World Social Justice Claims - Essay Example

Year of Study/Semester: Submitted: Paper Outline Introduction to Redistribution and Recognition Thefall of communism Capitalism’s Free Market Philosophy The rise of the politics of identity Cultural modernity and status inequality Cultural identity and the struggle to be recognised Conclusion Practical Tensions: The Interpenetration of Re-distribution and Recognition Introduction In the world of today, social justice claims have been on the rise. These claims take two central but divergent paths. The first as well as the most familiar are claims of re-distribution. These claims seek to establish a fair resources and goods distribution. A good case in point is claims by a section of human rights activists for the re-distribution of wealth that has accumulated in the north to the poor south. The north is mostly Europe and North America as well as wealthy states in the Far East such as Japan and the southern section of the Korean Peninsula. This is because these regions hold almost 80 percent of the world’s wealth. The Korean Peninsula, for instance, holds a fifth of the entire world’s wealth. The south is represented by Africa and Latin America (Shafir and Brysk, 2006). This region, compared to the rest of the world records high levels of poverty, ravaged by disease and is characterised by overall underdevelopment. Despite calls for re-distribution to reverse this trend, the recently emerging call for free-market thinking has placed re-distribution advocates on the defence. Nevertheless, equal claims for re-distribution have contributed a paradigm case for most theories that regard social justice for the past one hundred and fifty years (Fraser and Honneth, 2003). However, in the contemporary world, there has arisen another second kind regarding claims for social-justice referred to as politics of recognition (Robinson, 2003). The objective of the politics of recognition, in its most feasible shape, is a world that is keen on embracing the varied diversity that characterises humanity. Proponents of recognition call for a world where there will no longer be assimilation to majority cultural norms that are prevalent and dominant whereupon the consequent subscription to such norms is equated to the ultimate price of equal respect. A case in point would be calls to recognise diverse ethnic points of view as well as distinctive sexual and racial minorities as well as differences in gender. In the recent past, this claim has been on the rise among political philosophers. Additionally, the said political philosophers seek to endear their effort towards developing a distinct school of thought for justice centred on recognition. On overall basis as Bauman (1998) observes, it follows that the world is faced with a fresh constellation. The subject matter for social justice has now taken a dual perspective as it is split between recognition on one hand and re-distribution on the other. However, recognition claims have tended to be increasingly dominant. The fall of communism as well as the surge of capitalism’s free-market philosophy together with the rise of “politics of identity in both its progressive as well as fundamentalist forms are all developments that have worked to divert attention and to some extent completely extinguish claims for egalitarian re-distribution (Steiner H, Alston, P et al., 2008). In this latest constellation, the two types of claims for justice are characteristically unrelated - both intellectually as well as practically. In social fields for instance feminism, activist traits and characteristics endeared towards positing re-distribution as the ideal method able to reverse male domination are at an increased rate de-linked from tendencies that instead look at gender difference recognition. In the U.S. academy, feminist social theorists as well as feminist cultural theorists continue to uphold rather uneasy arms-length coexistence (Fraser and Honeth, 2003). The feminist example explains a more common characteristic in America as well as the entire world to divorce politics of cultural difference from those of social equality. The fall of communism Primarily, communism refers to a social structure whereby classes are abolished whereupon property derived from the abolished high social classes is commonly controlled and a political philosophy together with a social movement advocating and aiming at the creation of such a society is established (Columbia Encyclopaedia, 2008). The father of communist thought Karl Marx postulated that communism in society would be the last stage which would be attained by a grassroots revolution, only possible subsequent to a socialist stage developing the productive elements, resulting into immense abundance of goods and services (Schaff, 2001). Communism sustained redistributive endeavours with its contention of empowering social classes. But with the fall of communism and the rise of capitalism, recognition was enhanced better as capitalism fostered the element of giving each individual a chance to accumulate his or her own wealth an aspect that could be enhanced through recognizing each individual or groups of