Intro

-argues that the distributive paradigm is also permeates public debate

-processes of interest group pluralism restrict public conflict to distribution
-decision making structures, organization of production, processes etc. are left out
-the welfare capitalist society is depoliticized, discourages active engagement of citizens because
they are defined as client / consumers
-this distributive paradigm functions ideologically and reinforces the depoliticization
-insurgent movements might help to arrive at a more appropriate conception of social justice

Normative Principles of Welfare Capitalist Society

-welfare corporate society embodies 3 important principles that distinguishes them from previous
more laissez faire liberal capitalism:
1) economic activity should be socially regulated to maximize welfare (tax policies, import/
export trade policies, monetary policy)
2) citizens have the right to have some basic needs met by society. The state has an obligation
to help where private mechanisms fail
3) formal equality and impersonal procedures (in contrast to more arbitrary forms)
Young focusses a lot on 3:
bureaucracies are operating according to impersonal rules that apply in the same way to all cases
Ideally, within them people have or lack status not by virtue of any personal attributes
Positions should be assigned according to merit
These institutions and practices help to preserve capitalist institutions in two ways:
1) Structurally, they create favourable conditions for capitalism. (favourable conditions for
production & accumulation, creating a work force etc.)
2) Politically, they serve legitimating functions, promise the people some material advantage
Young says:
-government supported welfare is a good thing
-but the form of welfare capitalist institutions should be altered so that they no longer support
domination and oppression (p.70)

The Depoliticization of Welfare Capitalist Society

Distribution
-public policy regulating private economic activity correlates with the depoliticization of the public
(the more public policy influences private economic activity, the less politicized the public
becomes)
-social conflict comes to be restricted to distribution, interest-group pluralism
example:

New Deal reforms in the 50s

capitalists struck deals with workers about conditions etc.
labour unions restricted their demands to distributive issues (pay, hours, vacation
time vs. working conditions, control of production process)

policy issues in governments.

Existing structures of power, property, entitlement do not come under discussion
Client / Consumer

-by restricting discussion to distribution, the citizen becomes client / consumer

-welfare state capitalism requires high levels of consumption, so the citizens are encouraged to
think of themselves (first and foremost) as consumers
-these consumers organize themselves in interests groups to realize their goals
-this 'interest group pluralism' is analogous to the market
-various interests compete with one another & there is competition & bargaining among interestgroup
Common criticism: This is unfair, because people start with different resources etc.
Young agrees, but her point is: Interest group pluralism depoliticizes public life
-interest group pluralism makes no distinction between selfish claims and normative claims to
justice
-political cynicism: those who claim to appeal to justice are only hiding their selfish interests behind
this
-those who really appeal to justice must be ready to bargain
Problem:
-there is no forum within the public sphere where people can examine the overall patterns of justice
produced by these processes.
-because everyone is just acting on their own interests
-further: the fragmentation of interest group pluralism makes it impossible for a more
comprehensive picture to emerge / be discussed
-citizens cannot voice their needs or participate in discussion without some specific government
program or interest
finally: the public depoliticizes because many important decisions are made in privacy (p.73)

The Ideaological Function of the Distributive Paradigm

-Ideas function ideaologically

Insurgency and the Repoliticization of Public Life

the depoliticization of welfare capitalist society succeeds only if certain structural contradictions
can be contained:
1) fiscal contradiction
the welfare capitalist system relies on government programs to foster private accumulation /
maintain high levels of consumption
but then again these government programs require massive state spending
2) human control
we are bringing increasing areas of everyday life under human control
at the same time: we are trying to keep this control depoliticized
but people are more likely to demand a meaningful public discussion, the more social
spheres are dominated by state policy.
- the context of these contradictions made it possible for insurgent campaigns to emerge
- several insurgent campaigns and movements have responded to the domination of administered

