Dancing with Iris: The Philosophy of Iris Marion Young. Edited by ANN FERGUSON and MECHTHILD NAGEL.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Anne Donchin The metaphorical reference in the title of this anthology is not transparently obvious, so I asked the editors about their intent. Ann Ferguson told me that the title alludes to the ways Iris danced from one stage to another in the development of her ideas. Mechthild Nagel added, Iris cherished talking about movement music, dance, embodiment all coursed through her writing. Understood in this way, the title aptly conveys the spirit in which this collection was assembled. Both organization and content illustrate the movement of Youngs thought and show how multiple strands of earlier themes are woven into later developments. Contributors from several disciplines play out the dance trope and illustrate the countless paths by which Young led others to rethink and extend their own positions. Surprising gems include an interview with Young during her last European trip barely a few months before her death. The editors introductory essay situates Youngs work within the historical context of contemporaneous feminist movements, both those she was drawn to and those she reacted against. Following the books introductory section, contributors in Part 2 address Youngs early phenomenological analysis of sex difference and its bearing on her later turn to gender as a social construction. Sandra Bartky teases out harbingers of Youngs more mature view in her phenomenological work. Emphasizing differences between female and male modes of embodiment, she evocatively expands the theme of movement in Youngs writing, reminding readers of distinctive ways women inhabit their bodies: their walk, stages in the pregnancy experience, and bodily interactions with surrounding space. Her reminders reafrm Youngs perspective and rebut the criticism of post-structuralists, as well as Youngs later self-criticism. Bonnie Mann stresses the importance of Youngs work on gender as a tool for theorizing that does not collapse into either subjectivism or abstract objectivism. Michelle Ferguson takes up a complementary theme: autobiographical narrative in Youngs work. She tries to gure out why she nds Youngs self-references so discomforting. Its not their
Hypatia vol. 26, no. 4 (Fall 2011) by Hypatia, Inc.

878

Hypatia

subjective cast, she concludes, but the way they prod readers to reach beyond theorizing and engage actively with the world. This group of articles works as a transition between stages in Youngs thinking and evokes further associations between her phenomenological stage and her later emphasis on structural injustice. Part 3 focuses on Youngs non-ideal theory. Alison Jaggar compares her use of critical theory with Rawlss ideal theory and takes up her criticisms of the distributive paradigm. She faults that paradigm for dwelling on distribution of material goods and bypassing social and institutional contexts that determine patterns and processes of distribution. Margaret Denike and Bat-Ami Bar On are preoccupied with immediately pressing issues of violence and power, especially the tendency of security states to act as a male protection racket (108). Bar On critiques Youngs condemnation of ofcial violence and mounts a case for productive uses of violence as a necessary means to legitimate ends. The essays in Parts 4 and 5 concentrate on Youngs later ideas, particularly her work on responsibility for structural injustices. But these essays are also linked to her earlier conception of gender difference, her subsequent view of women as a series connected by practical social structures, and her commitment to activism. They often resonate with Youngs erce sense of social justice and her grassroots political activity. They remind us that she was as comfortable working at the street level as when writing about demanding political theorists. In drawing on her own activist work, Ann Ferguson notes the insight Young gave her into interlocking structures of oppression. Youngs work, she argues, lays the basis for a paradigm of justice as solidarity that supplements her paradigm of justice as shared responsibility. Solidarity, in Fergusons view, involves feelings of empathetic connection that have the power to transform peoples understanding of their long-term self-interest e Meltons focus and facilitate commitment to struggles against oppression. Desire is complementary. She stresses vulnerability, a character disposition that kindles receptivity to others needs. Several other contributors also develop themes from Youngs work on oppression, and Lori Gruen extends Youngs characterization of the faces of oppression to humans treatment of animals. Martha Nussbaum, Claudia Card, and Carol Gould all build cases for modifying the future orientation of Youngs social connection model of responsibility to emphasize the greater responsibility of those who have been major perpetrators of injustice. Each makes a persuasive case for overcoming Youngs reluctance to lay blame on wrongdoers. Gould is concerned that a theory of responsibility for injustice that does not include appraisals of guilt might shift attention away from the greater liability of multinational corporations and overstate the responsibility of workers who have little choice but to cooperate. She presses for a humanrights perspective focused on economic and social rights that emphasizes positive riam global responsibilities to establish institutions to realize those rights. Ma Martinezs complementary article on immigration politics stresses Youngs extension of the conception of social justice to institutions and addresses her late

Book Review

879

writings on the need to create conditions that promote self-development and self-determination. Others also focus on ways individuals and groups can act responsibly to rectify global injustices. Like so many other admirers of Youngs work, Id forgotten how many fragments of Youngs thought I had made my own. This collection jarred me into recollecting the huge debt I owe herand undoubtedly share with so many of her other fans. Youngs work will long continue to provide a rich resource, not just for philosophers, but for scholars and students from many disciplinary perspectives. Nussbaum, whos been involved in the publication of Youngs nal book, Responsibility for Justice, ends her critique of Youngs view on guilt and shame on a tentative note. I am sure she would have had a lot to say and it would have been very powerful. Unfortunately, however, that conversation is no longer possible, and it remains for all of us to try to continue the argument as best we can (145). This farewell volume promises to bring our conversation with Young to a new level. So the dance will go on.