individuals as opposed to distributing others wealth to them as communism contended. Communist politics of re-distribution, as understood in this paper, was made of not only of orientations centred on class, such as social democracy, New Deal liberalism as well as socialism, but also constituting this concept were feminism forms together with anti-racism. These depended on remaking the social as well as economic setup so as to arrive at reforms to resolve racial-ethnic and gender injustices. Re-distribution that was a characteristic of communism took the back seat and left recognition to prevail because communism failed in its social egalitarian objectives with commitments to far reaching civil rights as well as political rights. The politics of recognition on the other hand, encompassed movements that endeared their efforts towards revaluing identities that had been previously unjustly devalued. This included black cultural nationalism as well as cultural feminism, together with politics of gay identity. Additionally, there were also deconstructive traits such as queer politics as well as critical politics of race together with deconstructive feminism (Fraser and Honneth, 2003). These rejected traditional identity politics that was wrought with essentialism. As such, in the conventional sense, recognition was more than simple identity politics. In addition to the fall of communism, recognition was also enhanced by Capitalism’s free market philosophy. Capitalism’s Free Market Philosophy Re-distribution politics as well as politics of recognition can be differentiated in various ways. One way of differentiating the two orientations are in the way they assume varying conceptualisation of injustice which has given recognition an edge over re-distribution. Re-distribution politics are mainly focused on injustices which it defines as socio-economic. Moreover, it has hypothesised to be inextricably bound to society’s economic structure. A good case in point is exploitation (benefiting others with someone else’s own effort and the fruits derived therewith). Another example is economic marginalisation which confines individuals to undesirable or defectively paid occupation whereupon some workers are denied access to labour that can generate them income altogether. Re-distribution also is concerned with deprivation which denies individuals a sufficient standard of living with regard to material access. In a widely capitalistic world wrought with the philosophy of the free market this comes across as simply not feasible. On the contrary, the politics of recognition is objectively aimed at injustices that are understood to be cultural. This are presumed to be inextricably bound to society’s social patterns of representation as well as interpretation together with communication. A good case in point would be cultural domination whereupon individuals are subjected to alien patterns of interpretation as well as foreign languages and general communication associated with other different cultures. These patterns and languages are in most cases hostile to the host cultures. Recognition also relates to non-recognition whereby individuals are rendered invisible through the representational as well as communicative, together with interpretative practices of one’s culture that come across as aristocratic (Woodiwiss, 2002). Recognition also has to do with disrespect where individuals are routinely maligned or vilified in stereotype public cultural conceptualisations and often in their daily life interactions. These notions in recognition do not pit it against free market principals as they invoke elements that to a pronounced proportion steer away from free market principles. This makes it easy to pursue recognition as opposed to re-distribution. With regard to capitalism’s principle of free market, the two orientations pursue different paths with regard to their proposed remedies for injustice. For re-distribution politics, it proposes economic restructuring as the remedy for injustice (Woodiwiss, 2002). This involves re-distribution of income as well as reorganisation of the division of labour together with democratisation of the criteria that is based upon in making investment decisions, not to mention transformation of other basic economic structures. Despite the fact that from one to the other, these different remedies vary significantly, the whole group can be referred to by the generic term‘re-distribution’. What comes out clearly is the coalition path they are likely to encounter in a world wrought with capitalistic mentalities. This is because what they propose as a solution which is consequently aimed at attaining an egalitarian society goes against the very essence of the free-market economy. It is so because what they propose is endeared towards meeting social needs at the expense of offending capitalisms notion of producing wealth at the lowest possible production cost so as to maximise profitability. Recognition politics on the other hand propose cultural or symbolic change as the remedy for injustice. This involves increased valuation of disrespected cultural identities as well as cultural products of