not appreciate this basic fact.

Such is the ignorance they have for true democracy.

They are not interested in serving people from the trenches.

They like being served.

It seems like they were just a bunch of opportunists masquerading as politicians forever trying to insert themselves in the most profitable game in town.

It is high time that we, as responsible citizens, stop electing these sorts of people into our own Parliament.

As they embark on pursuing their varying personal interests, away from the din of the madding crowd, they would do well to remember the term that the ancient Greeks, the people whose ideas gave initial form to the concept of democracy, used to define the completely private individual with - the idiot.
(* Sevanaia Sakai also contributed to this article.)
* DR TUI RAKUITA teaches in the School of Social Science at the University of Otago.
* SEVANAIA SAKAI teaches in the School of Law and Social Science at the University of the South Pacific.
The views expressed are the authors and do not reflect the views of this newspaper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OPINION: From oppositional politics to politics of opportunism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his book, The Struggle for Recognition, the German Philosopher Axel Honneth remarked that people fight for change when they are on the receiving end of either social insult, disrespect or denigration. Furthermore, and in total opposition to what would normally be familiar territory for economists, he points out that economic issues would play second fiddle in such socio-political calculus.

# data[].attributes.body
The passage indirectly relates to peace initiatives by highlighting the importance of confronting social injustices, fostering inclusiveness, and respecting the rights and dignity of individuals. It emphasizes voter discontent due to perceived injustices and moral indignation, which prompted them to vote for change. In the context of peace initiatives, this passage emphasizes the significance of confronting the root causes of conflict, redressing past violations, and promoting social harmony. It also emphasizes the opposition's role in maintaining accountability and limiting government abuses, which is consistent with democratic governance principles and the promotion of a peaceful society. The passage indirectly supports the aims of peacebuilding through its emphasis on justice, inclusiveness, and responsible citizenship, despite not explicitly addressing peace initiatives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At an earlier stage of my life, I had the great pleasure of spending two years teaching at York University in Toronto, Canada. Unlike the University of Toronto, whose campus looks like Harvard or Yale, York resembles British public universities such as Sussex: modern, functional, but without what in French is called "cachet." York University also happened to be one of the last genuinely left-wing schools in the Western world, at least in the social sciences. I had colleagues who had actually read Karl Marx - and took him seriously.

By sheer coincidence, the day I interviewed for a position in the Department of Political Science, York had scheduled a public lecture by Nancy Fraser, a renowned feminist political theorist/philosopher from the New School for Social Research in New York City. The lecture was on the politics of recognition. Given her impeccable left-wing credentials, York was friendly terrain - or so it seemed. I still remember Fraser's rather stunned expression when confronted with a barrage of attacks by York's Marxists, who charged her with discounting if not dismissing the central importance of social class.

White Trash, White Privilege
READ MORE
That was some 20 years ago. Yet ironically, the tension between the politics of recognition and the class-based politics of redistribution is still as pertinent as it was when Fraser theorized it in the late 1990s. In recent years, it has become even more of an issue of vital importance for the future of progressive politics in liberal democracies, not least because of the challenge posed by contemporary radical, right-wing populism.

Social Justice

The questions of both redistribution and recognition are about social justice. Above all, social justice concerns leveling the playing field. This is a point Fraser has never tired of repeating. She has adamantly pointed out that struggles for redistribution are anything but "antithetical to struggles for recognition." The problem is that, more often than not, one tended to be disassociated from the other. In reality, however, social justice involved both questions of redistribution and of "representation, identity, and difference."

Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. In the 1980s, the left, by and large, started to abandon their commitment to what once was called the working class and its aspirations. In its wake, as Axel Honneth noted more than a decade ago, "'equal distribution' or 'equality of good' no longer form its central categories, but 'dignity' and 'respect.'" To make matters worse, ordinary workers not only lost their privileged position in left-wing narratives. They were also increasingly denigrated, their needs and aspirations dismissed, and their values and views tagged as reactionary and retro, an expression of pervasive working-class authoritarianism.

I remember a column written by the German satirist Wolfgang Ebert that said it all in a few lines. The article appeared in 1985 in the prestigious German weekly Die Zeit. The text was meant to be taken as what it was: satire on Germany's post-68 new left, their delusions and disillusionment, which finally ended in the complete disavowal of the proletariat as a revolutionary class. On this reading, if the revolution never happened, it was because "the masses - not to speak of the working class as the so-called subject of the revolution - failed."

