Achieving Equality and Social Change

Achieving Equality and Social Change

STPEC 492H-01 Focus Seminar II

Course Outline and Readings Fall 2016

“To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing” Raymond Williams

Contact Details

Instructor: Professor Sara Cantillon

Time: Wednesdays 4.00-6.30

Place: Dickinson Room 214

Email:

Course Description and Format: The world is currently experiencing massive economic and political upheavals and this module explores how egalitarians can contribute to this change and promote equality locally and globally. It aims to provide an opportunity for students to discuss equality, social change and egalitarian activism and to reflect on their own activism. It provides a forum for thinking about equality, how the concept can be applied to specific issues (including cognitive disability, gender, identity and redistribution) and to arguments for, against and within egalitarian views and to ways of achieving greater equality and social change.The first seven,reading based, seminars provide an opportunity to discuss some fundamental ideas in the theory and practice of egalitarianism and to focus on some of the key issues which are important to consider in attempts to achieve social change. The remaining seminars comprise presentations by students analysing case studies of attempts to achieve change, which may be cases within your own personal experience. The majority of seminars are based on the book Equality: From Theory to Action. The prototype of this course was designed and developed in the UCD Equality Studies Centre by John Baker as a core course in the MSc program.

Assignments and Evaluation: Active class participation is a key aspect of this course and is a component of the overall assessment. 10% of the overall grade is given for attendance and participation. Given the importance of participation, regular attendance is important. If you cannot make a class, please let the instructor know in advance.

There are two requirements for the class:

1. For each seminar there are, usually, one or two core readings. You must read these if you are to find the seminars valuable. Each seminar begins by checking in with all the participants about what you thought of the readings, and by highlighting what we see as some of the key issues that the readings raise. Two/three students will give an input to the seminar based on the core readings. The discussants will get the discussion going by presenting an analysis of the readings. Please do not just concentrate on summarizing the readings but rather, critically engage with the readings, using them as a resource for developing your own ideas. Aim for about ten minutes (which is about 1,000 words). Students will be required to hand in their prepared inputs. The input and the paper account for 35% of your overall grade.
2. The second requirement for the course is a 15 minute presentation to the class. You will be required to submit a 1,000 word paper of your presentation/slides. The presentation and written summary will account for 55% of the final grade.

The topic for the presentations will be analyzing an attempt to achieve social change in terms of its aims and its actual or potential successes and failures. We encourage you to draw from your own experience of an attempt to achieve change; for example, a campaign or activity you are involved in and use this as an opportunity to reflect on your experience. Alternatively, you could focus on a historical or contemporary example that you find interesting, even if you have not participated in it yourself. The reading list at the end of this document is organized thematically to assist students who are focusing on a case which is not from their own experience. In all of the presentations we suggest using the following template:

1. Provide a brief background account of the movement, campaign or action (and, if applicable, of how you came to be involved in it)
2. Set out the key objectives that the people in your ‘case’ were concerned with achieving.
3. Explain if and how these objectives count as equality objectives. Which unequally related social group(s), if any, were they particularly concerned with? What dimensions of equality are particularly prominent?
4. Analyze the strategies that the people in your ‘case’ used or are using to achieve these objectives. Have any of these strategies come up in the readings from the first five seminars? Have the actors in question had to face any of the issues and dilemmas that the readings address?
5. Assess how successful you think this case was or is likely to be in achieving change. What explanations would you give for its actual or potential successes and failures?
6. If relevant, reflect on your own engagement in the case and the issues it raised/raises for you as an agent of change.
7. Draw some general lessons from this case for other attempts to achieve change. What can other movements, campaigns or actions learn from reflecting on this case?

Readings, Syllabus and Scheduling

Required readings for each seminar will be available via Moodle or, if necessary, will be distributed via photocopy in class. Some of the other readings will also be discussed in seminars but they primarily represent suggestions for further exploration. Suggestions for additional readings are always welcome.

Note that Wednesday November 16th follows a Friday class schedule— so no class that day. There is no class on WednesdayOctober 5th because the instructor has a prior commitment on that date but it will be rescheduled, if necessary.

Seminar 1 Wednesday September 7th Introduction

The primary aim of this seminar is for all of us to get a sense of where we are coming from with respect to our central equality-related interests and experiences. We will also review the course outline, reading inputs and organize the student presentation timetable.

