What do you think?
Rate this book
正义与差异政治
Justice and the Politics of Difference 正义与差异政治 (Traditional Chinese Edition/Taiwan)
唯有正视彼此的差异，才能实现真正的正义！
当代政治哲学的思想起点 批判社会结构的不朽经典
民主政治中的社会正义，并不是一视同仁，而是济弱扶倾。
我们必须正视弱势团体的多元差异存在，
进而透过沟通民主，解除加诸其上的支配与压迫，
形塑一个共享不同价值的异质公共。
◆ 20 世紀最重要的女性主義政治哲學家，《像女孩那樣丟球》作者 Iris Young 代表作
◆ 90 年代至今社會運動思想源頭，開創正義理論全新典範
◆ 戳破平等假象，為女性、黑人、同性戀、老人、勞工、身心障礙者等多元族群發聲
◇ 專文介紹
陈嘉铭│中央研究院人文社会科学研究中心副研究员
◇ 經典推薦
范 云│臺湾大学社会学系副教授 黄长玲│臺湾大学政治学系教授
陈昭如│臺湾大学法律学系教授 陈俊宏│国家人权博物馆筹备处主任
张君玫│东吴大学社会学系副教授 刘静怡│臺湾大学国家发展研究所教授
（按姓氏笔画序）
本書是當代差異政治與女性主義理論最重要、也最具影響力的作品之一。它的原創性奠定了英年早逝的 Young 在當代政治思想中的地位。在這本經典著作裡，楊批判當代政治哲學中的「正義」理論。她認為正義原則並不全然適用於分配典範，分配典範並不超然公正，社會更不應以普遍性為前提談論正義；這樣的正義，只會是一種迎合主流文化、由優勢團體所把持的平等假象。
為了修正缺陷，杨提出「差异政治」的概念。她认為谈论正义时应以「支配与压迫」的角度切入，先承认不同社会团体间的差异，釐清彼此间不正义的社会事实；同时，各团体应基於尊重差异、相互理解的前提下进行沟通，给予弱势团体特殊优惠待遇，进而解除不正义。杨提出的差异政治是一种以差异性為前提的沟通民主；唯有如此，才能实现真正的公平正义。
楊將她對少數族群、女性、同性戀、老人、身心障礙者、勞工等弱勢團體的關懷納入探討，提出了一個極具批判性的全新概念，來挑戰既有的政治思想傳統，破除不平等關係。本書自 1990 年問世以來，深深啟發了日後歐美談論多元文化、性別政治、社會運動等轉型正義之議題，更將經驗傳至第三世界曾經歷劇烈民主轉型的國家，許多學者及社運人士皆受其啟迪甚深。同時，本書也為當代認肯群體差異的公共政策打開思想的理路。
唯有正视彼此的差异，才能实现真正的正义！
当代政治哲学的思想起点 批判社会结构的不朽经典
民主政治中的社会正义，并不是一视同仁，而是济弱扶倾。
我们必须正视弱势团体的多元差异存在，
进而透过沟通民主，解除加诸其上的支配与压迫，
形塑一个共享不同价值的异质公共。
◆ 20 世紀最重要的女性主義政治哲學家，《像女孩那樣丟球》作者 Iris Young 代表作
◆ 90 年代至今社會運動思想源頭，開創正義理論全新典範
◆ 戳破平等假象，為女性、黑人、同性戀、老人、勞工、身心障礙者等多元族群發聲
◇ 專文介紹
陈嘉铭│中央研究院人文社会科学研究中心副研究员
◇ 經典推薦
范 云│臺湾大学社会学系副教授 黄长玲│臺湾大学政治学系教授
陈昭如│臺湾大学法律学系教授 陈俊宏│国家人权博物馆筹备处主任
张君玫│东吴大学社会学系副教授 刘静怡│臺湾大学国家发展研究所教授
（按姓氏笔画序）
本書是當代差異政治與女性主義理論最重要、也最具影響力的作品之一。它的原創性奠定了英年早逝的 Young 在當代政治思想中的地位。在這本經典著作裡，楊批判當代政治哲學中的「正義」理論。她認為正義原則並不全然適用於分配典範，分配典範並不超然公正，社會更不應以普遍性為前提談論正義；這樣的正義，只會是一種迎合主流文化、由優勢團體所把持的平等假象。
為了修正缺陷，杨提出「差异政治」的概念。她认為谈论正义时应以「支配与压迫」的角度切入，先承认不同社会团体间的差异，釐清彼此间不正义的社会事实；同时，各团体应基於尊重差异、相互理解的前提下进行沟通，给予弱势团体特殊优惠待遇，进而解除不正义。杨提出的差异政治是一种以差异性為前提的沟通民主；唯有如此，才能实现真正的公平正义。
楊將她對少數族群、女性、同性戀、老人、身心障礙者、勞工等弱勢團體的關懷納入探討，提出了一個極具批判性的全新概念，來挑戰既有的政治思想傳統，破除不平等關係。本書自 1990 年問世以來，深深啟發了日後歐美談論多元文化、性別政治、社會運動等轉型正義之議題，更將經驗傳至第三世界曾經歷劇烈民主轉型的國家，許多學者及社運人士皆受其啟迪甚深。同時，本書也為當代認肯群體差異的公共政策打開思想的理路。
448 pages, Paperback
First published August 17, 1990
91 people are currently reading
1,453 people want to read
About the author
Iris Marion Young
26?books74?followersIris Marion Young was an American political theorist and feminist focused on the nature of justice and social difference. She served as Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and was affiliated with the Center for Gender Studies and the Human Rights program there.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
December 9, 2008
I think I worship Iris Marion Young.
July 26, 2020
