recognition redistribution

23Jun09

i am reading fraser again to incorporate parts of her argument in the first chapter on the relationship between class and other forms of identity in building a social movement.  thus far, i have these issues with her argument:

1a. its not clear what she understands by class. is it a particular social category which got sedemented with the advent and crystallization of capitalism that was identified in social theory after marx? or, does class obscure other socio-poltical relations some of which spill into identity politics?  are we speaking of old wines in new bottles? that is, in speaking of class and its relationship to other markers and forms of social organization, what is getting lost? habermas’s structural transformation is still a better book in this regard.

1b. she does say that she is creating a heuristic distinction between class and identity politics, one that doesn’t exist between “cultural and political economy” (p. 12) in the real world, at the outset in order to understand the problem of justice in our present time.  i am not sure that she will be able to do this because her so called analytic categories are ill defined and founded.

2. she only understands class and its constructions in a particular context, that is, the west.  not her fault/problem, i understand, even though she seems to be making a general case. but in india, what does speaking of class entail?

Filed under: Class, Indian Left, Indian historiography, Labor, Sacred/Secular, Unit 1, What is the political?   |  Leave a Comment