Iris Marion Young
Iris Marion Young (1949–2006) was an American political theorist whose work transformed how philosophers and social theorists think about justice, oppression, and democracy. Trained in continental philosophy and phenomenology, she became best known for arguing that standard liberal accounts of justice, focused mainly on distributing goods, systematically overlook how power, culture, and social structures organize inequality. In her landmark book Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990), Young introduced the influential framework of the ‘five faces of oppression’—exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence—which offered philosophers a richer vocabulary for analyzing structural injustice. Young’s later work extended these concerns to democratic theory, global justice, and urban politics. In Inclusion and Democracy she developed a powerful account of inclusive, communicative democracy, emphasizing the epistemic and moral importance of bringing marginalized voices into public deliberation. In her posthumous Responsibility for Justice, she proposed the ‘social connection’ model of responsibility, a way of thinking about individual responsibility for structural injustices such as sweatshop labor, racial segregation, and global poverty. Though working within political theory, Young’s concepts have become foundational across philosophy, influencing feminist ethics, critical race theory, and contemporary debates on global and climate justice.
At a Glance
- Field
- Thinker
- Born
- 1949-01-02 — New York City, New York, United States
- Died
- 2006-08-01 — Chicago, Illinois, United StatesCause: Esophageal cancer
- Active In
- United States
- Interests
- Social justiceStructural oppressionDemocracy and inclusionFeminist political theoryUrban justiceGlobal justiceResponsibility for injustice
Iris Marion Young argues that justice cannot be reduced to distributing material goods; instead, it must address structural forms of oppression and domination embedded in social relations, institutions, and cultural meanings, and must cultivate inclusive democratic practices and shared responsibility to transform those unjust structures.
Justice and the Politics of Difference
Composed: Late 1980s–1990
Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory
Composed: 1977–1989 (essays); published 1990
Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy
Composed: Mid-1990s–1997
Inclusion and Democracy
Composed: Late 1990s–2000
On Female Body Experience: “Throwing Like a Girl” and Other Essays
Composed: 1977–2004 (essays); published 2005
Responsibility for Justice
Composed: Early 2000s–2006; published 2011
Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility for Justice
Composed: Early 2000s–2007; published posthumously 2007
The injustice of oppression consists precisely in the fact that it is systemic. It is embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules.— Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990), Chapter 2.
Here Young articulates her core idea that oppression is structural and reproduced by everyday practices and institutions, rather than merely the result of individual prejudice or malicious acts.
A conception of justice that focuses exclusively on the distribution of material goods and resources misidentifies the wrongs that most oppressed people suffer.— Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990), Introduction.
Young criticizes mainstream distributive theories of justice and motivates her shift toward analyzing social structures, decision processes, and relations of power.
Democratic communication needs greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling to supplement argument in order to include the perspectives of all.— Iris Marion Young, Inclusion and Democracy (2000), Chapter 2.
She explains why deliberative democracy must value diverse communicative styles to avoid excluding marginalized citizens whose experiences are not easily translated into abstract argument.
Our responsibility derives from belonging together with others in a system of interdependent processes of cooperation and competition through which we seek benefits and aim at projects.— Iris Marion Young, Responsibility for Justice (2011), Chapter 2.
This passage summarizes the ‘social connection’ model: individuals share responsibility for structural injustices because they participate in and benefit from the social processes that produce them.
To be oppressed is to be both constrained and enabled by social structures that position one in relations of power and disadvantage.— Paraphrased synthesis of Iris Marion Young’s analysis of oppression, drawing on Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990), Chapters 1–3.
Although not a verbatim sentence, this accurately condenses Young’s philosophical view that oppression is a patterned social positioning that limits options and shapes identity while still allowing agency.
Phenomenological and Marxist Foundations (1970s)
During her graduate training at Pennsylvania State University and early teaching positions, Young engaged deeply with phenomenology (particularly Merleau-Ponty) and Marxist social theory. She explored embodiment, lived experience, and structural exploitation, laying the groundwork for her later analyses of oppression and gendered embodiment.