Iris Marion Young is by turns insightful and naive. The central thrust of her work is that justice should be understood not as a question of how to distribute wealth or other quantities, but as overcoming oppression and domination. Oppression is constraining an individual's development, through exploitation, marginalization, violence, cultural imperialism, or powerlessness (the five faces of oppression). Domination is preventing an individual from participating in determining their own actions and the rules constraining those actions. In general I think this is the right way to think about justice. It gets at what really matters, rather than chasing some phantom of distributive equality which wouldn't even guarantee improvements in the lives of those most disadvantaged.
Unfortunately, Young has a romantic vision of democracy that fails to acknowledge any strong criticism of the democratic process. Her arguments against expertise are interesting, but at the end of the day scientists (nuclear, biological, whatever) have a better understanding of their issues than the activists she believes they should have an equal stage with. Reading her chapter on democratic participation made me think she would almost certainly support anti-vaccine movements, in addition to any number of dubious causes.
Despite her astute analysis of the dangers of zealous zoning regulations and the benefits of city life, she nonetheless envisions an economic system ruled by committee. Her statements about regional governance knowing better than private actors whether and where to build, say, new shopping malls suggests she's never even considered the socialist calculation problem posed by libertarians. In general her refreshingly original ideas would be better served if she had a more mainstream and less leftist understanding of economics. That said, there is much to learn from the book.
Unfortunately, Young has a romantic vision of democracy that fails to acknowledge any strong criticism of the democratic process. Her arguments against expertise are interesting, but at the end of the day scientists (nuclear, biological, whatever) have a better understanding of their issues than the activists she believes they should have an equal stage with. Reading her chapter on democratic participation made me think she would almost certainly support anti-vaccine movements, in addition to any number of dubious causes.
Despite her astute analysis of the dangers of zealous zoning regulations and the benefits of city life, she nonetheless envisions an economic system ruled by committee. Her statements about regional governance knowing better than private actors whether and where to build, say, new shopping malls suggests she's never even considered the socialist calculation problem posed by libertarians. In general her refreshingly original ideas would be better served if she had a more mainstream and less leftist understanding of economics. That said, there is much to learn from the book.
