Home and Identity: In Memory of Iris Marion Young

Hypatia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-21
Author(s):  
Allison Weir
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Michael Goodhart

This chapter puts many of the ideas outlined previously to work in considering the problem of responsibility for systemic injustice. Building on the insights of Iris Marion Young and Marion Smiley, it argues that responsibility must be reconceptualized as a political rather than a philosophical problem and that its solution lies in counterhegemonic political struggles over the meaning of injustice itself. The chapter shows, in a concrete way, what such struggles might look like, describing the ways in which social conventions and interpretations structure our thinking about responsibility and what might be done to challenge and change them. It concludes that to take responsibility for injustice is to take up this political work.


2020 ◽  
pp. 136843102098378
Author(s):  
Isabelle Aubert

This article explains how the issue of inclusion is central to Habermas’s theory of democracy and how it is deeply rooted in his conception of a political public sphere. After recalling Habermas’s views on the public sphere, I present and discuss various objections raised by other critical theorists: Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge, Nancy Fraser, Axel Honneth and Iris Marion Young. These criticisms insist on the paradoxically excluding effects of a conception of democracy that promotes civic participation in the public debate. Negt, Kluge and Fraser develop a Marxist line of analysis that question who can participate in the public sphere. Honneth and Young criticize in various ways the excluding effect of argumentation: are unargumentative speeches excluded from the public debate? I show how Habermas’s model can provide some responses to these various objections by drawing inspiration from his treatment of the gap between religious and post-metaphysical world views.


2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-98
Author(s):  
Nathalie De Almeida Bressiani

Partindo de uma breve exposição, focada na questão do reconhecimento dos modelos de Teoria Crítica desenvolvidos por Iris Marion Young e Nancy Fraser, esse artigo busca apresentar algumas das principais questões e difi culdades no que diz respeito à possibilidade de promover o reconhecimento das diferenças sem comprometer a igualdade e mostrar a importância da participação política e de concepções de democracia deliberativa, sem as quais parece impossível, tanto para Young quanto para Fraser, pensar adequadamente as questões de justiça nos dias de hoje.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaele L. Ferguson ◽  
Andrew Valls
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 97 (9) ◽  
pp. 971-988
Author(s):  
MAR SORIA

En este ensayo analizo cómo la representación de la basura puede funcionar como contradiscurso en dos obras de ideología opuesta: la pieza teatral El cubo de la basura (1951) de Alfonso Sastre y la novela Mi vida en la basura (1955) de Ángeles Villarta. Relacionando el concepto de lo abyecto que proponen Julia Kristeva y Iris Marion Young con la teoría del espacio urbano de Henry Lefebvre, examino cómo estas obras trazan una geografía urbana de abyección que subvierte el discurso triunfalista imperante en la posguerra española al interconectar la basura con la experiencia del espacio vivido de los protagonistas. Además, mi análisis sobre la interpretación de lo que constituye ‘basura’ revela la dificultad de clasificar la ideología de un texto como conservadora o progresista de forma categórica ya que este mismo texto puede desestabilizar y reforzar el discurso dominante simultáneamente dependiendo de la perspectiva analítica del lector.


Hypatia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neus Torbisco Casals ◽  
Idil Boran

Originally, the idea of interviewing Iris Marion Young in Barcelona came about after she accepted an invitation to give a public lecture at the Law School of Pompeu Fabra University in May 2002. I had first met Iris back in 1999, at a conference in Bristol, England, and I was impressed deeply by her personality and ideas. We kept in touch since then and exchanged papers and ideas. She was very keen to come to Spain (it seems that her mother had lived some years in Mallorca) and she finally travelled to Barcelona with her husband and daughter in spring 2002.The lecture, which she entitled “Women, War, and Peace,” was meant to be the closing session of a course on Gender and the Law, and was also part of a series of seminars annually organized by the legal philosophy department (the Albert Calsamiglia Seminar). Her work was quite well-known among several Catalan philosophers and political scientists and professor Angel Castiñeira—who, at the time, was the director of Idees (Ideas), a Catalan journal published by the Centre d'Estudis de Temes Contemporanis (Center for the Study of Contemporary Issues)—suggested that she could give a second lecture, which they would publish together with an interview I could prepare. She accepted both proposals, and I started to think of a questionnaire for the interview while I was at Queen's University in Canada earlier that year. Idil Boran, a philosopher and good friend who did her doctorate at Queen's, offered to help me with this endeavour, since she also admired Iris as both a scholar and a person. Together we prepared the questions and sent them to her once she was back in Chicago, as there was not time to conduct the interview in person while she was in Barcelona.In fall 2002, she sent some answers to our questions, but the document was unfortunately incomplete. She was busy at the time, so we didn't want to pressure her to finish the interview. Eventually, the editors of Idees decided to publish the manifest about the war in Iraq subscribed by a large number of American Intellectuals together with fragments of Iris's (antiwar) lectures and an article that she wrote together with Daniel Archibugi, “Envisioning a Global Rule of Law.”1 The interview was thus left unpublished. Both Idil and I thought it would be worthwhile to publish it somewhere else, but, for one reason or another, Iris didn't have the time to complete it and we kept postponing the project. At some point, she said that the questions she left unanswered were too complex or challenging to give a short or quick answer, and that she would need to reflect on them to provide detailed responses.Later, we learned she was ill and we didn't feel it was right to insist on those questions being answered. The issue came up again when she accepted to participate as a keynote speaker at the World Congress of Legal Philosophy held in Granada in June 2005. She then said she would come first to Barcelona (where she and Nancy Fraser had been invited to a workshop by the Catalan Women Institute) and suggested we could sit in a cafe and talk about the issues left out in those unanswered questions. Unfortunately, she had to cancel this trip because of her medical treatment, and I did not have the privilege of sharing time with her again. The following series of questions and responses are the product of this rather extended interview process.Neus Torbisco Casals


Hypatia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Weir

Drawing on Iris Marion Young's essay, “House and Home: Feminist Variations on a Theme,” Weir argues for an alternative ideal of home that involves: (1) the risk of connection, and of sustaining relationship through conflict; (2) relational identities, constituted through both relations of power and relations of mutuality, love, and flourishing; (3) relational autonomy: freedom as the capacity to be in relationships one desires, and freedom as expansion of self in relationship; and (4) connection to past and future, through reinterpretive preservation and transformative identification.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document