Crash Course: Political Theory

In May of 2024, Spain, Norway, and Ireland formally recognized the existence of a Palestinian state.

They became the latest of around 140 countries to make this proclamation.

This recognition came with no additional concrete action on the part of these countries.

And yet, Israels then Foreign Minister declared that the Spanish government was, quote, being complicit in inciting genocide against Jews and war crimes. Meanwhile, the countries doing the recognizing stated more or less the opposite: that they hoped their recognition would be a positive contribution toward promoting peace in the region.

Which led me to wonder, how could the simple act of recognition carry so much weight?

I'm Ellie Anderson and this is Crash Course Political Theory.

[THEME MUSIC] In political theory, recognition is a big deal.

Its not like, Oh, I recognize that actor from somewhere. Its more like, I validate your existence. This kind of recognition can change peoples lives when its given politically like, when a state recognizes a same-sex partnership as an officially sanctioned marriage.

And it can result in harm when its withheld, from feelings of inferiority to all-out war.

Throughout history, disputes over recognition have been central to violent conflicts, whether in Palestine, Ukraine, Ireland, Algeria, and beyond.

Which makes me wonder about the power of recognition even more.

Like, is it a symbolic gesture or is it real?

What does political recognition achieve, really?

In order to get clearer on this thing that feels so abstract and yet is driving our global conflicts, I needed to dig deeper.

My digging took meas it often, weirdly, does to 19th-century Germany.

Specifically to philosopher G.W.F.

Hegel, and a strange scenario he posed called the master-servant dialectic. Lets go to the tape.

[TV static] Imagine youre alone in the universe and you think to yourself wait, stop right there cause youre already wrong.

At least thats what Hegel would say.

Hegel argued that in order to do something as simple as think, which we might call human consciousness, human beings need to be seen and recognized by other human beings.

OK, so imagine youre alone in the universe, except for one other person.

Im me, you say.

Who are you? No, Im me, the other person says.

And so the two of you enter into a fight to the death.

Some WWE-level stuff.

Eventually, one of you wins and the other begs for mercy.

In Hegels terminology, the loser becomes the servant and the winner the master, who gets to keep the claim of I am me. One has selfhood.

The other is well, other.

And so a hierarchy is established.

The servant gets to work doing the masters will say, building bicycles, while the master, I dont know, does wheelies on them.

But all the while, the servant is having an impact on the world around them.

Theyre making stuff happen.

The master is benefitting from that work they get to test out cool jumps all day.

But the servant made all this possible, and so they feelkinda powerful.

Whereas the master is dependent on the servant to get what they want and need.

On top of that, the servant is giving the master recognition theyre following their orders, treating them like a real person in the world.

But the master is treating the servant like less than a person, more like an object.

And objects cant recognize you back.

Which if youll recall, is really what both the master and servant wanted all along.

[TV static] And that little thought experiment helped me understand why Hegel diagnosed struggles for recognition as the core cause of conflict between people.

When we clash, were not really fighting over rights or resources or who left dirty dishes in the sink again.

Were struggling to be recognized.

Like, do you see me as a person?

Do you respect me?

This moldy Tupperware says otherwise.

And I can see Hegels point.

Ive definitely been in roommate meetings that werent really about the dirty dishes.

But I still wondered: what about the servant?

Surely, theres some additional impact of not being recognized by the master, no matter how much self-worth you cultivate along the way.

Which brought me to psychiatrist and political theorist Frantz Fanon, a key figure in decolonial theory.

Growing up on the island of Martinique and later studying in France, Fanon found himself swimming in cultural messages that white people were the default, Black people the inferior other. In his 1952 book Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon engaged with Hegels concept of recognition to describe the condition of colonized peoples.

Fanon argued that when France abolished slavery in its colonies, Black people were suddenly granted freedom without having created and defined what that freedom meant.

He writes that it was, quote, always white liberty and white justice; that is, values secreted by [...] masters. And that these newly free people knew nothing of the cost of freedom, for [they have] not fought for it. This is where Fanon got a little controversial.

He thought that colonized people needed to struggle for recognition both psychologically and with violence, if it came to that.

He argued that this struggle was critical to heal from the trauma of being treated as objects.

So, this is the big takeaway for me at this point: recognition is a two-way street.

These days everyone wants to be like, I feel so seen right now. But that led me to German philosopher Axel Honneth, and his 1992 book The Struggle for Recognition. Honneth argues that we seek recognition in three main spheres of interaction. First, theres the sphere of love.

Honneth meant the personal sphere, where our friends and family either buildor weakenour basic self-confidence.

Next, theres rights, the political sphere, where we seek recognition for our essential sameness.

But theres also solidarity, the communal sphere, where we seek recognition of our differences.