In fact, Ebert continued, the masses "always fail." Instead of following their "true interests" or at least listening to their "intellectual leaders," they preferred to follow the siren calls of consumerism. Ebert's conclusion: "Who would be stupid enough to risk their neck for these dumb masses?" The German Social Democrats (SPD) certainly didn't. That's why they are where they are today. Since the federal election of 1983, their share of the vote has plunged, from 38% to just over 20% in 2017.

Fast forward to 2011 in France, a few months before socialist Francois Hollande narrowly defeated the sitting president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in the second round of the 2012 election. The election was overshadowed by the downfall of socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who for some time had been seen as a serious candidate for the presidency until his aspirations were sunk by sex scandals.

Terra Nova

The reason Strauss-Kahn is mentioned here is because of his affiliation with Terra Nova, a progressive think tank modeled after the Center for American Progress and charged with "contributing to the intellectual renewal of the Left in France and in Europe." In 2011, Terra Nova released a strategic paper that essentially advised that the left should forget about French workers. These workers, the authors charged, were no longer concerned with economic and social questions; instead, they had bought into the "cultural issues" promoted by the right. At the same time, they had progressively been seduced by the far-right National Front, both on cultural and socioeconomic questions.

In short, as a highly critical commentary on the Terra Nova report in France's premier left-wing daily, Liberation, ironically put it, workers were "dirty and nasty" - at least that was the impression one got from reading the paper. If the socialists were serious about winning the 2012 presidential election, Terra Nova insisted, they had to come up with a new progressive subject. Terra Nova suggested a "future-oriented" coalition ("tomorrow's France"), "younger, more diverse, more feminized." This was to be a coalition of the culturally progressive and the economically marginalized - except, of course, traditional workers.

The analysis was apparently heavily influenced by American strategists busily constructing the new or "emerging" Democratic majority - the title of an influential book from 2004. Today, as a recent dissertation on this question demonstrates, this (hitherto still quite elusive) majority consists of the "ascendant" and "rising" American electorate - constituencies that, unlike the traditional white working class, are growing as a share of the overall electorate: people of color, the young and well-educated, socially liberal whites and single women. As Christopher Cimaglio, the author of the essay, pointed out, in this framework, "the white working class often serves as a receding reactionary backdrop to emerging, forward-looking groups: 'a more highly educated and diverse constituency,' 'a coalition of transformation, comfortable with demographic and cultural change.'"

Political Polarization

The result of this strategy is what we have today: widespread polarization, mutual recriminations, intense loathing on both sides of the aisle, and a politics of grievances and resentment that makes a mockery of one of America's most sacred notions: e pluribus unum. Shortly before the 2020 presidential election, roughly 80% of registered voters, both Democrats and Republicans, said "their differences with the other side were about core American values." Around 90% in both camps "worried that a victory by the other would lead to 'lasting harm' to the United States."

To be sure, the left's embrace of identity politics and diversity, together with its somewhat callous dismissal of what in French is called the couches populaires (aka "ordinary people") seeking to make a decent living, has not gone unchallenged. Just a few years ago in Spain, a polemic with the telling title "La Trampa de la Diversidad" (the diversity trap) became a national bestseller - and provoked a vicious backlash. Among other things, the author, the polemicist Daniel Bernabe, was charged with denigrating the feminist, LGBTQ and ecological causes, primarily for suggesting that the oppression of women was fundamentally rooted in economics - i.e., the capitalist system - rather than purely in sexism, which he considered as just another face of capitalism.

For Bernabe, everything started with Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister from 1979 to 1990. Thatcher managed to reframe economic inequality in terms of individual difference and diversity against a form of socialism that sought to impose "uniformity." In the years that followed, socialists and social democrats, such as Tony Blair of the UK and Gerhard Schroder of Germany, bought into this narrative - with suboptimal success, to put it kindly.

Recently in Germany, Sahra Wagenknecht, a leading politician of The Left party (Die Linke), provoked controversy with a new book highly critical of the left's adoption of identity politics. Identity, according to Wagenknecht, has become the pet project of a self-indulgent, left-libertarian, individualistic, urban, cosmopolitan elite - a "lifestyle" politics reflecting the smug complacency of the morally superior, far removed from the mundane material concerns of ordinary workers. The charge implies that if today's left embrace causes such as Fridays for Future or Black Lives Matter, it is less out of genuine conviction than out of the need to constantly reaffirm their distinctive identity and habitus, promoted as "the epitome of progressivism and responsibility."