Formulating a Structural Theory of Oppression (1980s–early 1990s)
Influenced by feminist movements and critical theory, Young turned to questions of justice and difference. This period culminated in *Justice and the Politics of Difference* (1990), where she articulated the ‘five faces of oppression’ and mounted a sustained critique of purely distributive, individualist accounts of justice dominant in analytic political philosophy.
Democracy, Inclusion, and Public Reason (mid-1990s–early 2000s)
Young’s focus shifted toward democratic theory and public policy, exploring how institutions can incorporate diverse social perspectives. In *Intersecting Voices* (1997) and *Inclusion and Democracy* (2000), she integrated feminist and deliberative democratic theory, arguing for communicative democracy that legitimizes narrative, rhetoric, and protest as modes of political communication.
Global and Structural Responsibility (early 2000s–2006)
In her final years, Young concentrated on global justice, human rights, and the ethics of responsibility for structural harms. Essays later collected in *Responsibility for Justice* (2011) developed the ‘social connection’ model, reframing responsibility for large-scale injustices not as blame for past acts but as shared, forward-looking obligations to transform unjust structures.
1. Introduction
Iris Marion Young (1949–2006) was an American political theorist whose work reshaped late‑20th‑ and early‑21st‑century debates about justice, oppression, and democracy. Working at the intersection of feminist theory, critical theory, and political philosophy, she argued that injustice is not exhausted by unequal distributions of material goods but is rooted in structural relations of power, institutional rules, and cultural meanings.
Her account of oppression as a structural phenomenon—rather than merely a matter of individual prejudice or legal discrimination—has become a standard reference across feminist philosophy, critical race theory, and social and political philosophy more broadly. In Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990), she introduced the influential framework of the “five faces of oppression”, which offered a more fine‑grained vocabulary for describing systemic disadvantage.
Young also became a prominent theorist of democratic inclusion and communication, defending forms of public expression such as storytelling, rhetoric, and protest as essential to legitimate decision‑making in diverse societies. In later work she developed a distinctive account of responsibility for structural and global injustice, the social connection model, which analyzes how ordinary participation in economic and political systems generates shared, forward‑looking obligations.
Her writings have been widely discussed by proponents and critics from liberal, republican, Marxist, and deliberative democratic perspectives. Supporters have seen her as expanding the scope of political philosophy to include everyday practices and institutional arrangements; critics have questioned, among other things, the coherence of her group‑based notions of oppression and the feasibility of her proposals for democratic inclusion and responsibility. Despite such debates, Young’s concepts continue to structure contemporary discussions of justice in philosophy, sociology, law, and public policy.
2. Life and Historical Context
Iris Marion Young was born on 2 January 1949 in New York City and completed her PhD in philosophy at Pennsylvania State University in 1974. Her formative intellectual years coincided with the civil rights movement, second‑wave feminism, anti‑war activism, and the New Left, contexts that strongly shaped her preoccupation with domination, resistance, and social movements.
During the late 1970s and 1980s she taught at several US institutions, including Miami University (Ohio), while participating in feminist and peace activism. Commentators often note that her engagement with grassroots politics influenced her insistence that political theory remain attentive to lived experience and collective action, not only to idealized principles. In 1990 she joined the University of Chicago, where she held appointments in political science, the Divinity School, and gender studies until her death in 2006 in Chicago from complications related to esophageal cancer.
Her career unfolded during the ascendancy of Rawlsian liberalism in Anglo‑American political theory and the parallel development of critical theory, poststructuralism, and feminist theory. Young’s work is frequently read as a response to these intellectual currents: engaging John Rawls’s distributive framework, drawing on the Frankfurt School’s account of domination, and interacting with feminist phenomenology and continental philosophy.
Key historical and intellectual landmarks around her work can be summarized as follows:
| Year/Period | Context for Young’s Work |
|---|---|
| 1960s–70s | Civil rights, women’s liberation, anti‑war movements; rise of second‑wave feminism and the New Left. |
| 1970s–80s | Consolidation of Rawlsian justice theory; debates on welfare state retrenchment under neoliberal governments. |
| 1990s | Growth of deliberative democracy and identity politics; post–Cold War globalization. |
| 2000s | Intensified discussions of global justice, humanitarian intervention, and urban segregation, which framed Young’s later writings on global responsibility and city life. |
3. Intellectual Development
Young’s intellectual development is often described in phases that reflect shifts in emphasis rather than radical breaks.
