Originally published in 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference is a nonfiction work in the field of political theory. The author, Iris Marion Young, uses critical theory to expose the shortcomings of distributive theories of justice and calls for the empowerment of oppressed and disadvantaged social groups. She cites the claims of new social movements, such as those for civil rights, as evidence of the inadequacy of the distributive model of justice. According to Young, it is imperative that a theory of justice consider not only the distribution of goods but also decision-making processes, the division of labor, and culture. Young argues that injustice in the late 20th-century United States (US) takes two forms: oppression and domination. While multifaceted, oppression deprives people of the ability to use their talents and domination forces people to follow orders.

Young does not present a theory of justice but calls for the democratization of public life, including the workplace, to counter these forces of injustice; she insists upon the representation of all disadvantaged and oppressed social groups in decision-making. As a professor of political science with a specialty in political theory and a social activist within the feminist movement, Young has both the academic credentials and personal experience to write this book. In recognition of the book’s contribution to academic literature, the American Political Science Association awarded it the Victoria Schuck Award in 1991—a prize given to the best book in the field of women and politics. All references in this guide are from the 2011 paperback edition with a foreword by Danielle Allen. Since Young uses the term American Indians, the guide employs that term as well.

Plot Summary

The distributive theory of justice concerns itself with the question of who gets what. It fits best with material items and does not adequately address the distribution of nonmaterial goods such as power, which is a relational concept. Additionally, the theory ignores how decisions about distribution are made and takes the institutional context as a given. That context, which includes decision-making procedures, the division of labor, and culture, must inform our concept of justice. All people must be able to develop and use their capacities and participate in decisions that impact their lives. Otherwise, oppression and domination, the opposites of justice, thrive. In the late 20th-century US, many social groups are oppressed. A social group, unlike an interest group, has a shared culture and history. Young identifies five faces of oppression: exploitation, or the exclusion of a group from making the rules about work; marginalization, or the expulsion of a group from work and social life; powerlessness, or the inability of a group to participate in decisions that impact its members lives; cultural imperialism, or when a dominant group claims its own experience as universal; and systematic violence, or when a group must live with a legitimate fear of violent attack. The distributive theory of justice fails to call these cases of oppression out; in fact, these forms of oppression result from that theory’s denial of difference and assumption of universality.

Politics in the US is primarily about interest groups competing for material benefits. This form of politics advantages wealthy interests and produces cynicism, as all are allegedly seeking only to benefit themselves. Young observes that the prevailing distributive theory of justice entrenches this form of politics. However, new social movements have emerged to challenge the system itself and to raise concerns about oppression and the decision-making process. These movements are struggling to define justice as empowerment. Yet, as some of these movements mature, the promise of material benefits lures them into the politics of distribution. The distributive theory and this form of politics presume that the state is a neutral actor—a presumption based on the belief that reason dictates one universal perspective regardless of context. Young argues that there is no such thing as neutrality. What is worse, the belief in neutrality masks the perspective of the dominant group at the expense of other social groups, which it excludes. That assumption of universality enables cultural imperialism and justifies bureaucratic authority. Once that assumption falls, as it must, the only just option is to democratize decision-making to include all social groups.

Young acknowledges that outright racist and sexist attitudes are not common in the late 20th-century US. However, she explains how social groups such as women and African Americans are nonetheless oppressed. Cultural imperialism and systematic violence continue at an unconscious level. The standards for physical health, morality, and mental balance took shape in the 19th century with the dominant group—white, heterosexual, able-bodied, young, and Christian men—in mind. Those who were not in the dominant group were defined as deviant and excluded from public life. While such blatant exclusion no longer exists, people subconsciously still measure out-groups against the dominant standards. Through body language or through simply avoiding members of these groups, people signal the groups’ otherness. Because this form of racism and sexism is not intentional, political theorists do not pay any attention to it. Young seeks to confront this injustice not to punish those practicing it but to change their behavior in the future.

Celebrating the differences and unique perspectives of all social groups, Young rejects the goal of assimilation. Assimilation treats all equally, which does not always equate to justice, and will eventually subsume the identity of social groups into the dominant one. Instead, Young calls for democratic cultural pluralism that ensures all disadvantaged and oppressed social groups representation in all decisions that impact their lives. She seeks to retain the human rights gains of liberalism but wants to add empowerment to them. The debate about affirmative action raises this question of differential treatment of oppressed groups. While Young does not object to the policy, she finds it woefully inadequate and problematic for legitimating a hierarchical division of labor and the myth of meritocracy. The hierarchical division of labor, which condemns the vast majority to task-executing functions and creates only a small percentage of desirable positions engaged in task-design, needs to be replaced with a democratized workplace. In a just world, everyone should be able to use their skills and participate in decisions rather than simply being told what to do. The notion that jobs or educational spots are granted on the basis of merit to the most deserving person is a fallacy. For example, most desirable jobs are too complex to rank performance or preparation with such precision.

Young equates justice with empowerment. Yet she distinguishes herself from communitarian theorists who also call for democratization. Those theorists advocate for local governing bodies to identify a common good with which all agree. Fearing that such a system would stifle difference and identify the common good with dominant social groups’ interests, Young denies the possibility of a common perspective transparent to all participants. Instead of that model, she envisions more just forms of government based on the values of city life. She recognizes that cities are unjust places in the late 20th-century. However, cities have the ability to promote social difference and belonging simultaneously. As a result, Young suggests that the lowest level of government should be regional, not local, and combine cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Such a system should represent all, granting oppressed and disadvantaged social groups formal recognition. The only path to justice is through diversity: people listening to each other’s perspectives and working out policy choices. Concluding her work with speculation about its applicability to other countries and to international politics, Young claims that social groups exist everywhere, as do domination and oppression. While the specifics of each country require further study, a politics that affirms group differences has relevance beyond the US.