Cited by 1,298Critical Theory and PhilosophyPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFeminist Theory and Gender Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rethinking Recognition

Fraser, Nancy·2000·New Left Review

Abstract

Has the liberating charge of struggles for recognition dissolved into pure identity politics? Do these have to sidestep inequalities of wealth and power? Not, Nancy Fraser contends, if recognition is understood as a question of social status rather than existential address.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.64590/pup

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Metadata

Authors
Fraser, N.
Corresponding author
Fraser, Nancy
Venue
New Left Review
Published
2000-05-31
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
107-120
ISSN
  • 0028-6060 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-0480
OpenAlex
W4414159290
Cited by
1,298
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 242 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 116 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 22
FWCI
29.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
New Left Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Theory and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
Keywords
recognition, identity politics, struggle for recognition, social status, wealth and power, inequality, Nancy Fraser

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review