Tonight we considered two different schemes for analysing the causes of equality. From Fraser the distributive v. recognition dilemma; or political-economic v. value-cultural. Baker et al posit four sources of inequality: political, cultural, economic and effective. Both acknowledge the overlaps and interdependencies between these categories.
However given the interconnectedness is it useful to describe the causes of inequality this way, surely everything that is economic is also cultural?
My instinct is that it serves to address the causes of inequality if we have a way of describing them. One perhaps cannot tackle them in isolation from eachother, but unless these domains are named how can we address them at all? If you don't know what the ingredients are how can you make a cake?
Which begs the question that Fraser asks, what is the change process we are engaged in? Do we seek to tweak the cake, make it taste a bit better but fundamentally still the same ingredients, same cake. Or do we want a whole new cake? Or maybe something which does not even resemble cake?!
What is the difference between affirmative and transformative action? Does she (Fraser) mean reform and radical change? A small amount change or a big amount of change?
It also seems a risk that by naming basic elements there will be other factors which fall between categories: we might describe the ingredients but perhaps not the angle the bowl was held at, or exactly how long the mixture was whipped for.
But does it matter that different people describe the ingredients differently? Some add condensed milk and sugar, others suggest toffee? The same input but categorized in different forms with different names.
I think it does matter, regardless whether we are trying to tweak Grandma's recipe or invent a hole new culinary experience, unless we share an understanding of what is or is not in the fridge how can we go forward?
