Agora思想的公共广场

南希·弗雷泽

1947年生

初步了解有意简化——人物介绍讲得更多

正义既需要更公平地分享财富，也需要尊重不同的身份——并且需要一个有多种声音的公共领域，而不是只有一种声音。

定位

社会主义、无政府主义、马克思主义与批判理论 · 北美 · 政治与法, 社会与历史, 性别与女性主义

纽约的批判理论家：正义既要求再分配也要求承认——并要求一个有许多“反公众”的公共领域，而不是哈贝马斯所描述的唯一的资产阶级公共领域。

核心思想

  • 再分配与承认
  • 从属者反公众
  • 参与平等

在星图中打开

影响

受影响于 4

  • 卡尔·马克思

    受其影响

    Fraser extended Marx’s move into the ‘hidden abode’ of production to capitalism’s background conditions: social reproduction, nature and political power (‘Behind Marx’s Hidden Abode’, 2014). N. Fraser, “Behind Marx’s Hidden Abode: For an Expanded Conception of Capitalism”, New Left Review 86 (2014); Cannibal Capitalism (2022)

    依据: AI 草稿

    卡尔·马克思 › 1818–1883

  • 卡尔·波兰尼

    受其影响

    Fraser widened Polanyi’s ‘double movement’ of marketisation and social protection into a ‘triple movement’ that adds emancipation (‘A Triple Movement?’, New Left Review, 2013). N. Fraser, “A Triple Movement? Parsing the Politics of Crisis after Polanyi”, New Left Review 81 (2013); K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation (1944)

    依据: AI 草稿

    卡尔·波兰尼 › 1886–1964

  • 米歇尔·福柯

    受其影响 ✓

    Fraser took up Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary power as empirically insightful but normatively confused (‘Foucault on Modern Power: Empirical Insights and Normative Confusions’, 1981). N. Fraser, “Foucault on Modern Power: Empirical Insights and Normative Confusions”, Praxis International 1 (1981); Unruly Practices (1989)

    依据: 亦见于 Wikidata · Wikidata

    米歇尔·福柯 › 1926–1984

  • 哥斯塔·埃斯平-安德森

    受其影响

    In ‘After the Family Wage’ (1994) Fraser drew on Esping-Andersen’s Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990) for her anti-exploitation principle, which protects against dependence on employers or husbands. N. Fraser, “After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare State”, Political Theory 22 (1994); G. Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990)

    依据: AI 草稿

    哥斯塔·埃斯平-安德森 › 1947年生

批评

相互批评 2

  • 艾丽斯·玛丽昂·扬 ⇄ 相互

    批评了

    Fraser objected that Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990) runs together cultural and political-economic injustice and affirms group differences that justice may require abolishing (1995). N. Fraser, “Recognition or Redistribution? A Critical Reading of Iris Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference”, Journal of Political Philosophy 3 (1995); I. M. Young, “Unruly Categories”, New Left Review 222 (1997)

    依据: AI 草稿

    受其批评

    Young objected that Fraser’s dual framework of redistribution and recognition splits apart what belongs together: cultural and economic injustice are intertwined in the same structures (‘Unruly Categories’, 1997). I. M. Young, “Unruly Categories: A Critique of Nancy Fraser’s Dual Systems Theory”, New Left Review 222 (1997); reply: N. Fraser, “A Rejoinder to Iris Young”, New Left Review 223 (1997)

    依据: AI 草稿

    艾丽斯·玛丽昂·扬 › 1949–2006

  • 朱迪斯·巴特勒 ⇄ 相互

    批评了

    Fraser objected that Butler’s resignification offers no norms to distinguish emancipatory from oppressive change (‘False Antitheses’, 1991) and treated heterosexism as misrecognition rather than maldistribution (1998). N. Fraser, “False Antitheses”, Praxis International 11 (1991); “Heterosexism, Misrecognition, and Capitalism: A Response to Judith Butler”, New Left Review 228 (1998)