June 5, 2007
I bought this book after reading an excerpt of the five faces of oppression (one of her chapters) in a social justice reader I assigned as text in a class I co-taught. Then I only read the 5 faces chapter. Years later, I went through the entire book. While I typically disagree with making a concept such as oppression so essentialized, I like how Young took that and applied it throughout the book. This is an excellent read for those interested in social justice philosophy and for those who wish to better understand issues of social justice and equity.
Read
November 6, 2024Not rating this because it was required reading for class, but adding to 欧宝娱乐 because I certainly invested enough time and thought for it to count toward my reading goal
February 17, 2022
Amazing
May 27, 2011
Chapters four and six are some of my favorite chapters out of any political theory book. Young's rejection of universal humanism in chapter four is a devastating critique of universal humanism and other "impartial" ideals (like colorblindness, etc.). The clearest rejection of universal humanism I have come across. Great for teaching about the privileges of dominant groups.
October 8, 2020
看完了！
呃我对这种书除了「很好看」、「值得一看」之外好像总是说不出什麼感想。对内容与相关也没有嫻熟到可以高谈阔论，就。
基本上是觉得读起来流畅而不难理解、论证也颇平易近人的一本。作者的观点并不惊世骇俗，有些理想化但很动人，我最喜欢的是其给出了一套词汇用来定义压迫、以及作者总是企图跳脱框架寻找符合「正义」的解决方法的部分。
在定义与比较的地方很精彩好看，觉得作者说出了自身赞同（但以前可能难以言喻/表达）的部分的时候也很开心。整体来说读起来就是……在认同点头比讚的同时也得到了观念的新解释与认识的拓展吧。
嗯，书名很切题。
呃我对这种书除了「很好看」、「值得一看」之外好像总是说不出什麼感想。
基本上是觉得读起来流畅而不难理解、论证也颇平易近人的一本。作者的观点并不惊世骇俗，有些理想化但很动人，我最喜欢的是其给出了一套词汇用来定义压迫、以及作者总是企图跳脱框架寻找符合「正义」的解决方法的部分。
在定义与比较的地方很精彩好看，觉得作者说出了自身赞同（但以前可能难以言喻/表达）的部分的时候也很开心。整体来说读起来就是……在认同点头比讚的同时也得到了观念的新解释与认识的拓展吧。
嗯，书名很切题。
July 13, 2023
professor pruitt described it as “spicy liberalism, AOC’s bible. lets leave rawls behind!!!”
December 6, 2023
I love and worship Iris Marion Young and this has to be my favorite piece of political philosophy I’ve read this year
Read
May 20, 2021I marked this as read but i only read 3 chapters for a graduate course. I fully intend on completing it at some point..
February 18, 2009
An interesting read for those interested in justice, oppression, and resistance. What do these things have in common? Moreover, how do we bind together through all our differences and fight against oppression.
She critiques idea of impartiality in justice and law. She shows the scaling of bodies, where we locate justice. We must unite as groups of people because we are oppressed as groups of people. Economics is not the only oppression. Five faces of oppression are: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, violence. Uses Giddens, theory of action and oppresion: discursive consciousness, practical consciousness, and basic security system (identity).
Not as thorough as I would have liked. I tend to think David Harvey's critique of her stands. Capitalism overwhelms all other identity oppressions and we can only identify actionable causes by recognizing how we are all oppressed rather than tearing apart based on identity groups. But, alas, I am a white guy... Young does offer some actionable goals for the ideal society at the end of the book.
She critiques idea of impartiality in justice and law. She shows the scaling of bodies, where we locate justice. We must unite as groups of people because we are oppressed as groups of people. Economics is not the only oppression. Five faces of oppression are: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, violence. Uses Giddens, theory of action and oppresion: discursive consciousness, practical consciousness, and basic security system (identity).
