[This essay was produced in conjunction with Dr. Steger's Public Policy and Social Justice course; Union Institute and University, Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies, Fall 2012].
The nature and fostering of accurate
and just representation within democratic structures is Iris Marion Young’s
primary goal, across her 2000 work Inclusion
and Democracy. The extent to which individuals and groups’ voices may be heard,
acknowledged and deemed a valuable and intrinsic element of a properly
functioning democratic system. This paper will review and discuss chapters
three, four, and six, identify how concepts of inclusivity and justice manifest
in formal and informal policies of residential segregation, and will provide
brief application for Young’s representative relationship, at work in emerging
practices for the production and dissemination of works of creative musical
expression.
Section One: Chapter Analysis
Chapter
3, “Social Difference as a Political Resource”
According to Young, a logic of
identity fails to acknowledge both individuals’ characteristics, as well as individuals’
relationship to others within conceptualized social groups, especially when those
groups are constructed by entities outside of the members of that group. “Everyone
relates to a plurality of social groups; every social group has other social
groups cutting across it” (p. 88). Mere aggregates, rooted in the logic of
identity Young seeks to identify, fail to adequately represent interests and
characteristics; the organization or entity performing the tabulation may
likely reflect their own interests and goals. Young’s example of smokers being
counted by both the Cancer Society, towards an understanding of who contributes
to health care advocacy groups (p. 89), as well as by insurance companies,
towards the construction of actuarial tables, illustrates this distinction
(aggregation by cigarette manufacturers as well takes place, for purposes of
targeting advertising and marketing). The conceptualization of a specific
social group “become[s] confused when they treat groups as substantially
distinct entities whose members all share some specific attributes or interests
that do not overlap with any outsiders” (p. 89). This alternative to a logic of
identity, and the subsequent construction of social groups and structure, takes
as its basis individuals’ affirmation and understanding of their own identity.
Replacing a logic of identity with a
“net of restricting and reinforcing relationships” (p. 93), Young’s call for reconsideration
of social structure, and the acknowledgement of difference, takes root in the
theory of Peter Blau, who suggests “individual people occupy varying positions
in the social space, and their positions stand in determinate relation to other
positions” (p. 94). The positionality of any individual within a social
structure is forged by the “action and interaction” (p. 95) between all
members; “they [individuals] exist not as states, but as processes” (p. 95).
Drawn to group membership through affinity—the sharing of interests, goals, and
characteristics—Young advocates for a system of structural relations that empower
and enable individuals’ development and growth. One illustration of such dynamics
of interdependency remains, according to Young, the existing structure of
economic class. As “most people depend on employment by private enterprises for
their livelihoods, and the owners and managers depend on the competence and
co-operation of their employees for revenues” (p. 95), symbiotic relationships
of interdependency are critical to the success of both individuals and
institutions. Much recent scholarship and rhetoric (not limited to the Occupy
Wall Street movement) has sought to discern the nature and efficacy of economic
mobility within a capitalist economy; some have called for, and participated
in, active protests against current systems of structural economic groups,
claiming economic mobility to be the privilege of the already-wealthy. Separate
study of such protests may illuminate Young’s call for “positive group
definition” (p. 103), over a mere and antiquated logic of identity.
Chapter
4, “Representation and Social Perspective”
Young’s primary question in chapter
four identifies the relationship between representative groups and individuals,
and their interactions and actions within a system of social structure. May
political theory “conceptualize representation as a differentiated relationship among political actors engaged in a
process extending over space and time” (p. 123)? And, “what are inclusive
communicative relations in such flowing, decentered, mass politics” (p. 121)?
Young answers these questions through establishing the power implicit in the
sharing of social perspectives, amongst individuals and group members. The
nature of an “authentic democracy” is described as reliant upon a careful
balance between representation and participation, on the part of individuals,
groups, and institutions.