    依据: AI 草稿

    受其批评

    In ‘Merely Cultural’ (1998) Butler objected that Fraser’s split between economic and cultural injustice relegates struggles over sexuality to recognition, although they concern the reproduction of capitalism. J. Butler, “Merely Cultural”, New Left Review 227 (1998); N. Fraser, “Heterosexism, Misrecognition, and Capitalism”, New Left Review 228 (1998)

    依据: AI 草稿

    朱迪斯·巴特勒 › 1956年生

受批评于 2

  • 阿克塞尔·霍耐特

    受其批评

    Against Fraser’s dualism of redistribution and recognition, Honneth argued that distributive conflicts are themselves struggles for recognition, so a single normative concept suffices (Redistribution or Recognition?, 2003). N. Fraser & A. Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange (2003; German: Umverteilung oder Anerkennung?, 2003)

    依据: AI 草稿

    阿克塞尔·霍耐特 › 1949年生

  • 格伦·肖恩·库尔萨德

    受其批评

    Coulthard applied his objection to the politics of recognition also to Nancy Fraser’s model: recognition granted within a settler-colonial order reproduces that order (Red Skin, White Masks, 2014). G. S. Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (2014); N. Fraser, “Rethinking Recognition”, New Left Review 3 (2000)

    依据: AI 草稿

    格伦·肖恩·库尔萨德 › 1974年生

批评了 2

  • 尤尔根·哈贝马斯 受其影响

    受其影响

    Fraser kept Habermas’s public sphere as an indispensable concept of critical theory and carried it beyond the frame of the nation-state (‘Transnationalizing the Public Sphere’, 2007). N. Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere”, Social Text 25/26 (1990); “Transnationalizing the Public Sphere”, Theory, Culture & Society 24 (2007)

    依据: AI 草稿

    批评了

    Fraser objected that Habermas’s system–lifeworld split hides the family’s gendered economy and that his account of the public sphere idealises a forum that excluded women (1985; 1990). N. Fraser, “What’s Critical about Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender”, New German Critique 35 (1985); “Rethinking the Public Sphere”, Social Text 25/26 (1990)

    依据: AI 草稿

    尤尔根·哈贝马斯 › 1929–2026

  • 卡罗尔·佩特曼

    批评了

    Fraser objected that Pateman’s The Sexual Contract (1988) reduces gender domination to a master–subject model and misses its impersonal forms in late capitalism (‘Beyond the Master/Subject Model’, 1993). N. Fraser, “Beyond the Master/Subject Model: Reflections on Carole Pateman’s Sexual Contract”, Social Text 37 (1993); repr. in Justice Interruptus (1997)

    依据: AI 草稿

    卡罗尔·佩特曼 › 1940年生

作品

立场

Fraser’s critique of Habermas’s “Structural Transformation” argued that the bourgeois public sphere was constituted by excluding women and workers, and that democracy needs a multiplicity of “subaltern counterpublics” in which subordinated groups formulate their interests. Her best-known thesis distinguishes two dimensions of justice: redistribution, which addresses economic injustice, and recognition, which addresses cultural status; neither reduces to the other, and the norm uniting them is “participatory parity”, the condition that all can take part in social life as peers. Against Honneth she holds that recognition is a matter of status, not of psychological self-realisation. Later she added political representation as a third dimension.

生平与背景

Nancy Fraser (born 1947 in Baltimore) studied classics at Bryn Mawr and took her doctorate at the City University of New York in 1980. She has taught at Northwestern and, since 1995, at the New School for Social Research in New York, and has held visiting chairs in Paris and Frankfurt. Her debates with Axel Honneth and Judith Butler, and her critique of Habermas, shaped critical theory in the 1990s and 2000s.

其他主要作品

  • Unruly Practices (1989)
  • Rethinking the Public Sphere (1990)
  • Redistribution or Recognition? (with Axel Honneth, 2003)
  • Cannibal Capitalism (2022)

出现在

来源: Wikipedia · Wikidata

截至 2026年11月 · 来源 · 改进本页 · Agora 是如何制作的

在星图中打开