Recognition or Redistribution? How should we navigate injustice?

In an increasingly inclusive world, we have begun to become cognizant of historical injustices that impact our day to day lives. I'm curious, how do you all believe we should confront these injustices? Or should we even begin to confront them? I recently read Bikhu Parekh's "A New Politics of Identity". The specific section excerpted from some of Charles Taylor's work got me thinking about whether, specifically, recognition of identity or monetary redistribution is of greater importance. These are my (somewhat extended) thoughts:

    The way in which one is perceived has the irrepressible power to influence all aspects of one’s life. Misrecognition of one’s identity can, as Charles Taylor put it, “inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning one in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being” (Taylor 25). Therefore, it must be the case that the universal recognition of one’s identity be of upmost importance. However, is it enough to have equal dignity in a strictly societal sense, and not in a substantive monetary sense? Hasn’t the oppression of people, rather than people’s identities led to the tremendous gap in wealth inequality today? Isn’t wealth a large, if not deciding, influence of how effectively one can change how one is perceived by society? It is a fact that the ancestors of people from different cultures have undergone atrocities that have led to this wealth inequality. By acknowledging this historic injustice, one may contemplate whether recognition of identity alone is sufficient to combat the issue of wealth inequality. I will present Taylor’s argument about the importance of recognition and the damage done by misrecognition, briefly discuss the damages done by wealth inequality, explain why there has been a shift from redistribution to recognition, and argue that there is danger in privileging recognition over redistribution.
     Authenticity, in the sense that one is true to one’s own originality, is absolutely necessary in order for one to realize one’s personal identity. Taylor argues this point, claiming that by avoiding the demands of external conformity, one can theoretically come into contact with one’s own inner nature, and achieve a sense of self-fulfillment. Self-fulfillment, being that which is vital for our individual happiness, is universally desired. However, Taylor then argues that one’s inner voice is irremovably dependent on one’s social identity, claiming that “there is no such thing as inward generation, monologically understood” (Taylor 32). This is because human life is fundamentally dialogical in nature, and the “making and sustaining of our identity . . . remains dialogical throughout our lives” (Taylor 34). Therefore, a relationship between the way in which one is recognized and one’s personal identity becomes apparent. Because one must have some sense of self-fulfillment in order to be happy, and because it is impossible for this self-fulfillment to be found exclusively within oneself, recognition by others is essential for one to find happiness, a universal human desire. Taylor encapsulates this notion in the following quote: “[Our identity] is the background against which our tastes and desires and opinion and aspirations make sense. If some of the things I value most are accessible to me only in relation to the person I love [One can substitute “the person I love” with “the people in which my desires and aspirations depend upon,” and still make sense of this idea. “The people in which my desires and aspirations depend upon” I am saying is analogous to society], then she becomes part of my identity” (Taylor 34).
      By realizing how one’s identity is dependent on the ways in which one is recognized, the harm of misrecognition can be understood. One way to conceptualize this harm is to compare one’s relationship to society as a relationship to a significant other. When one is in a relationship, one’s significant other inadvertently becomes a part of one’s own identity. In this way, they are, as Taylor puts it, “crucial because they are the crucibles of inwardly generated identity” (Taylor 36). So if one is misrecognized by one’s significant other, one becomes subject to internal instability, with an inability to achieve self-fulfillment. Likewise, if one is misrecognized by a society, “the projection of an inferior or demeaning image on one can actually distort and oppress, to the extent that the image is internalized” (Taylor 36). In this way, misrecognition has the power to deny one happiness by distorting one’s inwardly generated identity, and is a real form of oppression. 
    Oppression encapsulates the notions of both the downgrading of a person’s sense of worth, and the disparaging effects of not having enough in terms of substantive wealth. In more cases than not, the two forms of oppression are intertwined, making it the case that those suffering from misrecognition also suffer from a lack of financial means. The historical explanation for this entwinement can be traced back to the exploitative practice of subjugating entire groups of people for the purpose of monetary gain. For example, slavery in the United States accounted for nearly all of the income generated by colonists just two hundred years ago. Although slavery has not been practiced in the United States for over one hundred and fifty years, the consequences of slavery are still very much apparent; those that gained wealth from slavery are still wealthy, those that were enslaved are still poor. It is important to realize that the misrecognition and dismissal of people’s identities laid the foundations for slavery and other oppressive practices, and continues to serve as an excuse for distributive injustices.