subjugated groups. Recognition also implies recognition and positive valorisation of the inherent cultural diversity in the world (Sen, 2009). On a more radical tone, it also involves holistic revolutionary of society’s representational patterns as well as its communication and interpretation. These should be ideally in modes that are able to derive change everyone’s sense of identity. What is apparent is how recognition strives to reform society and how this proposed model invokes universal norms that are bereft of offending capitalism. This makes it plausible in a world where the compact majority embraces capitalism. The two orientations also pursue divergent conceptualisations with regard to the compact majority that bear the brunt of injustice. Politics of re-distribution understands class-like collectives or primarily just classes as the compact majority that bears the brunt of injustice. To proponents of re-distribution these classes are defined economically by a characteristic relation to the means of production or the market (Sen, 2009). These classes with regard to Karl Marx’s paradigm of classicism are vulnerable to exploitation as the working class. As such members of these classes trade their labour skills so as to receive their means of sustenance through monetary compensation (wages and salaries) in return. Additionally, re-distribution also classifies racially subjugated groups that can be defined economically under its mandate. A case in point could be subjugated members of a racialised lower class. These are often excluded to a significant extent from regular waged work in society by dint of the fact that they are deemed superfluous and as such, unworthy to be exploited. In the event that the idea of the economy is widened to include the unwaged labour, furthermore, gendered clusters fall in this category. It therefore follows that women also make up another group that is exploited unjustly for economic reasons. This is because women come about as the gender burdened with the giant burdensome share of unwaged care givers (Habermas, 1994). Consequently, they are disempowered in their associations with men and at the same time they are also underprivileged in employment. Constituted here are also, complexly defined clusters resulting from theorised political economy with regard to the intersection of class as well as gender and race (Marshall, 1992). From the ongoing discussions, it therefore follows that the economic empowerment that re-distribution is endeared towards deriving for these underprivileged clusters in the present world is simply not feasible. This can be explained by selecting one cluster such as gender. Primarily, the capitalist principle of the free market derives a market environment that is immensely competitive. As such it demands inputs such as the labour force that are highly skilled so as to meet the challenging competitive market. This calls for a criterion for awarding this opportunities based entirely on merit as opposed to social factors such as gender as propagated by re-distribution. This competition being real whereupon companies are autonomous entities bereft of outside social influence, it therefore follows that re-distribution faces an uphill task in meeting its objective. For politics of recognition, on the other hand, the victims of injustice closely resemble Weberian status groups as opposed to re-distributions Marxian (or Weberian) classes. As such the victims are conceptualised under the lens of the diminished esteem as well as honour together with prestige they are subject to when compared to other groups in society as opposed to their relation to production. In the Weberian paradigm, the classic case is the lower-status tribal groups, which have been suppressed by dominant patterns of cultural interpretation as well as valuation that have marked them as different and as such less worthy. This is often regarded as much to the detriment of clusters social standing diminishing their chance to win social esteem. This conception can also cover other dimensions. In contemporary politics of recognition, this notion has been spread to encompass gays as well as lesbians, whose sexual orientation is thought of as and a deviation that is devalued under the lens of the dominant culture (Young, 1989). In the modern world this notion is also extended to racialised clusters, who are branded as lesser and different. Furthermore, women, sexually objectified, trivialised, and disrespected in many varied ways also fall within this cluster. Finally, it is also being extended to include the complexly defined clusters resulting from theorised recognition relations regarding race as well as sexuality and gender which intersect simultaneously as cultural codes. What gives recognition an edge over re-distribution is the fact that as opposed to re-distribution, races as well as gender are not classes that can be economically defined; on the contrary they are culturally defined statuses. As such, as opposed to the ambiguity that results from re-distribution where ambiguity results from its proposed economic re-distribution, a concept that is simply not feasible in a society