Not as thorough as I would have liked. I tend to think David Harvey's critique of her stands. Capitalism overwhelms all other identity oppressions and we can only identify actionable causes by recognizing how we are all oppressed rather than tearing apart based on identity groups. But, alas, I am a white guy... Young does offer some actionable goals for the ideal society at the end of the book.
Shelved as 'only-have-read-certain-parts-of-it'
April 5, 2009I read all of it (for a college class) except the last chapter on affirmative action and the "myth of merit." I remember it as a book that argued for a critical understanding of and affirmation for group differences, and for ideals of justice that make room for these differences. Pretty thick at times, but the arguments were well-laid out, as I can still recall points she made all these years later.
October 8, 2020
Young's book on social justice was written in the late 1980s. The 30+ years since it was written means reading this today adds a fascinating historical perspective. In a surprising number of ways the book is shockingly relevant in a world of #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and rising xenophobia, racism, and nationalism. On the one hand that makes Young seem especially prescient. On the other hand, it makes you realize that people have been arguing about these same issues for over three decades...with not as much progress as one might like.
This is a fascinating book that covers a lot of ground but her key argument that modern conceptions of justice -- both theoretical conceptions in political philosophy and in practical conceptions of law and the courts -- rely on conceptions of impartiality and individualism that are some combination of impossible to achieve and wrong anyway.
Even 30 years after publication, her arguments swim strongly against the American mainstream. I didn't always agree with them but I found them thought-provoking. Her focus is on institutions and structures, not individual agents. On group identity. On oppression rather than fairness. On differences rather than a single national identity. This comes out clearest in her argument for affirmative action where says essentially "who cares about what is 'fair', fairness is overrated; affirmation action should be about oppression".
Which then segues into an extended section against meritocracy before concluding with an argument against small-towns and in favor of big cities. (I told you the book was wide-ranging!)
I really enjoyed the second half of this book, even when I wasn't entirely convinced by her arguments I usually found them good enough to make me stop and question my prior beliefs, often coming away more doubtful of my previous beliefs.
So why only three-stars? Why not four-stars? I hinted that I really enjoyed the second half of the book...but the first half is a different story entirely.
Much of the early book was very slow going for me -- and most of the reason for the 3-star rating. A combination of two things made it hard to read. On the one hand, many of her arguments have entered the mainstream and don't really need to be established anymore. But a bigger issue I had was simply that her style of argument isn't very "newbie friendly". She will often make a claim and then simply reference a source without giving any indication of what the source's argument for that claim is. In many cases she seems to assume you already understand what she's talking about. Here's an example from a passage where she assumes you not only know Jurgen Habermas's writings but are at least somewhat familiar with critical reactions to it.
Reading passages like that leaves you unenlightened and unconvinced and made the first several chapters a reading slog. Rather than force yourself through those early chapters (especially the introduction, ugh) I recommend you skip them or just skim them at a high level. There are still intriguing nuggets in there -- Young talks about intersectionality and microaggressions a decade or more before either term was coined! -- but I'm not sure the few nuggets in the early chapters are worth the struggle of a detailed reading.
I argue that instead of focusing on distribution, a conception of justice should begin with the concepts of domination and oppression.
This is a fascinating book that covers a lot of ground but her key argument that modern conceptions of justice -- both theoretical conceptions in political philosophy and in practical conceptions of law and the courts -- rely on conceptions of impartiality and individualism that are some combination of impossible to achieve and wrong anyway.
I argue that the ideal of impartiality in moral theory expresses a logic of identity that seeks to reduce differences to unity.
Even 30 years after publication, her arguments swim strongly against the American mainstream. I didn't always agree with them but I found them thought-provoking. Her focus is on institutions and structures, not individual agents. On group identity. On oppression rather than fairness. On differences rather than a single national identity. This comes out clearest in her argument for affirmative action where says essentially "who cares about what is 'fair', fairness is overrated; affirmation action should be about oppression".