Young seeks to more clearly frame the
difficulty faced by representatives within a democracy, before proceeding to define
the differentiated relationship she seeks. Young cites Hanna Pitkin’s dilemma
of representation: is a representative “a delegate who carries the mandate of a
constituency which he or she advocates” (p. 128), or is a representative to
“act as a trustee who exercises independent
judgment about the right thing to do under these political circumstances” (p.
128)? The relationship between the represented individuals and groups, and
their representative in a system of social structure, is Young’s answer: the democratic
mode for which she advocates calls for both constituents’ “anticipation and recollection”
(p. 125). This relationship, illustrated through citing Derrida’s concept of differance, may more fully acknowledge
the history and legacy that has preceded the moment of representation at hand.
The nature of the connection and interaction between individuals changes, when
examining representatives and their constituents, and constituents and one
another.
Young distinguishes the
relationships at work in representation, defining categories of authorization
and accountability: further refining these into modes of representation (by
opinion, interest, and perspective (p. 133)), these democratic actions inhibit
the statement of multiple perspectives within a social structure. Of these
modes, perspective helps construe a social structure most conducive to just and
adequate representation, one based on differentiated relationships. The result
of such may made evident by the actions of representatives, as “representing an
interest or an opinion usually entails promoting certain specific outcomes in
the decision-making process. Representing a perspective, on the other hand,
usually means promoting certain starting-points for discussion” (p. 140). To
help construct a social structure based in the representation of different
individual and group perspectives, Young advocates for a plurality of
representative bodies (p. 143), but questions the reservation of positions
within representative bodies, to account for underrepresented individuals and
groups. Within a social structure of representation, mechanics intended provide
representation to underrepresented populations “can tend to freeze both the
identity of that group and its relations with other groups in the polity” (p.
149). As democratic systems may be “decentered” to such an extent as to
disallow adequate representation across all groups in a society, an approach
rooted in establishing shared perspectives amongst representatives and
constituencies may foster more effective democratic relationships.
Chapter
6, “Residential Segregation and Regional Democracy”
In chapter six, Young relocates her
discussion from the metaphorical and into the actual spaces of dwelling within
a representative democracy. As location and juxtaposition of individuals within
a given social structure may well determine the demographics of groups, “space
itself matters” (p. 196). How may “spatial group differentiation […] be
voluntary, fluid, without clear borders, and with many overlapping, unmarketed,
and hybrid places” (p. 197)?
Young’s answer to this need comes in
an assessment of residential development, including policies and practices at
work in the United States, as well as in European cities. As growth in urban
areas continues to populate suburbs, trends in the physical location of
dwellings have continued to establish and impose systems of representation;
those living in a specific area may encounter “schools […] of poor quality,
both physically and academically, and they often have poor access to medical
services” (p. 206). As some locations are, due to a scarcity of resources,
rendered less desirable than others, “these structures in turn reinforce racial
discrimination by creating less desirable places associated with the
subordinate groups” (p. 207). This causal relationship, between the
construction of residential neighborhoods and the populations who occupy them,
often leads to situations of misrepresentation.
The redefinition of segregation, in
terms of residential development remains critical to Young’s argument regarding
segregation and the just functioning of democracy in such locations. Examination
of housing prices supports a more clear definition of “relative disadvantage
and absolute deprivation” (p. 207). Following exacerbation of the United
States’ housing crisis in 2008, the dangers to democracy inherent in residential
segregation by economic class may have likely grown since Young’s
identification of three: the discouragement of public spaces and encounters,
the limiting of conversation between individuals with different
characteristics, and—perhaps most salient, given the widening economic
achievement gap—the inherent distancing of the wealthy from others, creating a
false sense that “those more well-off can abandon a sense that wealthier citizens
share problems with their less well-off neighbors” (p. 213). Young’s call for
“differentiated solidarity” may have as well become more salient since the time
of her writing; aspects of the environment inherent in residential development have
come to require the attention of many participants within a given neighborhood.