3.1 Phenomenological and Marxist Beginnings
As a graduate student at Pennsylvania State University in the early 1970s, Young engaged deeply with phenomenology (especially Merleau‑Ponty) and Marxist theory. Early essays that later appeared in Throwing Like a Girl explore embodiment, labor, and lived experience, linking personal comportment to structural relations of production and gender. Scholars see this period as laying the groundwork for her later concern with how social structures are sedimented in bodily habits and everyday practices.
3.2 Structural Oppression and Critique of Distributivism
In the 1980s and early 1990s, influenced by feminist activism and critical theory, Young turned toward systematic analyses of oppression and justice. This culminated in Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990), where she criticized dominant distributive paradigms and articulated the five faces of oppression. Commentators interpret this phase as a move from primarily phenomenological description to a structural, institutional focus that nevertheless preserved her attention to experience.
3.3 Democracy and Inclusion
By the mid‑1990s Young was centrally involved in debates on deliberative democracy. In Intersecting Voices (1997) and Inclusion and Democracy (2000) she developed a model of communicative democracy that integrates feminist concerns about exclusion with deliberative theory. Her emphasis shifted toward institutional design, participation, and the epistemic value of marginalized perspectives.
3.4 Global Responsibility and War
In the early 2000s, amid globalization, humanitarian crises, and debates about the Iraq War, Young focused on global justice, human rights, and responsibility. Essays later collected in Responsibility for Justice (2011) and Global Challenges (2007) formulated the social connection model of responsibility, extending her structural account of oppression to transnational supply chains, war, and displacement. Analysts see this as the maturation of her earlier themes—structure, collective action, and embodiment—into a comprehensive theory of responsibility for structural injustice.
4. Major Works
Young’s major books and collections frame the development of her core ideas. They are often read together as a coherent, though evolving, project.
| Work | Focus | Significance in Scholarship |
|---|---|---|
| Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory (1990) | Essays from 1977–1989 on gendered embodiment, social theory, and politics. | Introduced her influential analysis of gendered body comportment and connected phenomenology with structural accounts of sexism and oppression. |
| Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990) | Systematic theory of justice and oppression. | Formulated the five faces of oppression and argued against purely distributive views of justice; widely cited in political theory and feminist studies. |
| Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy (1997) | Essays linking feminist insights with mainstream political theory and policy debates. | Addressed tensions between universal norms and group‑specific experiences; contributed to debates about difference, equality, and citizenship. |
| Inclusion and Democracy (2000) | Comprehensive account of democratic inclusion and communication. | Developed communicative democracy, defending plural forms of political expression and analyzing institutional mechanisms for inclusive participation. |
| On Female Body Experience: “Throwing Like a Girl” and Other Essays (2005) | Revised and expanded essays on embodiment from 1977–2004. | Consolidated her phenomenological work, influencing discussions of embodiment, disability, and intersectionality. |
| Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility for Justice (2007) | Posthumous collection on global politics and war. | Applied her structural and democratic frameworks to self‑determination, intervention, and global governance. |
| Responsibility for Justice (2011) | Posthumous monograph on responsibility for structural injustice. | Systematically articulated the social connection model of responsibility, now central in global justice and climate ethics debates. |
Scholars sometimes distinguish between works centered on justice and oppression, those focused on democratic theory, and those on global responsibility, while emphasizing strong thematic continuity: structural analysis, attention to marginalized experiences, and a commitment to democratic transformation.
5. Core Ideas on Justice and Oppression
Young’s account of justice centers on the claim that oppression and domination are structural features of social life, not merely outcomes of unequal distributions or individual malice.
5.1 Critique of Distributive Justice
In Justice and the Politics of Difference, she argues that dominant theories of justice—especially those emphasizing the fair distribution of goods, rights, and opportunities—“misidentify the wrongs that most oppressed people suffer.” Proponents of her view highlight that focusing solely on distribution overlooks decision‑making power, division of labor, and cultural norms. Critics, drawing on Rawlsian and luck‑egalitarian traditions, contend that her critique underestimates the flexibility of distributive frameworks to incorporate structural concerns.
