Prof. Fraser's argument is, in part, that there are interesting and serious losses when literature is dominated by white men, insights are lost (or never really offered). (As already noted, it is hard to credit the white part unless the discussion is just of the UK or the USA. I rather doubt white men are dominate in the literary production and consumption in China, India, Japan, etc.) Her observation is, I think, correct. A wide range of sources is more likely to generate information - here, expressions of and insights of a wider variety of people or characters. I have found that true for myself, which is, to be honest, not much in the way of evidence.
Still, it is not clear why that is an argument for dominance being an injustice. An epistemological shortcoming, problem, deficiency, I agree. We do better with a wider range of sources (all else being equal), and so there is, on this basis good reason to read a variety of authors, and authors with a variety of backgrounds and identities. For convenience, we can rely on broad categories, as we do often in a variety of contexts. So more women writers, and more writers (for folks like me) from other parts pf the world, and various social and economic classes. But am I committing an injustice if I do not widen my reading? Assume the questions from the prior post and move now to the question of what the injustice is or would be. I think I need to find something that is not merely the instantiation in the production of literature of the general social and economic structure. I do not think Prof. Fraser is arguing that the kind of late capitalism we are living in the US and UK is unjust -- well, maybe she is but focusing on literature if a peculiar way to go about it. A change in this aspect of the economic world is not likely to have the right kinds of impact to alter the wider and more robust other areas of the economic order. It is far stretch from more women writers to adequate child care and improved economic and social equality broadly. One might make that sort of argument about integration of the upper reaches of corporate worlds, although I doubt it matters greatly that the demographics of exploitation alter. Maybe, but even so assuming does not do much for the issue here. It could be that Prof. Fraser is using the literary world as an example, except she never says that.
What sort of injustice is it that Prof. Fraser identifies? Epistemic failures are moral failures? Not doing the best one can with respect to imaginative empathy with others is a problem of justice? I am stumped here. I think a significant part of the reason is that I have difficulty with the notion that everything is a moral issue. That disparities of every kind are problems for morality and/or justice. Failing to fairly consider a manuscript because of demographic features of the author is sometimes a question of injustice. But it is not always. I can see a failure to fairly consider a manuscript for a book on modal logic from someone who lacks even a high school diploma would be a disappointment to the author, but, given ordinary constraints on time and resources, not an injustice.
Recent Comments