Which then segues into an extended section against meritocracy before concluding with an argument against small-towns and in favor of big cities. (I told you the book was wide-ranging!)
In a political struggle where oppressed groups insist on the positive value of their specific culture and experience, it becomes increasingly difficult for dominant groups to parade their norms as neutral and universal
I really enjoyed the second half of this book, even when I wasn't entirely convinced by her arguments I usually found them good enough to make me stop and question my prior beliefs, often coming away more doubtful of my previous beliefs.
So why only three-stars? Why not four-stars? I hinted that I really enjoyed the second half of the book...but the first half is a different story entirely.
Much of the early book was very slow going for me -- and most of the reason for the 3-star rating. A combination of two things made it hard to read. On the one hand, many of her arguments have entered the mainstream and don't really need to be established anymore. But a bigger issue I had was simply that her style of argument isn't very "newbie friendly". She will often make a claim and then simply reference a source without giving any indication of what the source's argument for that claim is. In many cases she seems to assume you already understand what she's talking about. Here's an example from a passage where she assumes you not only know Jurgen Habermas's writings but are at least somewhat familiar with critical reactions to it.
His [Habermas's] model of language itself, moreover, relies heavily on a paradigm of discursive argumentation, deemphasizing the metaphorical, rhetorical, playful, embodied aspects of speech that are an important aspect of its communicative effect (see Young, 1987; cf. Keane, 1984, pp. 169-72).
Reading passages like that leaves you unenlightened and unconvinced and made the first several chapters a reading slog. Rather than force yourself through those early chapters (especially the introduction, ugh) I recommend you skip them or just skim them at a high level. There are still intriguing nuggets in there -- Young talks about intersectionality and microaggressions a decade or more before either term was coined! -- but I'm not sure the few nuggets in the early chapters are worth the struggle of a detailed reading.
June 26, 2021
This book left me with conflicting impressions. Certain aspects of this book struck me as insightful and compelling while other aspects seemed unreasonable, naive, and even pseudoscientific. The book contains an odd mixture of brilliant ideas and poor thinking.
This book is excellent in many respects. Young's critique of distributive justice is very insightful and compelling, and her argument for a broader conception of justice is superb. Young's idea of oppression having five faces (exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence) is memorable, reasonable, and convincing. This is where Young's book is at its strongest. In my opinion these arguments are what makes the book well worth reading.
However, Young's book also has major weaknesses. Her arguments about economics are heavily influenced by Marxist thought and do not consider any potential non-Marxist counterarguments. Her arguments against expertise also seem flawed in certain respects, particularly when she lists the anti-nuclear power movement as an instance of desirable opposition to the counsel of experts. The example of the anti-nuclear power movement demonstrates, if anything, proof of the importance of paying attention to the advice of experts. Scientific evidence has clearly shown that nuclear power plants are the most reliable and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels, facts that the anti-nuclear power movement has ignored in favor of a more intuitive (and scientifically illiterate) approach to environmentalism.
Young also has a tendency to come up with convoluted philosophical and/or psychoanalytic explanations for social phenomena that can be explained by psychology and human nature. Much of the behaviors associated with racism and sexism can be explained by factors such as the parochial tendencies of human nature, the human tendency to identify outgroups and associate negative features with said outgroups, and the moralistic fear of contamination that have been identified by moral psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt. Instead of engaging with what psychologists and evolutionary biologists have discovered about human nature, Young turns to pseudoscientific psychoanalysis and the convoluted philosophical acrobatics of Derrida, Sartre, and Adorno. The result is a book filled with implausible philosophical explanations for phenomena that could be more plausibly explained by psychology and evolutionary biology.
Fortunately, the weak elements of Young's book do not cancel out its stronger features. What is remarkable is that Young's unquestioned Marxist economics and implausible philosophical explanations do not actually weaken the main arguments of her book. Young's weaker ideas do not undermine the book as a whole. This book is still well worth reading, and I would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in political theory.