5.2 Structural Oppression
Young defines oppression as a systemic, historically produced condition in which social processes position some groups in persistent disadvantage. She emphasizes that oppression is reproduced through everyday practices, institutional rules, and normalized meanings rather than exceptional violations.
“The injustice of oppression consists precisely in the fact that it is systemic. It is embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules.”
— Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference
Her analysis treats oppressed groups as social positions rather than fixed identities, allowing for multiple, intersecting oppressions. Some commentators praise this relational approach; others worry that it risks reifying group boundaries.
5.3 The Five Faces of Oppression
Young’s best‑known contribution is the typology of five faces of oppression:
| Face | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| Exploitation | Systematic transfer of the results of one group’s labor to benefit another. |
| Marginalization | Exclusion of groups from meaningful participation in social life (e.g., labor markets, political institutions). |
| Powerlessness | Lack of authority, decision‑making power, and opportunities to develop capacities. |
| Cultural Imperialism | Dominant group’s experiences and norms treated as universal, rendering others invisible or stereotyped. |
| Violence | Systematic fear and threat of physical harm directed at group members. |
Supporters regard this framework as a powerful diagnostic tool that clarifies varied mechanisms of injustice; critics question whether the five categories are exhaustive, mutually distinct, or universally applicable across societies.
6. Democracy, Communication, and Inclusion
Young’s work in democratic theory develops a model of communicative democracy aimed at addressing how structurally oppressed groups can be genuinely included in political decision‑making.
6.1 From Deliberation to Communicative Democracy
Engaging with deliberative democrats such as Jürgen Habermas, Young accepts that public justification is central to legitimate democracy but argues that idealized models of rational deliberation often privilege formal argument and abstract language associated with dominant groups. She maintains that this risks silencing or devaluing contributions from marginalized citizens whose experiences are not easily expressed in such terms.
Her alternative, communicative democracy, proposes that legitimate deliberation must recognize multiple modes of political communication: argument, narrative, rhetoric, greeting, and public protest. Proponents see this as expanding the scope of what counts as “reasonable” political speech; critics worry that broadening accepted forms of communication might weaken norms of public reason or facilitate manipulation.
6.2 Inclusion of Marginalized Voices
In Inclusion and Democracy, Young analyzes structural barriers to participation, including spatial segregation, language, class, and cultural norms of civility. She argues that inclusive institutions must not only allow but actively facilitate participation by disadvantaged groups, for instance through targeted representation, participatory councils, or outreach mechanisms. Some readers emphasize her commitment to group‑differentiated citizenship, while others question how to reconcile this with liberal commitments to equal individual rights.
6.3 Epistemic Value of Difference
Young contends that including diverse social perspectives has epistemic benefits: people differently positioned in social structures are likely to perceive distinct aspects of injustice and policy effects. This claim has influenced work on epistemic injustice and democratic epistemology. Supporters argue that it justifies institutional designs that amplify marginalized knowledge; skeptics ask how to operationalize these insights without essentializing identities or assuming that all members of a group share the same standpoint.
7. Responsibility for Structural and Global Injustice
In her later work, especially Responsibility for Justice and Global Challenges, Young develops a distinctive account of how individuals and institutions are responsible for structural and global injustices such as sweatshop labor, racial segregation, and global poverty.
7.1 Social Connection Model of Responsibility
Young contrasts a “liability model” of responsibility—focused on backward‑looking blame for wrongdoing—with her “social connection model”, which is forward‑looking, shared, and non‑fault‑based. On this view, individuals bear responsibility for structural injustice when they participate in and benefit from social processes that predictably produce unjust outcomes, even if they have not violated rules or intended harm.
“Our responsibility derives from belonging together with others in a system of interdependent processes of cooperation and competition through which we seek benefits and aim at projects.”
— Iris Marion Young, Responsibility for Justice
Responsibility here involves obligations to work collectively to transform unjust structures, proportionate to one’s power, privilege, and connection to the processes in question.
7.2 Applications to Global and Urban Contexts
Young applies this model to global supply chains, arguing that consumers, corporations, and states share responsibility for labor exploitation in distant factories; to urban segregation, where zoning, lending, and housing practices create racialized spatial injustice; and to war and intervention, where citizens and officials are implicated in decisions that shape global security.
7.3 Debates and Critiques
Supporters view the social connection model as offering a realistic way to conceptualize responsibility in complex systems such as global capitalism and climate change, where harms are diffused and unintended. Critics raise concerns that:
- The model may dilute individual accountability, making it harder to distinguish serious from minor responsibilities.
- Its criteria for allocating responsibilities (power, privilege, interest, and collective ability) may be indeterminate in practice.
- The emphasis on forward‑looking responsibility may underplay the normative importance of culpability and redress.
These debates have situated Young’s account at the center of contemporary discussions of global justice, corporate ethics, and climate responsibility.
8. Methodology and Use of Phenomenology
Young’s methodology combines phenomenological description, structural analysis, and normative political theory. Commentators often emphasize how this blend distinguishes her from both mainstream analytic political philosophers and more exclusively continental theorists.
8.1 Phenomenology and Embodiment
Influenced by Maurice Merleau‑Ponty, Young uses phenomenology to analyze lived body experience, particularly in essays such as “Throwing Like a Girl.” She describes characteristic patterns of feminine bodily comportment—hesitant, constricted, or overly cautious—as products of social norms and power relations, not natural sex differences. This method involves close attention to first‑person experience while interpreting it in light of broader social structures.
8.2 From Experience to Structure
Young treats phenomenological insights as starting points for structural theorizing. For instance, analyses of how women navigate public space or labor are used to illuminate institutionalized gender roles, divisions of labor, and cultural expectations. Rather than opposing phenomenology and social theory, she argues that subjective experience reveals how structures are lived and reproduced.
Some scholars praise this bridging of levels of analysis; others question whether phenomenological descriptions, often based on limited or culturally specific cases, can adequately ground broad structural claims.
8.3 Critical Theory and Normative Orientation
Young situates her work within a critical‑theoretic tradition, drawing on the Frankfurt School’s concern with domination and emancipation. Methodologically, this involves:
- Diagnosing systemic patterns of oppression and exclusion;
- Reflecting on how social theory itself may reproduce domination;
- Articulating normative goals—such as non‑domination, inclusion, and democratic equality—without claiming a view from nowhere.
Critics have raised questions about the justification of her normative standards and whether her reliance on concepts like oppression and domination presupposes controversial political commitments. Supporters argue that her approach exemplifies a pragmatic, reconstructive method that tests norms against both empirical realities and democratic aspirations.
9. Impact on Feminist and Critical Theory
Young is widely regarded as a central figure in feminist political and social theory, and her concepts have also influenced broader currents in critical theory.
9.1 Feminist Theory and Gendered Embodiment
Her analysis of gendered embodiment in “Throwing Like a Girl” and related essays has been extensively discussed in feminist philosophy of the body. It is often compared with, and sometimes contrasted to, the work of Simone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler. Supporters view Young’s account as:
- Demonstrating how socialization and threat of violence shape women’s bodily habits;
- Providing a non‑reductive alternative to biological explanations of gender difference.
Some critics, particularly from intersectional and trans perspectives, argue that her early examples focus primarily on white, cisgender women, and may insufficiently address racialized and trans experiences of embodiment. Later commentators, however, have used her framework to analyze race, disability, and sexuality.
9.2 Feminist Analyses of Oppression and Difference
The five faces of oppression framework has become a common reference in feminist scholarship, social work, and education. It is often used to:
- Clarify mechanisms of sexism, racism, heterosexism, and class oppression;
- Teach about structural injustice in accessible terms.
While many theorists adopt or adapt her categories, some propose alternative schemas or critique the typology for possible overlap or incompleteness, suggesting additional “faces” such as environmental racism or epistemic oppression.
9.3 Critical Theory and Intersectionality
Within critical theory, Young’s emphasis on structure, power, and communicative inclusion is seen as complementing and revising Habermasian and Marxist approaches. Her insistence on the political significance of group‑differentiated experiences has influenced intersectional theorists, who draw on her to conceptualize how multiple oppressions intersect at the structural level.