that fosters capitalism, recognition steers clear of economics and as such thrives in the modern world. The rise of the politics of identity For more than a hundred years, the Left has been directed by the assurance that industrial capitalism would without doubt regulate social life, and as such lay the foundation for politics of globalization (Piven, 1995). Capitalism implied an expansion of the bourgeoisie whose seeking out for profit would penetrate traditional societies’ social life steadily, and eventually spread the globe. In the process of spreading across the globe it would clear all fixed relations as well as existing venerable and ancient opinions and prejudices. In the meantime, industrial capitalism also would cultivate an ever-growing working class with its basis in the mass producing commerce which was to bind varied individuals together in solidarity based on class. This class would benefit harvest of capitalistic destruction as well as possibility, as it would eventually become an emancipatory creed that united all mankind. By way of annihilating primordial disparities together with polarization of humanity into two grand classes, Capitalism itself would pioneer the proletariat’s globalization mission. This model, in the present time, seems to have been shattered. Indeed Capitalism has broken through societies spanning the entire universe. When perceived under such a lens, capitalism has homogenized social life. But contrary to globalization of popular politics, the spread of capitalism has weakened and at the same time conceivably destroyed the politics of the working class. The growth of the global market place as well as the change in technology are two factors eviscerating mass production commerce, especially in mother countries, reducing the numbers of both the working class as well as firms that once nourished the idea of the proletariat as the hope of humankind. Much in the same light, capitalist investment’s new mobility is also diminishing the independence of the state, with a significant effect on present types of working class organization as well as influence. Additionally, contrary to wiping out all primordial bigotries, a universalizing capital acts to prompt a growing wave of a broken ethnic, racial, gender and religious conflict. It is fanning an identity politics which acts to express not only the venerable and ancient prejudices as well as opinions that ought to have been swept aside presumably but also apparent inexhaustible human aptitude creating new prejudices as well as opinions. This section will assess cultural identity and the struggle to be recognised as well as cultural modernity and status inequality. Cultural modernity and status inequality The category of status is very much relevant in the modern society. As such the status hierarchy is not completely a pre-modern element that vanished from the scene with the emergence of the status contract. It therefore follows that types of status subordination extant in the contemporary period are simply not pre-capitalist relics. Contrastingly, status injustices are inextricably bound to modern capitalism. This is because the modern world varies significantly from the ancient society for which the old status concept was formulated (Donnelly, 2008). To comprehend this variation one has to have an understanding of a fully kin-governed society. In such existence cultural ordering was the core mode of social integration with status hierarchy as the basis of subordination. Anthropologists who formulated this society presumed that its cultural order exhibited five major features. Firstly, it was sharply bounded. This was as a result of intercultural contacts that were limited to boundaries consequently obliterating cultural hybridisation which could have created a difficulty in defining distinctively where a given culture ended and as such marked another’s onset. The second feature was that ordering of the culture did not institutionally exhibit differences. This was as a result of the fact that a single institution, that is kinship, regulated all social interaction with a single pattern of cultural values. The third aspect is the fact that society then was tribally monistic. This implies that all society’s members functioned under the pretext of one shared horizon of evaluation. This was pervasive as it was distributed uniformly. Consequently, there was no subscribed sub-cultural encapsulation to other alternative ethical horizons. The fourth feature was that, in this envision, the cultural order was not vulnerable to contestation. Where there was no other evaluative criteria, it followed that there lacked a pretext for criticising institutionalised pattern of cultural value. Additionally there was no perspective for that enhanced contestation. Finally, despite the fact that a section of individuals might have chaffed under it, as they lacked a basis for confronting its authority, the resultant order was legitimate in a social sense (Fraser and Honneth, 2003, Brown, 1997, Basok, Ilcan and Noonan, 2006). In the contemporary society, none of these preconditions is feasible. There are various reasons that can be given