Section
Two: Conceptions of Justice and Public Policy
Young’s concept of justice extends
across her discussions of representation, and is a critical component to the
proper functioning of ‘deep’ democratic systems; this relationship is described
in her introduction as an “operating conviction” (p. 5). Justice is promoted
through the participatory and representative actions of the elected and their
constituencies, when parties engage based on both their own interests, but also
“to the particular situation of others and be willing to work out just
solutions to their conflicts and collective problems from across their situated
positions” (p. 7). Differentiation of individuals and groups supports the
pursuit of justice within an inclusive democratic system, as individuals and
groups acknowledge a plurality of voices. The deepening of democratic
representation and relationships takes place “when we encourage the flourishing
of associations that people form according to whatever interests, opinions, and
perspectives they find important” (p. 153).
Young’s conception of justice is
evident in her assessment of residential development and segregation inherent
within systems of representation: “whether technically legal or not, a great
many property owners believe they are entirely within their rights to decide
who will or will not live in their property […] real estate agents often life,
falsely or selectively advertise, and ‘steer’ white clients to some neighborhoods
and people of color to others” (p. 200). As justice is represented as a product
of inclusive and democratic systems, practices of segregation in residential
development persist, due in part to a lack of the “strong, autonomous, and
plural activities of civic associations” (p. 153) an inclusive and representative
democratic system requires. Inequality in housing, including real estate
agents’ choices, mortgage rates and availability, and, in some American cities,
urban revitalization through widespread demolition, have continued to make
complex the delivery of justice within urban, suburban, and rural residential
development. The participation of constituencies, and more clear
representational accountability may aid in establishing and maintaining
policies of equitable residential development; neighborhoods that create
“plural activities of civic associations” (p. 153) are likely to help devalue
and dismiss informal and illegal practices, by landlords, real estate agents,
and urban development planning boards.
Section
Three: Linking Young’s Concept of Representation with Creative Musical
Expression
Young’s concept of representation,
characterized as “a process of anticipation and recollection” (p. 125) provides
an interesting perspective to discussions of the commoditization of popular
recorded music. The extent to which individuals and groups were, historically,
represented within popular music genres, relied upon commercial categorization
and marketing: early rock and roll artists were subject to segregation, by
radio stations, record stores, the media, and elsewhere. As creative musical
expression became a forum for individuals and groups’ opinions and criticisms
of society, commercial entities became further confounded by a complex and
increasingly diverse audience: during the 1960s, traditional forms of targeted
marketing for the new abundance of creative musical expression-- including protest, escapism, and fantasy—became
less useful. Some artists started their own publication firms and record
labels; some of these suffered a lack of representation within genres of
popular music.
Young’s relationship of
representation may provide a useful definition for those seeking to create
works of creative musical expression: as “representation [is] a process of
anticipation and recollection flowing between representative and constituents’
participation in activities of authorization and accountability” (p. 125), an
artists’ ability to forge and nurture a relationship with his or her listeners
may have reached an important and technological plateau. The availability of
high-quality digital home recording and broadband network connections, as well
as the ability of artists to distribute original recordings quickly and
efficiently, through a variety of online platforms, has helped to create and
establish the relationship between represented and participating individuals
and their self-selected audiences within the genre of creative musical
expression. If a tension is to exist between those represented and those
participating within the realm of original and popular music, individuals’ choices
in monetization—what one is willing to pay for—may come to dictate a
recording’s success. The audience (and purchasers) of individual works of
creative musical expression may be, at this time, less subject to corporate and
economic efforts of commoditization than any previous moment in the history of
the genre; rather, artists and musicians may seek to establish new
collaborative and critical relationships with their listeners. The nature of
this collaborative relationship may simultaneously represent a new
conceptualization of differentiation, between musical artists and their
audiences, and not merely the relationship between artists and the record
labels to which they are signed.
Works Cited
Tapscott,
D. and Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics:
How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York NY: Penguin.
Young,
I. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. New
York NY: Oxford University Press.
