Redistribution, recognition, and pluralism: a Rawlsian criticism of Fraser

This paper offers a critical examination of the recognition paradigm. It assumes that this paradigm, at least in the deontological version defended by Fraser, should make room for a class of merely ethical duties, that should never be turned into legal, coercible obligations. The paper then argues that (1) Fraser's examples of misrecognition tend to concern the ethical substratum of our societies, not institutions; (2) Rawls’ conception of justice covers most issues of misrecognition; (3) Fraser's participatory democracy does not leave enough room for the pluralism of comprehensive doctrines, of the radical yet reasonable kind Rawls describes in Political Liberalism. The paper concludes that the recognition paradigm, even in Frazer’s deontological version, betrays an element of paternalism.