for this postulation. Firstly, the modern day cultural hierarchy can be described as sharply bounded. This means that it is not limited to margins or boundaries as it is wrought with trans-cultural flows that diffuse into the nuclear precincts of social interaction. This has resulted from massive migrations as well as Diasporas together with globalisation and transnational public spheres (Kiwan, 2005). As such, unlike the old model, the contemporary society has made it impossible to tell where a given culture begins and ends. A case in point would be the current U.S president, born of a Kenyan father, with an American mother and raised in part by an Asian stepfather in Indonesia. In all these movements and interactions making one culture, the de facto culture is completely impractical for the U.S president. Additionally, America itself is a conglomerate of diverse cultures with immigrants from varied ways of lives landing on its shores. These movements with a resulting cross cutting web makes a single culture an aspect of the past as it requires individuals to embrace and acknowledge diversity. This makes recognition to be at the forefront in the contemporary world as it is inspired by objectives that are practical in the modern world unlike re-distribution that invokes somewhat socialistic principles. The second issue is that in the modern society, the pre-modern conceptualisation and as such the basis for status and the point of contention that inspires recognition lacks relevance in the modern society because the modern society’s cultural order is institutionally differentiated. This means that no single master institution, such as the olden days’ kinship, is bestowed upon the responsibility to supply a template of cultural value which would then effectively regulate social interactions. Contrastingly, varied institutions govern multiple action arenas with respect to varied cultural value patterns. It is worth to note that some of these patterns can be said to be mutually compatible. A case in point would be the criteria that evaluates and interprets sexuality to organise mass cultures. The point of variation for this is its diverging from the trend institutionalised in laws that govern marriage. The third aspect that inspires calls for recognition is the fact that modern cultural order is ethnically plural. It therefore follows that all members do not have a common evaluative horizon that is uniformly distributed to enhance sharing. Contrastingly, different subcultures or valued communities pledge allegiance to varied and in most cases incompatible horizons of value. Despite the fact that these subcultures are neither sharply bounded nor internally homogeneous, they constitute a third source of cultural complexity. As such they are over and above hybridisation and are characterised by institutional differentiation. The fourth reason why recognition tends to gain an upper hand over re-distribution is out of the fact that value patterns as well as evaluative horizons in a world wrought with the politics of identity are sharply contested. The combination of trans-cultural hybridisation as well as institutional differentiation together with ethical pluralism has fostered the need for recognition that has called for the availability of alternative perspectives that can be based upon and referred to as horizons and be used to criticise dominant values. There is no other place a part from activists’ challenge of dominant cultures that the modern societies in the contemporary world are veritable cauldrons of cultural struggle. The olden day’s setting whereupon status was legit is finding itself vehemently opposed in the contemporary world. These are all opposed as social activists continue with the struggle to institutionalise their cultural dimensions, though minorities, as authoritative. It therefore follows that status hierarchy is completely impractical in the modern society. This is because in the modern society, what comes about as most legitimate is liberal equality. This is because this principle is expressed in market ideals for instance equal exchange, career that sustains and enhances talents as well as meritocratic competition. Additionally, recognition stems out of democratic ideals for instance, equal citizenships as well as status equality. If status was to be invoked in the modern world, the ideals that this same modern world is construed to would be significantly violated. This gives recognition stronger grounds to reassert itself as opposed to re-distribution whose socialistic basis was deeply affected by communism’s fall. Cultural identity and the struggle to be recognised The concept of identity crisis in the modern world is attempted description of a significantly disadvantaged lot that demand for the elimination of all forms of discrimination by exercising rights that are ideally universally embraced and accepted (Donnelly, 2007). Additionally, it also calls for forms of preference that are specific to certain given groups as well as these said groups participation and recognition. Recognition has been elevated out of the fact that, it is upon these turn towards the call for public