Part A:

1. Mansfield wants to emphasize struggles for recognition as the proper subject matter of the study of politics.

2. Michaels thinks that the left has overemphasized struggles for recognition.

3. Fraser thinks that if you emphasize struggles for recognition too much, you might end up neglecting redistribution. But she ultimately thinks the two things can be reconciled.

4. Fraser’s critical theory is sometimes jargon-laden, but Jeffries and Mehta show how ideas like that can be put into action. I’m happy to unpack her statements further if you’d like.

Part B:

You’ll have to blame Mansfield for that–it’s almost all a quote from him!

Should Parts A and B be in one post? Maybe not. But it’s nice to point out how Mansfield can churn out substantively silly arguments in the course of a methodologically sophisticated essay. As he said in a lecture I fondly remember, “sometimes the best physician is the best poisoner.”