Redistribution And Recognition Analysis

“Thoughts” on Redistribution and Recognition

The ideas of redistribution and recognition by Fraser, really intrigued me to further my thoughts on these concepts. Fraser explains that recognition can be a cultural group looking for recognition of difference whereas redistribution is classified as a transfer or reduction of socioeconomic classes. This made me wonder, does redistribution include a progression of taxes according to income? If this is true, I can see a strong indication of how this could be valuable. The individuals who get tax breaks, tax reduction, and other loopholes to prevent them from payer higher amounts of taxes not only hurt the middle class, but also the lower class. The main idea of redistribution is to provide an
This concept provides explanation of why those with very little wealth may not have a strong drive to develop or gain more wealth. Redistribution can provide those with little wealth to gain more and may provide them with that incentive to embark on a new career, go back to school, get a promotion, etc. Current trends continue to show how redistribution has actually decreased in support from Americans. But what if this actually is due to be perceived thoughts rather than actual real data? For example, if someone is living in poverty working two jobs to be able to live, they may see a redistribution of wealth an “easy way out” compared to them working to continue up the latter. This is where recognition comes to the surface. Recognition is the step that needs to be addressed before redistribution can be accomplished. For example, if an individual does not recognize that they are needing assistance. This would be an example when an individual does not have a perceived susceptibility. Perceived susceptibility shows that whenever someone believes they are at risk of being susceptible to a problem, they decide to take action. Unless they are
I believe recognition is on a basis of cultural decision making and redistribution is made on an economic standpoint. This would be two different mixtures for injustice. To solve the redistribution of economic wealth you would base this on fair tax rates, restructuring the system, etc. But, from a recognition standpoint, you would need to focus on some form of cultural or symbolic form of justice. These ways would include changing the identity or communication towards certain marginalized groups. So, as my examples have shown, these two concepts are completely separated in a way that they can be used entirely different depending on the situation and scenario. The question I have is, ethically, what is the matter of the “good” and what is the matter of the “right”? Also who determines what is ethically “right” and what is ethically “good”? These questions are important to me because we can recognize what is ethically “right” according to our standards and beliefs, but is that recognized as ethically “good”? A prime example of this would be the uninsured using the Emergency Departments (ER) of hospitals as their primary care so they do not have to pay for health coverage. As a nation, we have recognized this as a problem, but we choose not to redistribute any form of stipulations onto those who continue to use the hospital ER as a free service. Ethically