Key questions

1.You are enrolled in a program of studies centered on social thought and political economy in which issues equality and inequality are central. Why have you made these the focus of yourconcern?

2.What are the central kinds of question you have been addressing in your studies to date? Are someof them more important to you thanothers?

3.In your opinion, what is the relationship between an academic course like STPEC and activities directed at social change? In other words, what’s the relation between ‘theory’ and‘practice’?

Core Reading: Equality: From Theory to Action, Chapter 1

Key questions

1.Are you particularly exercised by any of the inequalities mentioned on pp. 3-8? Are there other inequalities that you especially care about?Why?

2.The chapter mentions a number of unequal social divisions such as class, gender and sexual orientation. Which divisions particularly interest you?Why?

Seminar 2 September 14th Conceptual Framework for Thinking about Equality

Core Reading: Equality: From Theory to Action, pp. 21-46.

Related Readings: (on Liberal egalitarianism) Dworkin 2000; Kymlicka 2002, ch. 3; Rawls 1971,1993, 2001; Walzer 1985. (on Equality of Condition) Baker 1987; G. A. Cohen 1995, 2000; Fraser 1989, 1997a, 1997b, 2000; Nielsen 1985; Norman 1987, 1995; Okin 1989; Phillips 1999; Schaar 1967; Young 1990, 2001a.

Key questions

1.Does the distinction between ‘basic equality’ and ‘liberal egalitarianism’ have any resonance with your ownexperience?

2.The key idea in Rawls’s conception of justice is that inequality is justified if and only if it is better for the worst off members of society than equality would be. Surely, if even the worst off people would be better off in an unequal society than in the most productive equal society, then we should prefer the unequal one. Do you agree with this view? (If not, you seem to be saying that equality as such is more important than improving the lives of the worst-off.)

3.Does distinguishing five dimensions of equality have any resonance with your own experience

a.‘Respect and recognition’: Does the idea of ‘critical interculturalism’ provide a plausible approach for dealing with the problems of culturaldifference?

b.‘Resources’: Should radical egalitarians demand a strictly equal distribution of income, wealth and other resources? If not, what inequalities should theyaccept?

c.‘Love, care and solidarity’: Should radical egalitarians demand strict equality in relation to love, care and solidarity? If not, what should theydemand?

d.‘Power’: Is the idea of equality of power a legitimate aim? Is it acceptable to call for equality of power in the economy, the family, education and religion, or are power relations in these spheres a privatematter?

e.‘Working and learning’: Is equality in working and learning important in its own right, or does this dimension only matter because of its effects on the otherdimensions?

Seminar 3 September 21stThe capability approach and Gender Justice

Core Readings Robeyns, Ingrid (2005) ‘The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey’,

Journal of Human Development, 6 (1), 93-114.

Nussbaum, Martha (2002) ‘Women’s Capabilities and Social Justice’, in Maxine Molyneux and Shahra Razavi (eds.), Gender Justice, Development, and Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 45-77.

Related Readings

Alkire, Sabina(2002) Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction OUP

Fraser, Nancy (2000) ‘After the Family Wage: A Postindustrial Thought Experiment’, in Barbara

Hobson, ed., Gender and Citizenship in Transition (London: Macmillan), pp. 1-31

Nussbaum, Martha C. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach

Cambridge University Press), esp. pp. 78-80 and ch. 4.

Nussbaum, Martha (1999) Sex and Social Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Pogge, Thomas W. (2002) ‘Can the Capability Approach Be Justified?’ Philosophical Topics30 (2), 167-228.

Robeyns, Ingrid (2006) ‘The Capability Approach in Practice’, Journal of Political Philosophy,

14 (3), 351–76.

Sen, Amartya (2009) The Idea of Justice (London: Allen Lane).

There are substantial bibliographical and other resources on the capabilities approach at the web site of the Human Development and Capability Association at

Key questions

1.What is your initial reaction to the capability approach? Does it strike you as a good wayof capturing what matters toegalitarians?

2.What do you see as the greatest attractions and drawbacks of the capabilityapproach?

3.In particular, do you agree with Nussbaum that the capability approach provides a better framework for thinking about gender inequality than otherapproaches?