     However, distributive injustices also contribute to misrecognition, and have as much of a psychologically draining effect. To illustrate this, I will refer to the work of Abraham Maslow [Maslow, Abraham. Motivation and Personality. Revised by R. Frager, J. Fadiman, C. McReynolds, & R. Cox. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Print, 1987.]. Maslow is known for formulating the theory of the Hierarchy of Needs, which claims that human needs come in levels, and that the higher needs and desires are inaccessible until the base needs [Needs progress from physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and finally self-actualization] are met. Therefore, if one lacks a sense of consistency and security, one is unable to achieve a sense of fulfillment or contentment, and becomes more prone to disorders such as depression and anxiety. Studies by Evelyn Williams [ Williams, Evelyn. Poverty in Kenya: An Assessment of Need Fulfillment, Physical Health, and Mental Well-Being. Web, 2010.] and Catherine Santiago [Santiago, C., Wadsworth, M., Stump, J., Socioeconomic status, neighborhood disadvantage, and poverty-related stress: Prospective effects on psychological syndromes among diverse low-income families. Web, 2011.] show that living without sufficient means greatly affects one’s psychological health and well-being, just as Maslow predicted. These studies also show that having a low socio-economic status, limited income, and limited resources creates a continuous cycle of poverty by limiting opportunities for higher employment and achievement. So in noticing how both the misrecognition of identity and insufficient resources affect people’s mental health and well-being, one may wonder which issue should be prioritized. 
    Because many groups ascribe their psychological pain to misrecognition, demands for recognition have offset demands for redistribution. This is understandable, as cultural depreciation and the presence of demeaning representations immediately trigger reactions of disappointment and anger. However, by solely focusing on issues of recognition, the struggles caused by a lack of resources can be wrongly attributed to the pains of misrecognition. As Fraser said, “obfuscating such connexions [between a lack of resources and psychological pain], they strip misrecognition [and the pain that accompanies it] of its social-structural underpinnings and equate it with distorted identity” (Fraser 110). In fact, demands for recognition can be so great that they hinder a group’s monetary interests. Bhikhu Parekh writes, “because redistribution is not enough, and identity matters to people, many national minorities seek secession or greater autonomy even when this threatens their economic interests” (Parekh 44). 
     There is danger in continuing to focus solely on recognition and ignoring redistribution. Although recognition of identity is absolutely necessary, inequalities have the tendency to “breed arrogance and a sense of superiority in some, and obsequiousness and inferiority in others” (Parekh 45), causally creating an environment where misrecognition is implicit. In addition, combating the issue of recognition alone will not also combat distributive injustices, as Fraser points out by saying “the idea that one could remedy all maldistribution by means of a politics of recognition is deeply deluded,” alluding to the fact that “a purely ‘cultural’ society with no economic relations . . . is far removed from the current reality” (Fraser 112). Besides recognizing that maldistribution affects misrecognition, and that recognition alone cannot combat distributive injustices, it is also plausible that prioritizing recognition could cause a dismissal of demands for redistribution.
     Recognition of identity alone may fail at countering all aspects of oppression, in the sense that once recognition is achieved, groups may become satisfied enough to ignore distributive injustices. I imagine that inferiorized groups readily notice how oppression, both past and current, affect their economic statuses due to a constant bombardment of signifiers of misrecognition that injure one’s identity. However, once these signifiers are no longer present, causations of wealth inequality may not seem as readily apparent, as the fiscally oppressed would no longer suffer from the pains of misrecognition. This would make it so that the historically oppressed would still suffer from the effects of having a low socio-economic status, with their demands for recognition met, and demands for redistribution forgotten. However, until the historically oppressed receive compensation for their pains, justice will never be served, and equality will never be established.
    Since we are assuming entwinement of misrecognition and distributive injustice, redistribution also places power into the hands of the misrecognized, allowing for opportunities to change the ways in which they are recognized. Because society is structured in a way where it is difficult to escape the cycle of poverty, without redistribution, marginalized groups will continue to live with fewer financial means, with less of an ability to pursue higher interests and occupations. With inferiorized groups unable to pursue higher occupations, society will continue to attribute the groups’ failures to misidentifiers such as cultural and psychological factors. Conversely, “when communities are economically successful and occupy important positions in society, their success reflects on their cultural and other identities, and the latter comes to be valued and admired” (Parekh 52). So redistribution not only allows for increased power and opportunity for the oppressed, it also implicitly changes the ways in which society recognizes groups of people. 
    I have argued that both misrecognition and maldistribution are detrimental to one’s psychological well-being. I have argued that while recognition is essential, redistribution should be prioritized in order for both recognition and distributive justice to occur. While combating the issues of misrecognition and maldistribution is difficult, I hope to have made clear that it is also necessary, as everyone deserves justice, and an opportunity for self-fulfillment.

If you've read up to this point (, or even if you haven't,) please let me know your thoughts on this topic! I'd love to be able to hear from you and your perspective..I'm a firm believer that learning occurs best through thoughtful, multilateral discussion. From my understanding, the Steemit community is remarkably intelligent, courteous, and above all, curious.

Also, if you any of you know how to paste your writing into a steemit post without it reformatting like it did here please let me know haha.