life (Jonathan)
- insurgent campaigns often develop quite spontaneously & locally, loosely networked groups
- usually heterogeneous in character
- self limiting character: unlike Marxism or other earlier political movements, their goal is not to
seize state power, but to limit state and corporate power.
- their main focus is not distributive, they focus on issues like decision making and participation.
- they want to democratize institutions and practices
3 categories of insurgent movements
(1) those that challenge decision making structures & the currently powerful
(2) those that organize autonomous services
(3) movements of cultural identity
(1) challenging decision making structures & authority / expertism
examples:
environmental movement,
urban movements
anti-nuclear power movement
the anti nuclear power movement questioned the entire framework of energy
understanding that was assumed at the time
also a good example against expertism: it was assumed that certain things should be left
for the experts to discuss
in the process of accumulating information on waste management, technical knowledge,
laws etc. the anti nuclear power campaigners realized that it IS POSSIBLE to understand
these matters and discuss this with experts
(2) Category of Insurgent Movement: Autonomous Services
-Rather than demand that the state provide more services, these movements developed their
own, participatory services.
-many of them demand access to public resources to support their activity
example: women's movement: health services, rape crisis services, shelters.
Many of these services have then been officially integrated into the welfare state, but
a lot of them also tried to maintain their autonomy.
Tenant organizations, squatters movements
(3) Social movements that focus on POLITICIZING CULTURE
bringing culture (language, gestures, forms of embodiment, images) into explicit
reflection
question certain everyday symbols, practices, ways of speaking etc.
Ask questions like: what practices contribute to social domination & oppression? how do
we want to collectively transform them? etc.
example: hippies in the 60s and 70s challenged societies norms. (short hair for men, etc.)
punk
natural foods movement
gay & lesbian liberation movements

ethnic groups, old people, disabled people

contemporary feminism

The Dialectic of Recontainment versus Democracy

-these movements aim to repoliticize social life.
-but are mainly based outside of institutionalized interest-group pluralism.
-the establishment tries to reintegrate these demands back into the pluralist system
-we can observe cycles of insurgency and recontainment
-insurgency: demands for a change of the institutional structures or decision making processes
-recontainment: ...are converted / rechanneld into distributive conflicts / distributive solutions /
reabsorbed into the interest group system
-example: problems like institutional racism are 'solved' by giving more jobs to non-whites / women
etc. instead of focussing on structure / processes,
-this is analagous to the struggle of justice as distribution vs justice as enablement
-justice as distribution assumes a client / consumer
-justice as enablement assumes a more active conception of persons
-theorists of justice must take this struggle between these two conceptions into account.
-theories that are blind to this are just reinforcing the existing system

Democracy as a condition of social justice

-Young defines justice as (p. 91) the institutionalized conditions that make it possible for all to
participate in decision making and express themselves and their perspectives etc.
-justice requires a societal commitment to meeting the basic needs of everyone
-because: if people suffer material deprivation (food, shelter) they cannot participate
-justice also requires participation in public discussion & processes of democratic decision making
-but: such democratic structures should not only regulate decision making in government
institutions, but in all institutions of public life (such as universities, voluntary organizations etc.)
democracy is both an element and a condition of social justice
-democracy is has both instrumental and intrinsic value:
instrumentally: the best way for citizens to voice their needs and not be dominated.
-the problem with interest group pluralism is not that people promote their own interests, but:
1) interest group pluralism does not require the voiced interests to appeal to justice
2) inequality of power, resources etc. allows some interests to dominate
intrinsically: the virtues of citizenship are best cultivated through the exercise of
citizenship
through participation we have to think about society more, set our selves in relation to
another, become more engaged, more empathetic, taking an interest in others etc.
the idea that deliberation shapes the deliberators

gives people a sense of active relation to social institutions and processes

Young claims that: Democracy & Deliberation is most likely to arrive at social justice, (such as a
fair distribution of resources, just rules of cooperation, just division of labour), because deliberation
is most likely to introduce standard of justice into the decision making process.
Objection: Objection to the claim that democratic decision making processes promote justice
Amy Gutmann's example:
-community control of schools, where increased democracy led to increased segregation
-the materially more privileged and more articulate white males were able to promote their
interests against the just demands of Blacks
-Gutmann calls this the paradox of democracy and argues that distributive fairness is a
necessary condition for institutions of democratic participation and that democratic
processes must be limited by principles of equal liberty & rough distributive equality
Young's Reply:
1) Democracy must always be constitutional : basic rights (economic, civil, political rights)
that democratic decisions cannot violate
2) equates democracy and participation with local control. (Decentralisation / local autonomy)
3) -Democracy in one institution reinforces democracy in others
-democratic processes would be introduced in all institutional forms
-the objection assumes that only institutions that are concerned with law / state policies
will be reformed, while other institutions remain undemocratic
-but if everything is reformed, people are less likely to express their voice in any one forum
4) -the suggestion that institutionalization of deliberative processes should wait until we have
distributive justice makes the achievement of distributive justice unlikely.
-the contrary is the case: deliberative processes is a condition for achieving greater
distributive fairness
-economic equalization & democratization foster each other
5) (Gutmann presumes a unified public.) In her example, even economic equality would not
necessarily eliminate this paradox of democracy in which another group is stereotyped.