Startseite Universal Basic Income and Recognition Theory – A Tangible Step towards an Ideal
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Universal Basic Income and Recognition Theory – A Tangible Step towards an Ideal

  • Roisin Mulligan EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 21. Februar 2014

Abstract

The philosophical “Recognition” debate may be advanced by exploring recognition theory as a means to justify a concrete policy in the form of Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBI advocacy may also be strengthened by exploring the potential effects of UBI on the manner in which individuals value each other, using theories of recognition. Following a review of the Fraser/Honneth “redistribution or recognition?” debate, Honneth’s theory is deemed most suitable for the purpose of a normative justification of UBI. What is of interest is his emphasis on the manner in which recognition principles change over time, through processes of social reproduction and conflicting values, and his treatment of the importance of reciprocity of recognition. By separating out the spheres of recognition in Honneth’s theory and their developmental trajectories, it is possible to highlight the value of UBI as a concrete policy initiative that will potentially make significant progress towards the recognition ideal.

Bibliography

Fraser, N. (2001). Recognition without ethics?Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2–3), 2142.10.1177/02632760122051760Suche in Google Scholar

Fraser, N. (2003a). Distorted beyond all recognition: A rejoinder to Axel Honneth. In Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange (pp. 198236). New York, NY: Verso.Suche in Google Scholar

Fraser, N. (2003b). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange (pp. 7109). New York, NY: Verso.Suche in Google Scholar

Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange (J. Ingram Golb & C. Wilke, Trans.). London: Verso.Suche in Google Scholar

Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.Suche in Google Scholar

Honneth, A. (1998). Democracy as reflexive cooperation: John Dewey and the theory of democracy today trans. Farrell, J. M. Political Theory, 26(6), 763783.10.1177/0090591798026006001Suche in Google Scholar

Honneth, A. (2003a). The point of recognition: A rejoinder to the rejoinder. In Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange (pp. 237267). New York, NY: Verso.Suche in Google Scholar

Honneth, A. (2003b). Redistribution as recognition: A response to Nancy Fraser. In Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange (pp. 110197). New York, NY: Verso.Suche in Google Scholar

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York and London: Harper & Row.Suche in Google Scholar

Owen, D., & Tully, J. (2007). In A. SLaden & D.Owen (Eds.), Multiculturalism and political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Poynter, J. R. (1969). Society and pauperism: English ideas on poor relief, 1795–1834. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.10.3138/9781487579609Suche in Google Scholar

Raventós, D. (2007). Basic income: The material conditions of freedom (J. Wark, Trans.). London: Pluto Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Robeyns, I. (2001). Will a basic income do justice to women?Analyse und Kritik, 23(1), 88105.10.1515/auk-2001-0108Suche in Google Scholar

Sen, A. (1997). Inequality, unemployment and contemporary Europe. International Labour Review, 136(2), 155171.Suche in Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (1992). The politics of recognition. In A.Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism and the “politics of recognition”. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Thompson, S. (2009). Participatory parity and self-realisation. The Good Society, 18(1), 5762.10.2307/20711321Suche in Google Scholar

Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real freedom for all: What (if anything) can justify capitalism?Oxford: Clarendon Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Young, I. M. (2001). Equality of whom? Social groups and judgments of injustice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 118.10.1111/1467-9760.00115Suche in Google Scholar

  1. 1

    This explanation is more representative of Honneth, Taylor and Young than Fraser, who resists recognition as a view of human flourishing.

  2. 2

    This aspect of Honneth’s theory obviously leads to the undesirable conclusion that those unable to contribute to society are incapable of achieving human flourishing via reciprocal recognition. Despite my uneasiness with this, I do not see an alternative method of subsuming distributive struggles under Honneth’s encompassing theory of recognition.

  3. 3

    Van Parijs’ approach to the question of unemployment is to accept that jobs are limited in number and represent “the most significant category of assets … people are endowed with” (1995, p. 90). Seen in this way, the Van Parijs argues that the scarcity of jobs means that “those who hold them appropriate a rent which can be legitimately taxed away”, giving rise to a UBI (1995, p. 90).

Published Online: 2014-2-21
Published in Print: 2013-12-1

©2013 by De Gruyter

Heruntergeladen am 16.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bis-2013-0025/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen