La présente étude se concentre sur le travail de Nancy Fraser sur la justice sociale, lequel a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt dans la littérature au cours des dernières années. La reconnaissance et la redistribution sont les deux piliers originaux de son approche: les désavantages dont souffrent les gens dus au dénigrement culturel ou à la privation économique. Ces deux concepts servent à diagnostiquer et fournir le soutien moral aux multiples luttes que les victimes d’injustice entreprennent avec l’objectif d’établir une participation plus égalitaire à la société. Cependant, que peut-elle dire cette approche des groupes qui sont marginalisés et cherchent l’autogouvernance (ou la séparation même) plutôt que l’intégration dans la société? Le travail de Fraser manifeste une résistance envers les droits du groupe, et un silence quant à l’autodétermination. Mon intervention prend comme objectif d’inclure ces formes d’injustice dans son approche, la rendant plus sensible aux dynamiques des groupes et capable de répondre à leurs revendications trop souvent négligées sous prétexte de l’égalité. La question est, l’égalité de qui? / The focus of this study is Nancy Fraser’s work on social justice, which has gained prominence in the literature over the past few years. The two original pillars of her approach are redistribution and recognition – the injustices that individuals face as a result of economic hardship or cultural denigration. These two concepts serve to diagnose and provide moral backing to the multiple struggles that individuals undertake with the aim of a more equitable way of participating in society. But what does this approach have to say about marginalized groups who seek greater autonomy, or perhaps even separation, rather than further participation in society? Fraser’s work has manifested resistance to sanctioning group difference, and silence on the issue of self-determination. I aim to build these claims into her approach, ultimately to render it more sensible to group dynamics and more capable to respond to their demands all too often neglected under the pretext of equality. The question is, equality of whom?

La présente étude se concentre sur le travail de Nancy Fraser sur la justice sociale, lequel a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt dans la littérature au cours des dernières années. La reconnaissance et la redistribution sont les deux piliers originaux de son approche: les désavantages dont souffrent les gens dus au dénigrement culturel ou à la privation économique. Ces deux concepts servent à diagnostiquer et fournir le soutien moral aux multiples luttes que les victimes d’injustice entreprennent avec l’objectif d’établir une participation plus égalitaire à la société. Cependant, que peut-elle dire cette approche des groupes qui sont marginalisés et cherchent l’autogouvernance (ou la séparation même) plutôt que l’intégration dans la société? Le travail de Fraser manifeste une résistance envers les droits du groupe, et un silence quant à l’autodétermination. Mon intervention prend comme objectif d’inclure ces formes d’injustice dans son approche, la rendant plus sensible aux dynamiques des groupes et capable de répondre à leurs revendications trop souvent négligées sous prétexte de l’égalité. La question est, l’égalité de qui? / The focus of this study is Nancy Fraser’s work on social justice, which has gained prominence in the literature over the past few years. The two original pillars of her approach are redistribution and recognition – the injustices that individuals face as a result of economic hardship or cultural denigration. These two concepts serve to diagnose and provide moral backing to the multiple struggles that individuals undertake with the aim of a more equitable way of participating in society. But what does this approach have to say about marginalized groups who seek greater autonomy, or perhaps even separation, rather than further participation in society? Fraser’s work has manifested resistance to sanctioning group difference, and silence on the issue of self-determination. I aim to build these claims into her approach, ultimately to render it more sensible to group dynamics and more capable to respond to their demands all too often neglected under the pretext of equality. The question is, equality of whom?

This thesis both draws from and contributes to the ongoing project of critiquing and reconstructing the theory of the public sphere; an undertaking that has been characterised as both valuable and necessary by Fraser (2005: 2) and many others. The subsection of theory variously described as ‘postmodern’, ‘radical’, or ‘agonistic’ informs an intensive practical and theoretical critique of the pre- and post-‘linguistic turn’ iterations of the Habermasian ideal, before culminating in the articulation of a concise and operationalisable ‘neo-Habermasian’ public sphere ideal. This revised model retains the Habermasian public sphere as its core, but expands and sensitizes it, moving away from normative preoccupations with decision-making in order to effectively comprehend issues of power and difference, and to allow publicness “to navigate through wider and wilder territory” (Ryan, 1992: 286). This theoretical framework is then mobilised through a critical discourse analytical approach, exploring three cases of hacktivist counterpublicity, and revealing the emergence of a multivalent, multimodal discourse genre capable of threatening and fracturing hegemony. The case studies are selected using Samuel’s (2004) taxonomy of hacktivism, and explore the ‘political coding’ group, Hacktivismo; the Creative Freedom Foundation and the ‘performative hacktivism’ of their New Zealand Internet Blackout; and the ‘political cracking’ operations carried out by Anonymous in protest against the Australian government’s proposed Internet filter. The analysis focuses on how the discursive form and content of hacktivism combines to function counterhegemonically; that is, how hacktivists work to provoke widespread political preference reflection and fracture the hegemony of the publics they are oriented against. This approach generates a fruitful feedback loop between theory and empirical data, in that it enriches and extends our understanding of new modes of counterpublicity, as well as providing a detailed account of the under-researched yet increasingly widespread phenomenon of hacktivism.