recognition of collective identities which has consequently resulted into culturisation of social conflicts (Fraser and Honneth, 2003). This is in the sense that members of a particular minority cluster that have been subjugated have been exploited to morally mobilise political resistance. Despite the fact that a section of contributors to the subject contend the perception that such political resistance should be sociologically overestimated because their prominence stems from pronounced media coverage, many still contend that this resistance remains to be a challenge for normatively oriented social theory. The current trend towards the politics of identity stems out of cultural upheavals that has resulted into gradual self redefinition by social minorities. While groups such as homosexuals as well as people with disabilities previously defined their self identities by way of either biological or sexual deviation in order to understand themselves as contingencies of individual clusters, in the contemporary world these clusters describe themselves more as culturally integrated communities who share a common history as well as language and sensibility (Fraser, and Honneth, 2003). This has meant that, recognition has been prevalent as opposed to re-distribution because it is only upon this platform of a constructed distinct cultural identity that individuals that were previously discriminated come up with self understanding. This has enabled them to perceive themselves in the same common group as other ethnic groups agitating for their culture to gain independence and autonomy. Much is the same story for women groups that are struggling to make sexual difference the referral base for cultural redefinition. In this instance femininity comes across as the base for a common culture among this lot of women. In a certain way, citing the case of ethnic minorities that share a common language as well as origin and culture, it reveals the fact that there is a transformation of collective self understanding in motion. This is results into recognition agitating for cultural recognition in the contemporary society. Much in the same light, a significant majority of social groups whose commonality initially constituted the negative experience alone that is social discrimination, have in the recent past undergone a process of gradual redefinition whereupon the necessity of exclusion has been translated as the virtue for construction of an autonomous culture (Fraser and Honneth, 2003). The consequent effect of this changes that took the form of collective identities is the inspiration of a whole array of communities defined along cultural lines that range from gay communities to disabled initiatives who have put across their case as subjugated ethnic minorities. This has elevated cultural recognition and posited it at the front while re-distribution has had to take the back seat as the former addresses aspects that are not only relevant but practical in the modern world. Earmarked behind the obvious rhetoric of cultural recognition is a whole array of varied aims. Differentiating these varied objectives is at the core to their normative evaluation. This aims of recognition is what has given it an edge over re-distribution. At the very peak, demands for recognition can be distinctively defined with regard to whether the aims they articulate either have an individual or collective communal character. Collective demands for recognition that are endeared towards improving the situation of the clusters individual membership are defined as individualistic. On the other hand, those that are endeared towards improving a group’s common life are referred to as communal as they are aimed at a collective cluster. Against the backdrop of the above described differences it is clear that a good number of calls for recognition made under the pretext of a cultural group has to some extend have a concealed individual feature as they are to do with individual members concerns. As such, appeals to such recognition at an increased rate serve the aim of eliminating social discrimination that prohibits individual group members from enjoying universal basic rights. In light of this collectively raised function there are no doubts about identity political demands remaining within the normative framework of a struggle for fair and equal treatment. What is demanded by appeal to the equality principle is elimination of stumbling blocks that are associated with a given social cluster’s cultural features which posit its members at a disadvantage such that they cannot enjoy equal rights as members of the dominant culture do. Conclusion Practical Tensions: The Interpenetration of Re-distribution and Recognition This brings us to the practical as well as political elements that are derived when attempts are made to encompass re-distribution with recognition into a single model. The important issues that arise in this instance are: Can calls for re-distribution be integrated coherently with demands for recognition, or do they, on the contrary, pull against each other? What mutual influences are provoked when demands for both orientations are