Other critics of identity politics have been even less kind. " Blue Labour" theorist Jonathan Rutherford, for instance, in an article for New Statesman, argued that the decline of the British working class had turned Labour into a "party of the bourgeois left," espousing what he called the cause of "cosmopolitan liberalism." This, he charged, is the "culture of the elites," one that is "deeply divisive," grounded in identity politics. In turn, identity politics at least "in its libertarian pursuit of self-realisation and its judging and dividing into victim status hierarchies, is corrosive of society."

Under the influence of cosmopolitan liberalism, Rutherford argued, "progressive and left politics in the 1990s turned away from class politics and solidarity in favour of group identities and self-realisation." In the process, the politics of recognition turned into a politics of victimization. At the same time, society has moved on. While the postindustrial, postmodern plebs fight over the question of who has been most victimized, the "new revolutionary subject," the "'universal educated person' of urban, higher-educated and networked youth," is busy conceptualizing a brave new world of material abundance, social harmony and ecological wellbeing - or so I understand what Rutherford is trying to say.

Identity Politics

Others have gone even further, charging that identity politics threatens to undermine liberal democracy. On this view, identity politics has led to a fragmentation of social cohesion, undermined a common sense of belonging, and been replaced by a new type of "tribalism" that has largely benefited the right and far right. As Francis Fukuyama pointed out, identity politics reflects "important grievances." At the top of the list is the long history of denigration, discrimination and outright violence that various ethnic minorities have been subjected to by the white majority.

In some cases, however, identity politics has taken on an "exclusive character where people's 'lived experiences'" determine who they are. This, Fukuyama said, has "created obstacles to empathy and communication." One might add that it has done a disservice to the notion of a shared humanity.

In other cases, the combination of identity politics and political correctness has reached absurd dimensions. Take, for instance, the case of Felipe Rose, the iconic member of the Village People. Rose is the guy dressed in Native American garb, which has exposed him to charges of cultural appropriation and playing to stereotypes. As a critic put it, "Rose's Halloween-style Indian is the only character [among the Village People] to play on the identity of a living culture." Dina Gilio-Whitaker, the critic, added: "Why on earth, after American Indians have for decades been successfully waging war against the use of Indian stereotypes in popular culture, is Felipe Rose still parading around on stage in an Indian costume" like a cartoon character come to life?

The answer is simple. The singer defines himself as of Native American descent (Lakota Sioux) and has done more for America's indigenous population than many a well-meaning left-wing culture warrior (pun intended). Skeptics might want to watch Rose's " Trail of Tears " - a tribute to the "eviction" of the Cherokee and other nations from their ancestral lands resulting in thousands of deaths on the way.

Does this mean the left should abandon recognition in favor of a return to an exclusive focus on redistribution? Quite the contrary: As Fukuyama has strongly insisted, the politics of recognition reflects a fundamental human desire for dignity, for being esteemed. Taking his cue from the eminent German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, he noted that "history itself is driven by the struggle for recognition, by the desire of human beings to have their fundamental dignity recognised by other human beings and that modern democracy emerges when equal dignity, not the dignity of the master, but the mutual recognition of equal dignity, is achieved."

Michael Sandel, a leading political philosopher and celebrated author of "The Tyranny of Merit," argues along similar lines. As he wrote in The Atlantic, any "serious response to working-class frustrations must combat condescension and credentialist prejudice. It must also put the dignity of work at the center of the political agenda." In the book, Sandel cited data chronicling the decline of America's white working class, many of whom have simply fallen out of the labor market, as if "defeated by the indignities of a labor market indifferent to their skills." The data comes from Isabel Sawhill's work on what she calls "the forgotten Americans." They are the victims of the kind of "misrecognition" that Fraser has theorized. More often than not, they have given up, both with respect to the labor market and to life itself, succumbing to what Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have called "deaths of despair."

"White Trash"

These developments are not only highly unsettling. They also drastically demonstrate the central importance of recognition in the current period of hyperglobalization, accelerated innovation and automation, and run-away individualization. Under the circumstances, it is of paramount importance to bestow a modicum of visibility to the ignored and forgotten, to have their existence acknowledged.

