In “The Imperative of Integration”, Elizabeth Anderson attempts to push forth the ideal of integration after it was seemingly abandoned during the Civil Rights Movement. After the priority of left political movements was shifted from “redistribution” to “recognition”, the need for celebrating diversity and multicultural recognition was deemed essential in the fight for equality. While Anderson calls for the focus to be brought back to integration, she fails to fully acknowledge the importance of recognition as an effective means of achieving social equality. Integration, according to Anderson, is “an imperative of justice” and “a positive good.” She is brought to this conclusion after determining that “if segregation is a fundamental cause
…show more content…
Even after two groups are integrated, the group who was initially the oppressor will still have an unfair advantage when it comes to accessing resources, moving up in society and being respected by others. This can be seen in the previous example of racial residential segregation. While desegregation would cause those of different races to live among one another, not everyone would be able to reap the benefits of living in their particular neighborhoods. This can also be seen when it comes to gender biases within the workforce. Even though a man and a woman may hold the same position at their place of work, the man would most likely receive a higher pay and be considered first for a promotion. While Anderson’s argument is compelling and the need for integration is apparent, it is clear that this solution would inhibit personal freedoms in addition to not leading to much progress when it comes to achieving equality. Unlike Anderson’s claim, the shift from “redistribution” to “recognition” seems to have been a positive one. Although there is still much to be done in order to achieve social equality, the celebration of diversity and multiculturalism seems to be causing a beneficial change. While integration can aid in bringing about this change, it would be ineffective when used on its
Even after two groups are integrated, the group who was initially the oppressor will still have an unfair advantage when it comes to accessing resources, moving up in society and being respected by others. This can be seen in the previous example of racial residential segregation. While desegregation would cause those of different races to live among one another, not everyone would be able to reap the benefits of living in their particular neighborhoods. This can also be seen when it comes to gender biases within the workforce. Even though a man and a woman may hold the same position at their place of work, the man would most likely receive a higher pay and be considered first for a promotion. While Anderson’s argument is compelling and the need for integration is apparent, it is clear that this solution would inhibit personal freedoms in addition to not leading to much progress when it comes to achieving equality. Unlike Anderson’s claim, the shift from “redistribution” to “recognition” seems to have been a positive one. Although there is still much to be done in order to achieve social equality, the celebration of diversity and multiculturalism seems to be causing a beneficial change. While integration can aid in bringing about this change, it would be ineffective when used on its