Synthetizing ETHOS papers on the interplay & tensions between justice claims, mechanisms that impede and faultlines of Justice
Abstract
This Report 7.3 belongs to ETHOS’ Workpackage 7, ‘Theory of Justice in Europe’. It synthesizes
the programme’s findings in three separate papers. The first paper (7.3.1) written by Bert van den
Brink and Miklos Zala focusses on the interplay and tensions between justice claims. The second (7.3.2)
written by Trudie Knijn and Basak Akkan aims to analyse mechanisms that impede justice. The third paper (7.3.3) written by Trudie Knijn, Jelna Belic and Miklos Zala explores the fault lines of justice. Each of these papers is based upon all ETHOS theoretical and empirical studies conducted over the past three years of the programme, although the accents of the papers differ. The first 7.3.1. paper evaluates ETHOS’ findings from a philosophical perspective with empirical input by analysing the trade-offs between the three justice claims; redistribution, recognition and representation. It then assesses the practical operationalization of transformative versus affirmative interventions by comparing and contrasting the resulting (Weberian) ideal types to Fraser’s non-ideal framework. The paper finally reflects on a European theory of justice and fairness by seeing if Fraser’s approach to resolving trade-offs between justice claims is applicable in light of lessons learned from the ETHOS project or that alternative approaches should be considered. The second 7.3.2. paper takes the non-deal philosophical assumption of ETHOS as a starting point to evaluate the mechanisms impeding justice that are presented in the empirical studies on law, labour market analyses, political and media discourses, resolution means and everyday experiences of vulnerable populations. It defines machanisms and their properties as well as activities of entities as mechanisms that impede (in)justice and vulnerable populations as a threefold category; a universal human condition, a category of people in need of supprt and as a constructed category of dependants. The paper concludes that multi-level governance interpretations of recognitive justice results in diverging acknowledgement of (group)identities, that EU led austerity politics and policies hamper national and local governments in redistributive justice, and that vulnerable populations are badly represented in social institutions. Overall the paper signals that justce principles in Europe do not (yet) contribute to participatory parity and the development of capabilities of the most needy populations. The third 7.3.3. paper also starts from the non-ideal philosophical assumption of ETHOS by exploring boundary lines drawn between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The synthesized findings are based on the empirical studies on law, labour market analyses, political and media discourses, resolution means and everyday experiences of vulnerable populations. The paper distinguishes boundary lines between citizens and non-citizens as well as boundary lines between citizens belonging to political communities. It concludes that what could be imgained as universal justice principles is hampered by territorial affectedness, sedentariness and ethnic belonging. However, formal belonging is not sufficient due to boundary lines drawn in the context of austerity. Social closure, reciprocity claims and categorization along lines of age, able-bodiedness, ethnicity and gender pertain misdistribution, misrecognition and misrepresentation.