Debates continue over the relationship between Young’s group‑based analysis and intersectionality as developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw and others. Some view her as a precursor to intersectional thinking; others maintain that her categories need further refinement to capture complex, overlapping identities and power relations.
10. Influence on Political Philosophy and Public Policy
Young’s work has had substantial influence on normative political philosophy and on discussions of public policy design.
10.1 Expanding the Agenda of Political Philosophy
In political philosophy, Young’s critique of distributive models encouraged theorists to incorporate institutions, decision‑making processes, and cultural norms into accounts of justice. Her ideas have informed:
- Theories of relational equality and non‑domination, which stress social relationships rather than only resource shares;
- Work on structural injustice and social ontology, where her descriptions of oppression as patterned social positions are frequently cited;
- Debates about deliberative democracy, prompting reconsideration of what counts as valid political reasoning.
Some philosophers argue that existing liberal frameworks can accommodate her concerns without abandoning distributive analysis; others treat her proposals as motivating a shift toward structural and relational paradigms of justice.
10.2 Policy Debates: Urban, Social, and Global
In policy discussions, Young’s concepts have been used to analyze and sometimes justify reforms in areas such as:
| Policy Area | Use of Young’s Ideas |
|---|---|
| Urban planning and housing | Her work on urban justice and segregation informs debates on zoning, public transportation, and mixed‑income housing, emphasizing spatial manifestations of oppression. |
| Social services and welfare policy | The five faces of oppression framework is employed by practitioners and scholars to assess how programs may marginalize or empower clients. |
| Diversity, representation, and participation | Her defense of group‑differentiated representation influences discussions about quotas, reserved seats, and participatory councils. |
| Global governance and trade | The social connection model guides arguments about corporate social responsibility, fair trade, and transnational regulatory regimes. |
Policymakers and theorists sympathetic to Young see her work as providing diagnostic tools and normative guidance for addressing structural disadvantage. Critics question the practical feasibility of some proposals (such as robust group representation) and worry that they may entrench group divisions or conflict with liberal neutrality.
11. Legacy and Historical Significance
Young’s legacy is often described in terms of her role in reorienting debates about justice toward structural, relational, and democratic concerns.
11.1 Canonical Status and Ongoing Use
Her works—especially Justice and the Politics of Difference, Inclusion and Democracy, and Responsibility for Justice—are now standard references in curricula on political philosophy, feminist theory, and social justice studies. The five faces of oppression and the social connection model are widely taught, cited, and adapted in academic research and professional training (for example, in social work and education).
11.2 Cross‑Disciplinary Reach
Young’s concepts have had influence beyond philosophy, shaping research in sociology, geography, urban studies, legal theory, international relations, and development studies. Her analyses of urban space and segregation are invoked in studies of gentrification and spatial justice, while her account of responsibility informs debates about corporate conduct, global supply chains, and climate change.
11.3 Assessment and Critique
Scholarly assessments highlight both contributions and open questions:
- Many regard Young as a key figure in articulating a structural conception of injustice and a democratic ethos of inclusion.
- Critics continue to debate issues such as the normative foundations of her theory, the operationalization of group representation and inclusive communication, and the scope and allocation of responsibilities for structural harms.
Despite these disputes, commentators generally agree that Young’s work has had lasting significance in shifting historical understandings of justice from primarily distributive concerns toward oppression, domination, and democratic transformation, and in providing conceptual tools that remain central in contemporary struggles over equality and inclusion.
How to Cite This Entry
Use these citation formats to reference this thinkers entry in your academic work. Click the copy button to copy the citation to your clipboard.
Philopedia. (2025). Iris Marion Young. Philopedia. https://philopedia.com/thinkers/iris-marion-young/
"Iris Marion Young." Philopedia, 2025, https://philopedia.com/thinkers/iris-marion-young/.
Philopedia. "Iris Marion Young." Philopedia. Accessed December 11, 2025. https://philopedia.com/thinkers/iris-marion-young/.
@online{philopedia_iris_marion_young,
title = {Iris Marion Young},
author = {Philopedia},
year = {2025},
url = {https://philopedia.com/thinkers/iris-marion-young/},
urldate = {December 11, 2025}
}Note: This entry was last updated on 2025-12-10. For the most current version, always check the online entry.