Yet this is seldom the case. America's " white trash" underclass is a case in point. Poor and, more often than not, addicted to opioids, structurally irrelevant as both producers and consumers, white trash epitomizes what is wrong with today's politics of recognition and identity, laying bare its internal contradictions - if not its inherent hypocrisies. White trash might appear to be an American phenomenon but it is not. As Imogen Tyler has shown, the denigration of the white, socially marginalized underclass is also prevalent in Britain, reflected in the notion of the "chav," a ubiquitous term of abuse for the white poor. In fact, over the past two decades, "chavs" increasingly became a prevalent comedy television trope, exposing poor whites to ridicule and opprobrium by urban elites.

This suggests that the struggle for recognition, as Fraser has affirmed, is an all-encompassing, comprehensive struggle based on an inclusive notion of hurt and grievances. On this reading, the struggle for recognition and dignity cannot be divorced from the struggle for redistribution or, for that matter, the struggle for equal participation. This, of course, is hardly a new idea. As early as 1918, Max Weber distinguished between three distinct but interrelated foundations of social inequality: resources, power and status. The latter refers to "inequality based on differences in honor, esteem, and respect." As Stanford sociologist Cecilia Ridgeway has noted, we tend to forget "how much people care about public acknowledgement of their worth." Yet they tend to "care about status quite as intensely as they do [about] money and power." They want "to be someone."

Historically, this was one of the main selling points of populist leaders, including Juan Peron in Argentina. Peron, who served two terms as president before his death in 1974, accorded workers and the poor and dispossessed "their own voice and a new sense of their relevance." This was a particular concern of his wife, Evita, who "was instrumental in transforming the sense of identity of the workers and the poor, and in doing so she helped them gain a sense of their own 'dignity', as she frequently repeated."

As Carlos de la Torre, a leading specialist on Latin American populism, has put it, populism is "a politics of cultural and symbolic recognition of the despised underclasses. It transforms the humiliations that the rabble, the uncultured, the unseen, and those who have no voice have to endure in their daily life into sources of dignity and even redemption."

Unfortunately, in today's world, many people are denied the right to be someone. As Senator Bernie Sanders recently noted with respect to rural Americans, "there is not an appreciation of rural America or the values of rural America, the sense of community that exists in rural America." He added: [S]omehow or another, the intellectual elite does have, in some cases, a contempt for the people who live in rural America. I think we've got to change that attitude and start focusing on the needs of people in rural America, treat them with respect, and understand there are areas there are going to be disagreements, but we can't treat people with contempt."

Unfortunately, this is has happened too often, not only in the United States but also in Europe. Social justice, however, can only be achieved if everyone is brought on board.

Equal Rights

There are myriad examples of how these dimensions of social justice are inextricably linked. Take, for instance, the struggle for women's equal rights. In Germany, until 1958, women were not allowed - by law - to open their own bank account without the explicit permission of their husbands. In other words, it was the men who disposed of the money women brought into the marriage and the money they earned while married. In the United States, until the mid-1970s, banks could refuse to issue unmarried women a credit card. If they were married, their husbands were required to cosign.

Germany and the United States are not alone. In 1979, a British general practitioner refused to give former Labour MP Helen Goodman a prescription for contraception on the grounds that she was unmarried. In Switzerland, it took until 1971 for women to be granted the right to vote. Swiss men were largely opposed, as were many Swiss women. The reason why Switzerland agreed to accord women the right to vote was that the country wanted to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. For this to happen, women's suffrage was a sine qua non, much to the chagrin of Swiss men. In fact, it took until 1990 for the last Swiss canton (Appenzell Innerrhoden) to allow its female citizens to vote. Each of these cases confirmed Simone de Beauvoir's conclusion that women constituted the "second sex." No wonder the Vatican added her treatise to the index of prohibited books.

These examples illustrate the notion that the way in which humans are recognized - or not - has important consequences, material and otherwise. Take the case of gay rights. It took until 1987 for homosexuality to no longer be categorized as some kind of " mental disorder" in the United States. It took three more years for the World Health Organization (WHO) to follow suit. It took another few decades for the WHO to stop classifying gender incongruency as a behavioral and mental disorder. As Patchen Markell noted, "the denigration of non-normative sexualities ... helps to sustain the maldistribution of resources ranging from health care to police protection."

