Philosophy Redistribution or Recognition (Fraser)’s paper

cussions on recognition and redistribution differ in four ways: first, they have different definitions of what injustice is in that redistribution regards injustice as rooted in economic causes whereas recognition sees injustice as cultural. second, both have different remedies for injustice, where redistribution sees economic restructuring as the answer and recognition requires cultural or symbolic change. third, they identify different bodies who are the victims of injustice, where redistribution sees classes, reminiscent of the Marxist definition, as victims, whereas recognition sees those who enjoy lesser esteem, respect, and prestige as the victims. and finally, each assumes different understandings of group differences, that is, redistribution sees differences as social constructs resulting from an unjust political economy, whereas recognition assumes that social differences stem from the hierarchical values assigned to them.
There are two approaches to recognition of difference: one that sees them as inherent social conditions that were previously almost devoid of value at all but were devalued by an unjust social schema, and one that sees them as occurring at the same time as they were assigned value in the hierarchical social constructs. What this means then is that the first approach appreciates and encourages the cultivation of group differences, while the second one discourages celebration of such differences.
Gender cuts through the thesis that differences in society must either deal with class or status injustice, and thus, could be addressed by either redistribution or recognition. Gender should be understood as a two-dimensional social differentiation and not just either one or the other because it is both a matter of class and status. Gender is institutionalized to in society to differentiate paid “productive” labor, which generally involves the male gender, as opposed to unpaid “reproductive” and domestic labor, which invariably refers