Politics of difference
Universiteit van Amsterdam
73220044FT
Content:
- All lecture notes
- All readings summarized
,Lecture 1
Politics of difference: how power and political institutions categorize people into groups and
how this generates inequality.
POD 1: which differences are political?
Food: can be trivial or more personal/politicized. Things that were apolitical in the first
place, can become more in the future.
We only know something is different if we know what is normal. IE: what a family is ->
similar age kids, ethnicity laws & policies are made for normal.
Power of normal
How do political scientists study difference?
- Difference deserve to be protected, but in the private sphere
- In the public sphere difference should be nonexistent
- Works towards common goods in public sphere
Can we really distinguish between public and private?
How neutral is the public sphere?
Image house of commons people look alike
Some people enter public as neutral, others as different, ie wearing religious symbols.
- Interests: assumed everyone has them
- Identities: being part of groups. Ie: dutch gold carriage.
How power and political institutions categorize
Power: set of diffused forces that exist in savety, ideas, religion, political institutions. Causal
Surveys: positionality matters. Describing differences is political
, Main takeaways lecture:
o Definition of POD: how power and political institutions categorize people into groups
and how this generates inequality.
o Not all differences are political, so were interested in how and why some differences
become and remain political
o Defining what is normal and what is different
o poliSci studies differences between interests and identitiespolitical theorists have
often seen differences as best protected by ..?
lecture 2
political theorists often see differences as best protected by respecting individual freedom
in the private sphere.
The public sphere criteria:
o a communicative realm
o to discuss and debate the common interest
o the force of the better argument wins
o where participants leave their status and identities behind
Communicative realm
Public sphere -> people physically come to meet and communicate.
Communication doesn’t have to be “live”, can also be mediated ie. Social media, tedtalks
etc.
Discussing the common interest & government
Discussion of what the government is doing.
Gradually started to include a larger number of individuals. Who is able to have a voice?
Who is part of the “common interest”? a contested concept.
o Reparations, who should pay for it?
o People at the end of global supply chains, don’t have access.
o Abortion; limitation of the commons is shown. Who should have a voice?
The force of the better argument wins
Civil disobedience; Ghandi’s hunger strike great example. Persuading the British empire by
demonstrating arguments through non-violent acts.
A veil of ignorance: a hypothetical state, in which decisions about social justice and the
allocation of resources would be made fairly, as if by a person who must decide on society’s
rules and economic structures, without knowing what position they will occupy.
Where participants leave their status and identities behind
All theory is for someone and some purposes. There are certain ways of asking questions,
depending on the goal.
Universiteit van Amsterdam
73220044FT
Content:
- All lecture notes
- All readings summarized
,Lecture 1
Politics of difference: how power and political institutions categorize people into groups and
how this generates inequality.
POD 1: which differences are political?
Food: can be trivial or more personal/politicized. Things that were apolitical in the first
place, can become more in the future.
We only know something is different if we know what is normal. IE: what a family is ->
similar age kids, ethnicity laws & policies are made for normal.
Power of normal
How do political scientists study difference?
- Difference deserve to be protected, but in the private sphere
- In the public sphere difference should be nonexistent
- Works towards common goods in public sphere
Can we really distinguish between public and private?
How neutral is the public sphere?
Image house of commons people look alike
Some people enter public as neutral, others as different, ie wearing religious symbols.
- Interests: assumed everyone has them
- Identities: being part of groups. Ie: dutch gold carriage.
How power and political institutions categorize
Power: set of diffused forces that exist in savety, ideas, religion, political institutions. Causal
Surveys: positionality matters. Describing differences is political
, Main takeaways lecture:
o Definition of POD: how power and political institutions categorize people into groups
and how this generates inequality.
o Not all differences are political, so were interested in how and why some differences
become and remain political
o Defining what is normal and what is different
o poliSci studies differences between interests and identitiespolitical theorists have
often seen differences as best protected by ..?
lecture 2
political theorists often see differences as best protected by respecting individual freedom
in the private sphere.
The public sphere criteria:
o a communicative realm
o to discuss and debate the common interest
o the force of the better argument wins
o where participants leave their status and identities behind
Communicative realm
Public sphere -> people physically come to meet and communicate.
Communication doesn’t have to be “live”, can also be mediated ie. Social media, tedtalks
etc.
Discussing the common interest & government
Discussion of what the government is doing.
Gradually started to include a larger number of individuals. Who is able to have a voice?
Who is part of the “common interest”? a contested concept.
o Reparations, who should pay for it?
o People at the end of global supply chains, don’t have access.
o Abortion; limitation of the commons is shown. Who should have a voice?
The force of the better argument wins
Civil disobedience; Ghandi’s hunger strike great example. Persuading the British empire by
demonstrating arguments through non-violent acts.
A veil of ignorance: a hypothetical state, in which decisions about social justice and the
allocation of resources would be made fairly, as if by a person who must decide on society’s
rules and economic structures, without knowing what position they will occupy.
Where participants leave their status and identities behind
All theory is for someone and some purposes. There are certain ways of asking questions,
depending on the goal.
