Fraser’s writings attracted positive and negative critiques. Despite the fact that Fraser may have encounter disapproval, she took advantage of these criticisms to perfection her theories. Thus, we can observe that through the works of Fraser, she may have modified and improved her concepts. She shows that by having her work reviews is an important stage for intellectual projects.

-       Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, in 2003, with her co-author Axel Honneth.

Recently, twenty-nine years after the publication of her first book, she accomplished her most recent works Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World, and Adding Insult to Injury: Nancy Fraser Debates Her Critics (which comprises the writings of other eminent theorists).

Her scholarly articles drew considerable attention. I believe that there are three concepts from Fraser that should not be missed. Amongst Fraser’s major concepts, there are the “public sphere”, the redistribution and recognition, and the theory of justice. Yet, before discussing these three theories, I would like to raise the “dilemmas of the activist scholar” in the interview of Fraser by Nancy Naples. This dilemma shows the ambiguity between intellectuals and activists. On the one hand, it is difficult for activists who are very much engaged in practices to step back, and to question their practical theory. On the other hand, theories are very often idealistic to the point that they seem disconnected from the real world. In other terms, those theories are impracticable. To Fraser who is a philosopher and theorist, she is concerned about how her theories and ideas may be applicable in the society. For philosophers, to see their concepts contribute in improving their world renders their effort purposeful. Thus, Fraser affirms the necessity to combine theory and practice, and to beware of attributing more importance to either; both have equal importance.

In today’s democratic society, Fraser believes that “public sphere” needs to be reformulated. Fraser offers a “critical-theoretical approach” in redefining “public sphere” in a way that could deliver justice. Fraser argues that multiple public spheres promote justice. In her concept of “public sphere”, she distinguishes between “strong and weak public sphere”. “Weak public sphere” refers to organizations outside of the governmental institutions. “Strong public sphere” refers to the “sovereign senate”. The distinction between the two is that the latter have not only the power to form opinion, but also to make decision. In contrast, the former have no decision power while it can participate in the “opinion formation”. Hence, Fraser suggests that the vulnerable group to form their own “subaltern counterpublics” where they can express their voice, and eventually, act collectively in the demand of social equality.

Fraser, by examining the feminist movement with a “Zeitdiagnose (a diagnosis of the times)” approach, noticed that after the spirited and optimistic second wave feminism, feminism seems to have experienced a ”shift”. Fraser says that the vocabulary of feminism is increasingly inclined to call attention to the recognition of cultural difference. Feminist movement originally concentrated in economic inequalities, which is closely associated with gender inequalities from a feminist perspective. It seems to me that this view was inspired by her experience. In her interview with Amrita Chhachhi, she confessed herself having taken for granted the energetic feminist flow during her generation. It was only after that feminist energy started to diminish that she realized that feminism did not happen naturally. Thus, it is important that we remember to focus on the original goal of the women movements. Economic reasons, which she calls “redistribution” is certainly a major motivation, since subsistence strongly relies on economic ability. However, women are economically disadvantaged due to the persistent and widespread gender inequalities. We must acknowledge the importance of cultural difference and identities. However, we must not obscure redistribution. Therefore, she recalls the need to examine the topics separately, as well as how they are interrelated. In short, she wants to emphasize that there is “no recognition without redistribution” and vice-versa.

Further, Fraser’s “scales of justice” add a third dimension to her initial two-dimensional concept (economic and cultural). The third dimension is representation, politics. Fraser raise the question about how do we, who claim to be in a democratic society, reconcile with globalization. The basic “who”, “what”, and “how” are to be answered.