And we need recognition in all of these spheres, Honneth argued, in order to become whole people.

Ill be honest, when I first read this, part of me thought, This sounds like a fancy way of saying something we all learned in kindergarten. But then I thought about it and realized that even in kindergarten, some identities definitely get more recognition than others.

For sixty years, peachy-pink Crayola crayons were called flesh-colored, implying thats the human skin color.

So, yes, recognition seems basicbut elusive.

When weve got it?

We grow, we self-actualize, we become ourselves.

And when we dont got itwe face real harm.

Thats what philosopher Charles Taylor argues in his 1992 essay The Politics of Recognition. He calls recognition a vital human need, formed through our interactions with others.

Identity is moldedfor better or for worse by other people.

And Taylor argues that our political conditions should allow for recognition of our differences, instead of treating them like they dont exist.

Rights might give us grounds for being treated the same, as abstract, anonymous individuals.

But were not abstract and anonymous.

As much as I sometimes wish I was, when I think about my appearances in the fashion column of my college newspaper.

Anyway, I still have questions.

Like how do we know when recognition is achieved?

And also: who decides that?

After all, recognition isnt tangible its not something we can hold in our hands.

We either feel like we have it, or we dont.

Which brought me to a new question.

What about land acknowledgements?

You may have encountered these at public events [SEC.

BUTTIGIEG] I want to begin by acknowledging that we are on the ancestral homelands of Nacotchtank, Anacostine, and Piscataway people. [ELLIE] when a speaker acknowledges that the land were all on was taken from Indigenous peoples.

Its a practice that tries to give recognition, but critics say it often falls short.

I read perspectives from some Native people who say land acknowledgements can come off as hollow gestures.

Without mention of ongoing inequities or a call to action, they can feel like, I recognize Im on your land.

Do you recognize Im good for recognizing this? So I started to wonder: is recognition enough?

Is it just a symbolic substitute for real change?

And to try to answer that, I went back to Honneth, who argues that no, behind every struggle for real change, theres really a struggle for recognition.

Workers demanding better wages?

Money represents respect.

A woman pointing out the thousands of dollars worth of unpaid housework she does every year?

Shes really seeking recognition for her gendered, undervalued labor.

I could see Honneths point, but there are some theorists who really disagree with him.

They say that recognition is not nearly enough.

Its the redistribution of resources that will ultimately make things right, so those with few resources have more, and theoretically everyone has enough.

For example, many Indigenous people and non-Indigenous allies are involved with the Land Back Movement, whose goal is to return landespecially federal land and sacred sites to its previous Indigenous owners, through government intervention, purchasing the land themselves, and other methods.

This is a form of reparations, or efforts to repay or make amends for an injustice.

Take the Tbatulabal Tribe of whats now southern California.

Since the mid-1800s, their ancestral lands werent in their control.

But when a plot of that land went up for sale in 2019, they had an opportunity to get it back.

Four years later, with funding from the state Wildlife Conservation Board and the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, the tribe got the deed of over twelve hundred acres of that land, what they call Kolo kamap, or the place of the duck. Tribal chairman Robert Gomez said the land will be used for tribal ceremonies, cultural education, public-access hiking and fishing, and ecological restoration.

Which is awesome.

But recognition isnt one-size fits all.

Philosopher Kyle Powys Whyte argues that redistribution isn't enough unless it also recognizes a tribes specific situation.

Other Indigenous groups may have different needs or attitudes toward accepting monetary reparations.

And some experts advocate for collecting oral histories, restoring damaged land, and reforming the law around Indigenous sovereignty in order for land redistribution to really mean anything.

At this point, I started thinking that maybe neither redistribution nor recognition is enough.

Then I came across philosopher Nancy Fraser, who asks one of my favorite questions, especially when it comes to deciding whether to get the tiramisu or the chocolate lava cake: Why not both? She argues that recognition and redistribution are equally important pieces of the same injustice puzzle.

For example, when feminists call for equal pay for equal work, theyre calling for redistributionfor reducing a difference.

And when feminists point out that women earning as much as their male partners still do more housework, theyre calling for recognition of that difference.

So perhaps these symbolic gestures are an important step on the path toward tangible change.

Maybe rights and recognition are inextricable after all.

[Harp music] Aww!

I cant say that Ive figured it all out.

But I can say that recognition gets at something we all need and deserve: a respect for our sameness and our differences.

And with that, wow thats the last episode of our series.

Its been quite a journey.

While politics can make us feel like tiny cogs in a giant machine, weve seen how individuals and groups are weaving political theory and practice to struggle toward a more just society.

And how we get there whether its through democracy or anarchy or the pursuit of utopia, with the help of feminists or Marxists or prison abolitionists thats the question of political theory,