This book is excellent in many respects. Young's critique of distributive justice is very insightful and compelling, and her argument for a broader conception of justice is superb. Young's idea of oppression having five faces (exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence) is memorable, reasonable, and convincing. This is where Young's book is at its strongest. In my opinion these arguments are what makes the book well worth reading.
However, Young's book also has major weaknesses. Her arguments about economics are heavily influenced by Marxist thought and do not consider any potential non-Marxist counterarguments. Her arguments against expertise also seem flawed in certain respects, particularly when she lists the anti-nuclear power movement as an instance of desirable opposition to the counsel of experts. The example of the anti-nuclear power movement demonstrates, if anything, proof of the importance of paying attention to the advice of experts. Scientific evidence has clearly shown that nuclear power plants are the most reliable and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels, facts that the anti-nuclear power movement has ignored in favor of a more intuitive (and scientifically illiterate) approach to environmentalism.
Young also has a tendency to come up with convoluted philosophical and/or psychoanalytic explanations for social phenomena that can be explained by psychology and human nature. Much of the behaviors associated with racism and sexism can be explained by factors such as the parochial tendencies of human nature, the human tendency to identify outgroups and associate negative features with said outgroups, and the moralistic fear of contamination that have been identified by moral psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt. Instead of engaging with what psychologists and evolutionary biologists have discovered about human nature, Young turns to pseudoscientific psychoanalysis and the convoluted philosophical acrobatics of Derrida, Sartre, and Adorno. The result is a book filled with implausible philosophical explanations for phenomena that could be more plausibly explained by psychology and evolutionary biology.
Fortunately, the weak elements of Young's book do not cancel out its stronger features. What is remarkable is that Young's unquestioned Marxist economics and implausible philosophical explanations do not actually weaken the main arguments of her book. Young's weaker ideas do not undermine the book as a whole. This book is still well worth reading, and I would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in political theory.
April 30, 2024
By now, Justice and the Politics of Difference is part of the canon for political philosophy and political theory. Young's text aims to be a sweeping analysis of the leading political theories, demonstrating how they are misguided, at best, or contribute to the problems we see in the world, at worst. Each chapter focuses on one of these dominant views, ranging from how distributive justice is incorrect because it artificially separates the "goods" to be distributed from the people (chapter 1) to how the idea that transcendence of group difference as the means to liberate from prejudice and oppression further alienates individuals by stripping them of their very identity (chapter 6).
Even thirty-four years after its initial publication (horrifying to put that into words...), Young's conclusions are still eminently important to political organization and progress. She situates herself and her own axes of power before diving into her analysis, demonstrating her commitment to her arguments right from the start. Some of the key takeaways I think are most relevant include the five faces of oppression (exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence) and how impartiality is a mythological ideal because we can never fully separate ourselves from the influence of personal histories, values, beliefs, etc. As a staunch disliker of Rawls and his veil of ignorance, this second take-away resonates especially with my philosophical views.
All of this said, however, the book does suffer partially because it's a product of its time and partially because the arguments don't seem particularly well defended to me. This second one hurts since I more or less agree with each conclusion she defends despite disagreeing with many of the arguments she uses to get there. Many of her arguments focus on the abstract while calling themselves applied - but this means that they lack true application, outside of an academic setting, and therefore can't really guide change until someone else transforms them (potentially stripping the arguments of the very source of their power!). From a readability perspective, there are also plenty of sections that are quite difficult to get through, even with graduate training in philosophy.
Even thirty-four years after its initial publication (horrifying to put that into words...), Young's conclusions are still eminently important to political organization and progress. She situates herself and her own axes of power before diving into her analysis, demonstrating her commitment to her arguments right from the start. Some of the key takeaways I think are most relevant include the five faces of oppression (exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence) and how impartiality is a mythological ideal because we can never fully separate ourselves from the influence of personal histories, values, beliefs, etc. As a staunch disliker of Rawls and his veil of ignorance, this second take-away resonates especially with my philosophical views.