In fact, take the more recent case of "welfare chauvinism," which has led to attempts by Western European governments to limit access to social benefits for migrants and refugees while favoring the "native-born." More often than not, the poor do not vote. Why should they? Nobody cares about them anyway.

"Deplorables" in America

Unfortunately but not unexpectedly - here, Fukuyama is right - the political right have, in recent years, hijacked identity politics in the service of division and polarization, driven by resentment and mutual recrimination. A paradigmatic example is the American tea party movement. One of its grievances was that welfare programs went "to 'undeserving' immigrants, minorities, and youth" instead of "hardworking" Americans.

An even more outrageous example is a statement made by Idaho State Representative Priscilla Giddings, who recently justified cuts for Idaho's universities. She claimed that state lawmakers "don't want funds expended for courses, programs, services, or trainings that confer support for extremist ideologies, such as those tied to social justice." Giddings, a member of the Republican Party, also opposed a bill in the Idaho legislature that would have released a federal grant designed to support the development of Idaho's early childhood care and education system. She was particularly incensed that the program was aligned with a nonprofit organization that in its national catalog stated that "whiteness ... confers privilege, as does being male" and that the organization "supports a 'social justice curriculum.'" Giddings did not believe, she stated, "that you are privileged based on your gender or your race." The bill failed, depriving Idaho's children of much-needed funds.

Donald Trump, the former US president, built on this base during his first election campaign. To a large extent, he appealed to grievances not met by the dominant politics of recognition, which has tended to privilege minorities while dismissing the plight of the underprivileged, as long as they happen to be white. In 2016, he made restoring dignity to American workers a central trope of his speeches. When Hillary Clinton famously called Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables," he responded that, for him, they were "hard‐working American patriots who love your country and want a better future for all of our people." But above all else, Trump said, they were Americans, "entitled to leadership that honors you, cherishes you, and defends you." He added: "Every American is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect in our country." In the election, around two-thirds of white voters without a college degree voted for Trump.

There can be no doubt that in recent decades, the question of recognition and dignity has become central in the politics of advanced liberal democracies. A prime example is the notion of multiculturalism, which presumes that all cultures are equal but different. In the process, the question of economic justice has taken somewhat of a back seat, to the detriment of those who have been struggling to keep afloat in an atmosphere of rapidly increasing economic uncertainty.

One result has been an upsurge in support for political parties. Such parties have been astute in exploiting widespread popular resentment in the service of an exclusionary nativist notion of deservedness based on ethnicity or cultural compatibility. Unfortunately, too often the left have given up on their traditional electoral base, leaving the field wide open for the pied pipers of the radical, populist right. The radical right have promoted themselves as the advocates of ordinary people, claiming to give them a voice and a modicum of visibility and a sense of empowerment.

Pandora's Box

The success of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in the regions that comprise the former East Germany is a case in point. As Jennifer Yoder, a professor at Colby College, recently suggested, support for the AfD in Saxony and Thuringia - strongholds for the party - is to a large extent the expression of a "revenge of the East." As she pointed out, it reflects a profound sense among easterners of "not being taken seriously," of never being asked what they think. At the same time, it illustrates the perception "that one's own status now and in the future is at risk." It is this combination of the subjective experience of a lack of recognition and materially-related anxieties with regard to the future that has proved a powerful motivation for supporting a political party that purports to speak for both the mental state and the interests of the eastern German population.

Germany is hardly a unique case. The claim to take ordinary people seriously, to give visibility to the forgotten and invisible has been a major selling point of radical, right-wing populists - from Marine Le Pen to Donald Trump. In its election program for the 1985 election, the National Front in France declared that the "dignity of the French people" was one of its priorities. This was at a time of profound disillusionment among French workers over President Francois Mitterrand's radical reversal of economic policy - aka tournant de la rigueur - of 1983. Above all, rigueur meant austerity and subservience to Germany's stringent monetary policy, which left French workers in the cold. Hardly surprising, in the years and decades that followed, many of them found a new home in Le Pen's National Front.

It might seem that the politics of recognition and diversity has opened Pandora's box. To a certain extent, this is true. There is no good reason to recognize the suffering of ethnic, sexual and religious minorities at the hands of the majority, while dismissing the suffering of significant parts of the majority. White trash, as I have previously argued, might be white, but it is still dismissed and denigrated as "trash." In this case, white privilege not only becomes meaningless, but it serves as an insult, adding to denigration and misrecognition, to use Fraser's term.