Seminar 4 September 28th Five faces of Oppression: cognitive disability

Core ReadingsYoung, Iris Marion (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference Princeton University Press ch. 2.

Carlson, Licia (2001) ‘Cognitive Ableism and Disability Studies: Feminist Reflections on the History of Mental Retardation’, Hypatia 16 (4), 124-46.

Related readings

Nicholas Barry (2006) ‘Defending Luck Egalitarianism’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1),89-107.

Kittay, Eva Feder (2001) ‘When Caring Is Just and Justice Is Caring: Justice and Mental Retardation’, Public Culture 13 (3), 557-79.

Kittay, Eva Feder (2005) ‘At the Margins of Moral Personhood’, Ethics 116 (1), 100–31.

Key questions

1.What is your initial reaction to the ‘five faces of oppression’ approach? Does it strike you as a good way of capturing what matters toegalitarians?

2.What do you see as the attractions and drawbacks of the ‘five faces of oppression’ framework?

3.How effectively do you think Carlson applies Young’s framework to cognitive disability? Are you convinced by heranalysis?

No Seminar October 5th

Seminar 5 October 12thThe redistribution - recognition ‘dilemma’

Core Readings:

Fraser, N. (1995) From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in aPost Socialist Age, New Left Review, 1/212: 68-81

Equality: From Theory to Action, ch. 4.

Related Readings

Baker, John (2006) ‘Equality: What, Who, Where?’ Imprints, 9 (1), 29-41.

Butler, Judith (1997) ‘Merely Cultural’, Social Text, 52/53: 265-277

Ferguson, Ann (1997) ‘On Conceiving Motherhood and Sexuality: A Feminist

Materialist Approach’, in D. T. Meyers, ed., Feminist Social Thought: A Reader (New York: Routledge), pp. 38-61.

Fraser, Nancy (1997a) ‘A Rejoinder to Iris Young’, New Left Review, 223, 126-29.

Fraser, Nancy (1997b) ‘Heterosexism, Misrecognition, and Capitalism: A Response to

JudithButler’, Social Text, 52/53: 279-289

Fraser, Nancy (2005) ‘Reframing Justice in a Globalizing World’, New Left Review 2/36

Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political- Philosophical Exchange, tr. Joel Golb, James Ingram and Christiane Wilke (London:Verso).

Young, Iris Marion (1997) ‘Unruly Categories: A Critique of Nancy Fraser’s Dual Systems Theory’, New Left Review, 222, 147-60.

Walby, Sylvia (2003) ‘Modernities/Globalisation/Complexities’

Key questions

1.Does Fraser’s two-system model provide a useful analytical framework for thinking about how inequalities are generated, or do you prefer the four-system approach of the reading from Equality? If you are convinced by Fraser, do you think it provides an adequate account of what Equality calls affective and politicalinequalities?

2.Do you agree or disagree with Fraser’s view that inequalities of distribution and of recognition are located in distinct social systems, or do you think that there are inequalities of both types in both the economy and culturalsystem?

3.Are some social systems more important than others for generating inequalities for particular groups? Regarding the reading from Equality, do you agree with the suggestions summarized in Table 4.2? Or do you agree with Fraser’s view that for some groups, at least, different systems can be equallyimportant?

Seminar 6 October 19thFeminism and Multiculturalism

Core Readings:

Okin, Susan Moller (1998) ‘Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions’,Ethics, 108 (4), 661-84.

Phillips, Anne (2002) ‘Multiculturalism, Universalism, and the Claims of Democracy’, in Maxine Molyneux and Shahra Razavi (eds.), Gender Justice, Development, and Rights OUP 115-38.

Related Readings:

Brighouse, Harry (2007) ‘Equality of Opportunity and Complex Equality: The Special Place of Schooling’, Res Publica 13 (2), 147-158.

White, Stuart (2007) ‘Two Few Tensions, But Not Enough Utopia? Comments on Equality: From Theory to Action’, Res Publica 13 (2), 191-201.

Baker, John, Sara Cantillon, Kathleen Lynch and Judy Walsh et al. (2007) ‘Equality: A Continuing Dialogue’, Res Publica, 13 (2), 203-07.

Key questions

1.Do you agree with Okin that there are important tensions between feminism and multiculturalism? If so, how (if at all) would you resolvethem?

2.How productive do you think Phillips’s approach is for resolving suchtensions?