All of this said, however, the book does suffer partially because it's a product of its time and partially because the arguments don't seem particularly well defended to me. This second one hurts since I more or less agree with each conclusion she defends despite disagreeing with many of the arguments she uses to get there. Many of her arguments focus on the abstract while calling themselves applied - but this means that they lack true application, outside of an academic setting, and therefore can't really guide change until someone else transforms them (potentially stripping the arguments of the very source of their power!). From a readability perspective, there are also plenty of sections that are quite difficult to get through, even with graduate training in philosophy.
October 8, 2017
A wonderful critique of the inherent problems with justice theories. Young demonstrates how contemporary theories of justice focus too narrowly on distribution, thereby diminishing the impact of oppression and domination perpetuated by institutions. Thus, justice ought to encompass a wider scope of social phenomena. Young, then, argues that impartial normative morality assumed in contemporary justice theories is impossible, due to the lack of capturing difference among communities and individuals. City Life is Young's suggestion for capturing difference and celebrating the fact of communal and individual partiality. This is a fantastic entering wedge into the underlying assumptions of contemporary justice theory, demonstrating that the debate is far from over.
October 9, 2024
On the whole a very coherent and very approachable, intersectional feminist approach to justice and the politics of difference. Many of the chapters work on their own and are very usable in discussions on justice. While at times I wished Young to be a bit more explicit in her underlying anti-hierarchical ideas, overall I really enjoyed the work and still find myself thinking of it a lot, especially when it comes to the role anarchism can play in terms of normativity and cultural relativity. Her image of the ideal city as a place where justice and difference have the potential to work in tandem was sadly a bit underdeveloped but offers great perspectives. A good read for turning your liberal friends into anarchists :) <3
December 29, 2018
Three months later, I'm still every bit as impressed as I was when I read the first chapter of this powerful exploration of difference and justice. Very well reasoned, very important, and written in clear prose that doesn't hide in meaningless critical jargon and complications. My favorite critical theorist, political theorist, theorist in general, by far.
September 24, 2019
An incredibly nuanced approach to the importance of full democratic inclusion and the overturning of systems of oppression to the establishment of justice. Probably the most important work of political theory I've read in my 30-odd years of reading works of political philosophy.
February 16, 2020
Young’s work is revolutionary, if utopian. It was satisfying to have someone as smart as her articulate things I’d always felt but never been able to pinpoint. Her five categories of oppression will serve as a helpful framework in my work and life in general.
October 12, 2018
Wow. Haven't read such a dense book in such a long time! What an important and life-changing book.
July 4, 2020
Super important particularly for the discussion in chapter 4 on universalism and the repression of difference via false binaries/dichotomies (woman/man, mind/body, subject/object).
July 4, 2020
Flawless queen.
November 30, 2021
Read for GOVT 86: "Contemporary Readings on Justice" at Dartmouth.
December 1, 2021
走出分配正义， 压迫的五方面：剥削、边缘化、powerlessness、文化帝国主义、暴力。
July 16, 2023
Completely wrong, but very few books have more insights and teach you such valuable lessons in the process.
December 17, 2023
Read this for social justice class. interesting concepts but a hard read.
November 21, 2024
She’s so right
October 14, 2016
This book is an excellent reference that I imagine I will continue to consult when I need clear, carefully reasoned example arguments describing the problems of "class-only" conceptions of socialist revolution as well as evocative definitions of oppression, domination, and democracy.
Read
October 21, 2023Young's critique of the distributive paradigm is my awakening toward neoliberal political doctrines that shape modern-day societies. I have yet to comprehend some chapters because I was mostly reading the chapters relevant to my thesis but, I will definitely revisit this book in the near future.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.