Contemporary theoretical and political approaches have sought to integrate both a material politics of redistribution and a cultural politics of recognition into a relational theoretical framework. Such frameworks consider the intersecting ways individuals and groups suffer from over-determining social inequalities that are rooted in the economic, cultural and political orders of society. In this thesis, I identify approaches that seek to explain the intersection between economic, cultural, and political variables as “integrated” theories of justice. At the forefront of integrated approaches that have cut across disciplinary and epistemological divides, I critically engage with Nancy Fraser’s integrated theory of justice (1995, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005). I also examine similar, yet alternative approaches advanced by Jacinda Swanson (2005) and others that have attempted to reconcile the economy/culture/politics relationship. I argue that while integrated theories of social justice provide a correction to previous “reductionist” and “essentializing” theories of social justice, they do not go far enough to capture the over-determining interconnections between economics, politics, culture, and agency. As a result, they are unable to adequately address the complexity of social inequalities. To address this problem in the literature, I re-work integrated theories of social justice that attempt to reconcile the economy/culture/politics divide through an integration with a realist meta-theoretical approach. A realist approach offers several theoretical, methodological and political gains for recasting complex theories of social justice.

Contemporary theoretical and political approaches have sought to integrate both a material politics of redistribution and a cultural politics of recognition into a relational theoretical framework. Such frameworks consider the intersecting ways individuals and groups suffer from over-determining social inequalities that are rooted in the economic, cultural and political orders of society. In this thesis, I identify approaches that seek to explain the intersection between economic, cultural, and political variables as “integrated” theories of justice. At the forefront of integrated approaches that have cut across disciplinary and epistemological divides, I critically engage with Nancy Fraser’s integrated theory of justice (1995, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005). I also examine similar, yet alternative approaches advanced by Jacinda Swanson (2005) and others that have attempted to reconcile the economy/culture/politics relationship. I argue that while integrated theories of social justice provide a correction to previous “reductionist” and “essentializing” theories of social justice, they do not go far enough to capture the over-determining interconnections between economics, politics, culture, and agency. As a result, they are unable to adequately address the complexity of social inequalities. To address this problem in the literature, I re-work integrated theories of social justice that attempt to reconcile the economy/culture/politics divide through an integration with a realist meta-theoretical approach. A realist approach offers several theoretical, methodological and political gains for recasting complex theories of social justice.