3.In Seminar 5, we discussed Fraser’s discussion of a different alleged tension within egalitarianism. Can you think ofothers?

Seminar 7, October 26th Models of Social Change

Core Readings:

Equality: From Theory to Action,ch. 10

World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board (1999) ‘Political First Principles for a Movement against Global Capitalism’,

Related Readings

Aronowitz, S. (1992) The Politics of Identity: Class, Culture, Social Movements (New York: Routledge).

Bernstein, M. (2005) ‘Identity Politics’, Annual Review of Sociology 31: 47-74.

Buechler, S. M. (1995) ‘New Social Movement Theories’, The Sociological Quarterly 36(3), 441-464.

Cliff, Tony (2000) Marxism at the Millenium (London: Bookmarks).

Johnston, H., Larana, E. and Gusfield, J. R. (1994) ‘Identities, Grievances and New Social Movements’, in E. Larana, H. Johnston and J. R. Gusfield (eds) New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).

Murphy, C. N. (ed) (2002) Egalitarian Politics in the Age of Globalization (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

Polletta, F. and Jasper, J. M. (2001) ‘Collective Identity and Social Movements’, Annual Review of Sociology 27, 283-305.

Pichardo, N. A. (1997) ‘New Social Movements: A Critical Review’, Annual Review of Sociology 23, 411-30.

Key questions

1. The Marxist tradition identifies the working class as the subordinate group best placed to achieve egalitarian change. Do you agree with this assessment? What are the potential strengths and weaknesses of this class compared with those of other subordinate groups such as women, LGBT groups, disabled people, ethnic minorities, older people, younger people, etc.?
2. The Marxist tradition tends to analyses social change as resulting from the conflicting interests of different classes, and to see moral motivations essentially as rationalizations of these interests. Do you agree with this assessment of moral motivations? Do you think that moral arguments against inequality and in favor of equality have any role in achieving social change?
3. The Marxist tradition tends to set itself the organizational task of building one strong, unified organization for achieving egalitarian change (or at least for leading a coalition of forces aiming to achieve this change). Do you think this is a realistic program for change in today’s circumstances? If not, does the ‘social movement’ model provide a realistic alternative or is it just a cop-out?
4. Do you think there is really any such thing as an ‘equality movement’ or is that wishful thinking?

Seminar 8 November 2nd Ideology and Resistance

Core Reading: Equality: From Theory to Action, Chapter. 11

Related Readings:

Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (1978) On Ideology (London:Hutchinson)

Chiapello, E. (2003) ‘Reconciling the Two Principal Meanings of the Notion of Ideology: The Example of the Concept of the“Spirit of Capitalism”’, European Journal of Social Theory 6, 155-171.

Garnham, N. (1998) ‘Political Economy or Cultural Studies: Reconciliation or Divorce?’ in J. Storey (ed) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader (London: Prentice Hall).

Giroux, H., D. Shumway, P. Smith and J. Sosnoski (1998) The Need for Cultural Studies Resisting Intellectuals and Oppositional Public Spheres, available at:

Hall, S. ([1983] 1996) ‘The Problem of Ideology: Marxism without Guarantees’, in D. Morley and K.-H. Chen (eds) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies (London: Routledge).

Touraine, Alain (2001) Beyond Neoliberalism (Cambridge: Polity Press).

See also for a good selection of articles and reviews of work on ideology. It includes extracts from work by Gramsci, Williams, Eagleton, Balibar and Marx.

Key questions

1. To what extent do you think that ideologies either impede or facilitate social change? Are they ‘real’ social forces or simply reflections of the real causes of change?
2. The reading makes a number of claims about the potential of egalitarianism as mobilizing ideology (pp. 218-19). Do you think these are valid claims? Which of them, if any, do you think is most important?
3. Do you agree with the reading that ideas about affective equality can play an important role in achieving egalitarian change?
4. Are there other egalitarian narratives that you think are important to develop in promoting egalitarian change?

Seminar 9 November 9th Politics of Change

Core Readings: Equality: From Theory to Action, ch. 12. Alinsky, Saul (1971) Rules for Radicals (New York: Random House), pp. 24-47

Related Readings:

Dalton, R. J., Kuechler, M. and Burklin, W. (1990) ‘The Challenge of the New Movements’,