pursued side by side and how are these tensions diffused? At first glance, demands for re-distribution appear to be on a collision course with claims for recognition. Here we are again, called upon to consider the case of bivalent collectives, for instance gender as proposed by Fraser. A solitary social distinction is straightway defined as an axis of cultural injustice as well as an axis of economic injustice. Yet neither the cultura1 injustice nor the economic injustice is a mere oblique effect of the other. As such, the economic inconvenience cannot be corrected obliquely as a struggle for recognition by product. Much in the same light can status devaluation be corrected in an indirect manner as a super-structural effect of the struggle for re-distribution? On the contrary, individuals seeking to correct the said bivalent injustices are required to make two types of demands. Firstly, they are required to make demands for re-distribution, which in turn would eliminate by mitigating the inherent divides characterising classes that are defined on the basis of their economic status. At the same time but on the contrary, they are also required to make demands for recognition. This would eliminate by mitigating the perils posed at the disadvantaged clusters by the invidious hierarchies derived from statuses defined on the basis of cultures. Despite this, the two kinds of demands can still be on a collision course. The vehemence of demands for re-distribution is endeared towards undermining group variations, that is, to distinguish social clusters, for instance, by eliminating division of labour based on gender. Recognition claim’s thrust, on the contrary, could be to precisely foster cluster differentiation, for instance, by revaluation of the female gender through recognition of gender distinctiveness. As such, the 2 demands can pull towards opposing sides. This means that they can either work against or interfere with one another. Practically, then a contradiction is encountered in attempts to integrate re-distribution with recognition. However, on a closer assessment, the problem is even more intricate. This is because not all demands for re-distribution are endeared towards social groups de-differentiation. It is important to note a very critical exception, a group of reforms that known as affirmative re-distribution. These types of reforms, for instance affirmative action as well as means-tested welfare, are endeared towards redressing misdistribution through altering end-state allotment patterns devoid of disturbances to underlying frameworks that derive them. References Bauman, Z 1998, Globalisation: The Human Consequences Cambridge, Polity Press. Basok, T, Ilcan, S & Noonan, J 2006, ‘Citizenship, Human Rights, and Social Justice’ Citizenship Studies, 10, 3, 267-273. Brown, C 1997, Universal Human Rights: A Critique, International Journal of Human Rights 1, 2, 41-65. Brysk, A & Shafir, G (eds), 2004, People Out of Place: Globalisation, Human Rights and the Citizenship Gap, New York, Routledge. Communism, Columbia Encyclopedia. 2008. Donnelly, J 2007, ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly 29, 2, 281-306. Donnelly, J 2008, ‘Human Rights: Both Universal and Relative (A Reply to Michael Goodhart)’ Human Rights Quarterly 30, 1, 194-204. Fraser, N & Honneth, A 2003, Re-distribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, London, Verso 135-160. Goodhart, ME 2008, ‘Neither Relative nor Universal: A Response to Donnelly’, Human Rights Quarterly 30, 1, 183-93. Habermas, J 1994, ‘Struggles for Recognition’ in Taylor, C (ed.) 1994, Multiculturalism New Jersey, Princeton University Press, pp. 10. Kiwan, D 2005, ‘Human Rights and Citizenship: an Unjustifiable Conflation?’ Journal of the Philosophy of Education 39, 1, pp. 37-50. Marshall TH 1992, Citizenship and Social Class, London, Pluto Press. Montgomery, JD 2002, Is there a Hierarchy of Human Rights? Journal of Human Rights 1, 3, 373-385. Robinson, M 2003, ‘Globalisation and Human Rights’ 21st Century Trust seminar on Globalisation: rhetoric, reality and international politics Congress, Washington DC, 31 October 2003 Available at http://www.21stcenturytrust.org/Robinson.pdf Piven, FF 1995, Globalizing Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics. The Socialist Register Vol. 12. (2) 1995. pp. 103-115. Schaff, K 2001, Philosophy and the problems of work: A reader. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Sen, A 1992, Inequality Re-examined, New York, Russell Sage Foundation. Sen, A 2009, The Idea of Justice, London, Allen Lane. Shafir, G & Brysk, A 2006, “The Globalisation of Rights: From Citizenship to Human Rights’, Citizenship Studies 10, 3, pp. 267-73. Steiner, H, Alston, P et al. (eds) 2008, International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Chapter 4. Young, IM 1989, ‘Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship’ Ethics 99, 2, pp. 250-74. Woodiwiss, A 2002, ‘Human Rights and the Challenge of Cosmopolitanism’. Theory Culture Society 19, 1 139-55. Woodiwiss, A 2005, Human Rights, London, Routledge. Communism, 2008, Columbia Encyclopedia. Columbia. University of Columbia Read More