In 1988, Linda Nicholson and Nancy Fraser published an article entitled "Social Criticism Without Philosophy: An Encounter Between Feminism and Postmodernism," arguing that this essay would provide a jumping point for discussion between feminisms and postmodernisms within academia. Within this essay, Nicholson and Fraser largely disavow a number of second wave feminist theories due to their essentialist and foundationalist underpinnings in favor of a set of postmodernist frameworks that might help feminist theorists overcome these epistemological impediments. A "postmodern feminism," Nicholson and Fraser claim, would become "the theoretical counterpart of a broader, richer, more complex, and multilayered solidarity, the sort of solidarity which is essential for overcoming the oppression of women" (35). Interpreting "Social Criticism" through a feminist cultural studies model in which texts are understood to be simultaneously constituted by and reflective of their own sociopolitical spaces, I argue that the construction of Nicholson and Fraser's "postmodern feminism" is, first and foremost, neither a postmodernist critique nor a means of overcoming the pitfalls of essentialism and foundationalism. Instead, the construction of this theoretical paradigm can be shown to be complicit with postfeminist discourses, wherein an implicitly patriarchal discourse of postmodernism is called upon to repair the deficiencies of feminisms, deficiencies that postmodernisms, in some ways, helped to bring into view. To provide a conceptual backing for these claims, I move toward an examination of mass culture, surveying the similarities between "Social Criticism" and the film What Women Want. Such a comparison, I suggest, facilitates a better understanding of how "Social Criticism" can be shown to be imbedded in a postfeminist narrative structure in which feminisms are relegated to a discursively subordinate gendered position in relation to postmodernisms. Finally, in what I find to be the most important aspect of this thesis' inquiry, I ask what it means to build a "broader, richer, more complex, and multilayered solidarity" by disavowing second wave feminisms in favor of postmodernisms. I conclude that, in using postmodernisms as a panacea for feminist theories, Nicholson and Fraser curtail what might have been a rigorous interrogation of and direct engagement with second wave feminist theories that would also attend to the phallogocentric underpinnings of postmodern theories. To underline the potential consequences, I turn to a set of televisual and filmic texts including Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, and The Devil Wears Prada to gauge what their "postmodern feminism" might represent in practice rather than what it entails as philosophy. This juxtaposition of these two differently defined and yet overwhelmingly similar postmodern feminisms, I propose, underscores the potential that Nicholson and Fraser may have instituted a postmodern feminist methodology in which it is possible that feminisms might emerge not as discourses essential for "overcoming the oppression of women" but rather as discourses that can be critiqued into oblivion.

For the past 20 years, the European Union has extended its political cooperation and bilateral trade agreements with Morocco, while not taking a clear stance against the occupation of Western Sahara. Bound by EU law as well as principles of human rights and international law, the institutions of the EU are obligated to respect human rights in the EU external action. This includes the right to self-determination, a customary principle of international law. In two rulings, the Court of Justice of the European Union has concluded that agreements between the EU and Morocco do not apply to Western Sahara. But since then, two new agreements have been concluded whose respective scope include the territory and the waters of Western Sahara. Yet, the people of Western Sahara are not party to any of the agreements which authorises the exploitation of its natural resources. Drawing upon this context, this thesis examines the human rights aspect of the EU’s international agreements using a set of different research methods. The research question, if and how the EU’s external action affecting Western Sahara complies with EU law, is answered through a doctrinal analysis of the human rights clause of three separate agreements between the EU and Morocco, and the relevant case law of the Court. The conclusions are discussed in a following extrajudicial assessment based on Nancy Fraser’s critical theory of social justice.  The thesis finds that the EU external action as manifested in the three agreements with Morocco, by including the territory of Western Sahara, does not comply with EU law. Further, the analysis discovers that the lack of coherence between the institutions creates a fragmented external policy, whose legal basis and objectives in regard to respect for human rights is not reflected in its implementation. The discussion discovers that the EU fails to recognise the people in Western Sahara as equal subjects of social justice by upholding an unjust political frame. This framing maintains the status quo and obstructs the people’s claims for redistribution, recognition and political representation. The thesis therefore concludes that the EU should change its policy regarding Western Sahara, and align with the guiding principles for the external action stated in the treaties (Article 21 TEU). The thesis suggests that the EU adopts a comprehensive critical democratic and inclusive approach, in order to improve its institutional framework for how international agreements are negotiated, implemented and monitored in occupied territories.

This is paper is an argument analysis of citizenship and its allocation using an interpretation of Linda Bosniaks theory of Divided Citizenship. The starting point of this paper is the absence of a thorough or exhaustive legal definition of citizenship and legal binding and enforceable citizenship allocation laws within international migration law. Referring primarily to the absence of principals of social justice and global ethics within the legal framework. In total this leads to a multitude of different ethical problems. Therefore, there is a need for researching and evaluating alternative definitions and principles concerning citizenship and its allocation beyond the most common ones.The research material of this paper consists of chapters from two books Spheres of Justice by Michael Walzer and Scales of Justice by Nancy Fraser. The conclusion of this paper is that the combination of the “all subjected-principle” and “the membership-principle” are best suited to the demands that a wide definition of citizenship poses. Citizenship and its allocation are today less and less dependent on the state itself and can today easily be supplemented by other institutions depending on geographic and political needs, while still using democratic governance. Therefore, it is desirable to link the allocation of citizenship to the goal of establishing participatory parity. Deliberative democracy is the necessary foundation of all political organization. All other forms of citizenships and rights are necessary preconditions for people to be able to participate in the political process and protect all equal value of all people. The denial of citizenship is always the first in a long train of abuses.