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
Published - January 04, 2023 10:30 am IST
