Distribution and recognition each resist subsumption into the other’s frame

Evidence

The idea that recognition requires us to move beyond distribution, and reject a distributional approach to justice, simply does not appear in the recognition literature. Young, Fraser, and Honneth all insist that we have to look at the ‘why’ of inequity in order to both understand and remedy it. While more traditional justice theorists focus on ideal schemes and process of justice in liberal societies, recognition theorists have made clear that attention to the real impediments to such schemes must be addressed with attention to the existence or denial of recognition in both the political and sociocultural realms. Just as distributional theorists do not want their key concern subsumed in a theory of justice focused on recognition, recognition cannot simply be subsumed, or assumed, in a theory of distribution. — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 101

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘why of inequity’ framing gives the reader a causal-lens tool to test whether EJ litigation and noise regulation ever diagnose root causes or only redistribute symptoms. — connects to: Justice requires both redistribution and recognition because collectivities are bivalent — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 104; Recognition theory supplements rather than replaces distributional justice — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 100