Recognition or Redistribution? The Politics of Identity

Recognition as a vital human need

Taylor argues in “The Politics of Recognition” (1992) that our identity is formed in dialogue with others, so that being misrecognised – seen through a demeaning picture – can inflict real harm: “Due recognition is not just a courtesy we owe people. It is a vital human need.” Modern societies combine a politics of equal dignity, which treats everyone alike, with a politics of difference, which asks that distinct identities be acknowledged – and the two can conflict. Honneth (The Struggle for Recognition, 1992) traces social conflicts to experiences of disrespect in three spheres – love, rights and social esteem – and holds that even disputes about pay are, at bottom, struggles over how highly a contribution is valued.

Held by

• Charles Taylorb. 1931
• Axel Honnethb. 1949

Redistribution and recognition

Fraser argues that justice has two irreducible dimensions: an economic one, in which people are denied resources, and a cultural one, in which they are denied standing. Her “status model” treats misrecognition not as damage to identity but as institutionalised subordination that prevents people from participating in social life as peers; the standard of justice is “participatory parity”. As early as the 1990s she warned that the turn from redistribution to recognition was happening just as neoliberal capitalism was widening inequality, and she later described the alliance of market liberalism with the politics of diversity as “progressive neoliberalism”. In their joint book Redistribution or Recognition? (2003) Honneth replied that recognition is the more fundamental category, of which distribution is one part.

Held by

• Nancy Fraserb. 1947

Intersections

Crenshaw (1989) showed that anti-discrimination law, which examined race and sex separately, failed Black women: in DeGraffenreid v. General Motors (1976) a court rejected their claim because the company had hired Black people (in practice, men) and women (in practice, white women). She called this overlapping of forms of discrimination “intersectionality”. On this view identity politics is not the problem but a necessary tool – provided it attends to the differences within groups and builds coalitions across them, as the Combahee River Collective had intended. Critics object that ever finer group categories make shared politics harder; defenders reply that ignoring them merely generalises the experience of the most privileged members of each group.

Held by

• Kimberlé Crenshawb. 1959

Back to universalism

Susan Neiman (Left Is Not Woke, 2023) argues that parts of today’s left have abandoned the ideas that once defined it – universalism rather than tribalism, a clear distinction between justice and power, and the possibility of progress – and thus drift, unawares, towards assumptions they share with the right. Francis Fukuyama (Identity, 2018) sees the demand for dignity as a powerful political force on the left and the right alike, which democracies can only channel through broader, inclusive national identities. Appiah (The Lies That Bind, 2018) holds that identities of creed, country, colour, class and culture are real but rest on myths of a shared essence; they are best held loosely, as starting points for conversation rather than as boundaries. Critics reply that the universal standpoint has too often been the particular standpoint of those in power.

Held by

• Kwame Anthony Appiahb. 1954

Elite capture

The philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò (Elite Capture, 2022) accepts that knowledge is shaped by social position but criticises what he calls “deference politics”: handing the microphone to the most marginalised person in the room. The people in the room, he points out, are rarely the most affected – they are usually those already privileged enough to be there – and deference leaves untouched the structures that keep others out. Movements and institutions are thus “captured” by elites who use the language of identity to advance their own interests. Instead of symbolic recognition he calls for a “constructive politics” that builds new institutions and redistributes resources and power.