Hardly surprising, the "deplorables," to use Clinton's term, overwhelmingly came out in support of Trump, who, as Clinton suggested, "lifted them up." To be sure, Clinton meant that Trump reaffirmed their sexist, racist and homophobic views. Yet it could also mean that those who voted for Trump were - perhaps for the first time ever - given a sense that they existed, were "visible" and that they counted.

Le Pen, after being elected as the leader of the French radical, populist right, made the politics of recognition central to her project. In 2011, a few months before the presidential election, she promoted herself as the candidate of " la France des invisibles," of all those citizens who never merit being mentioned, who are forgotten, who are - as she put it - " des triples riens." The notion is an allusion to the triple-A ratings bestowed by international agencies on the creditworthiness of states - the main obsession, or so Le Pen maintained, of France's political and economic elite.

Le Pen failed to advance to the second round of the presidential election, which ended in a duel between Sarkozy and Hollande. In 2017, she made it to the second round but lost to Emmanuel Macron. Yet Le Pen's politics of recognition had clearly hit a nerve, as did her adoption of a socioeconomic project that promised to expand the French welfare state; though this was under the proviso that the expansion would only be for the French.

Same Boat

The French case is neither unique nor limited to the radical, populist right. In Denmark, for instance, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a Social Democrat, has advanced similar propositions, many of them adopted from the country's far right. In today's world, it appears that both recognition and redistribution only work if they are associated with a large dose of exclusion. Unfortunately, "identity politics" has turned into a zero-sum game. More often than not, the result has been more resentment and even less willingness to listen to the other side. The remarks by State Representative Giddings is paradigmatic of these trends. This kind of politics can only exacerbate social tension and increase polarization, in the process diminishing chances for moving forward.

A progressive politics based on an honest assessment of the multiple crises we face today can only succeed if it includes all sectors of society, independent of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and material circumstances. It might sound a bit trite, but we are all sitting in the same boat. It would be a tragic mistake to throw some passengers overboard for the simple reason that they are deemed not to belong.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer's editorial policy.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.

We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn't come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Politics of Recognition vs. Redistribution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At an earlier stage of my life, I had the great pleasure of spending two years teaching at York University in Toronto, Canada. Unlike the University of Toronto, whose campus looks like Harvard or Yale, York resembles British public universities such as Sussex: modern, functional, but without what in French is called "cachet."

# data[].attributes.body
Axknowledge people´s effort. The social recognition may be the main way to give a person a moment of participation in the common environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Multiculturalism and the Australian Identity | Q+A

# data[].attributes.body
Multicultralism, the identity of some places like Australia, over th history changes and thanks to the inclusion of diversity of it threw years.

# data[].attributes.body
Multiculturalism as a way to success and obteinance of human resources, withall the extralaboral conflicts that could brouhgt to places that are opne to social diversity.

# data[].attributes.body
Here we can see the cultural identity of Buddhists and relating it to Taylor's politics of recognition, it's interesting to see how one tweet can make a whole community feel recognized, alongside their beliefs and customs, and how this for their identity is crucial. It's also important to mention how the recognition the festival gained through this tweet boosted their self-esteem through politics of difference. Politics of difference are also present throughout this example, because this festival is peculiar and unique to the the members of that specific cultural group. Relating it to Axel's theory, solidarity is the most present sphere of interaction. Solidarity is most present throughout this post because it emphasizes our appreciation of difference and how we're able to coexist with other cultures and it helps with the responsibility we have towards one another and in doing so it makes us feel loved.

# data[].attributes.body
The text emphasizes the significance of acknowledging the dignity and grievances of marginalized groups, such as the white underclass and ethnic minorities. It implies that the struggle for recognition, dignity, and equal participation should be inclusive and comprehensive, addressing both material inequalities and identity issues.

To foster sustainable peace, it is essential to resolve social injustices, economic disparities, and identity-based conflicts, from the perspective of peacebuilding. Initiatives for peace should aim to bridge divides, encourage dialogue, and provide opportunities for marginalized groups to be heard and included in decision-making processes. Peace initiatives can create a more just and inclusive society by addressing both the politics of recognition and redistribution.