Feminist Critique of Liberalism PDF

Week 11 Feminist Critique of Liberalism Review of last week Paradox: Liberalism based on idea of political equality, but in practice liberal democratic societies profoundly unequal Responses to the paradox: Liberalism racialized (Charles Mills) Liberalism a rejection of ascrip...

Week 11 Feminist Critique of Liberalism Review of last week Paradox: Liberalism based on idea of political equality, but in practice liberal democratic societies profoundly unequal Responses to the paradox: Liberalism racialized (Charles Mills) Liberalism a rejection of ascriptive hierarchy – liberalism rejects Absolutism and hereditary inequality (Brewer) Charles Mills: Racial liberalism Social contract actually a racial contract Laws discriminatory Post-civil rights era – de facto rather than de jure discrimination Charles Mills: Racial liberalism Liberalism Restricted concept of personhood Liberal thinkers actions and thought reflected their racial privilege Ideal theory – obscures racial injustice of social origins Charles Mills: Racial liberalism Proposes non-ideal theory Proposes racial, or domination, contract Question: If liberalism inherently racist, why greater degrees of equality achieved over time? Racial discrimination arising from pre-liberal era (Brewer) Slavery instituted under Absolutism Liberalism opposes ideas of hereditary status Liberal thinkers actions can’t be categorized as supporting slavery Locke – initially close to Stuarts Later opposed slavery Brewer Question: If liberalism a rejection of ascriptive hierarchy, why were women, the enslaved, and non-propertied men excluded from the social contract? Why have advances in rights occurred in the context of war or mass social movements? My response: The liberal language and concepts of equality, consent of the governed, provide a basis for individuals to make rights claims. Equality does not simply happen, however, but arises as a consequence of collective struggle for rights. Liberalism’s commitment to property rights, and focus on a limited understanding of autonomy, undermine equality and facilitate systemic injustice – ie racial, class, gender injustice – which are remedied by collective action. Plan for today Feminist critique of liberalism Criticizes the: Public-private sphere split Individual ontology Idea of equality Proposes: An ethic of care Criticizes: Liberal social contract Public-private split 1) Public-private split Pre-dates liberalism – Athenian democracy Liberal version: Social contract about the preservation and protection of private interest Public-private split: feminist critique “Private sphere” not exempt from exercise of power E.g. domestic violence Portraying private sphere as outside “the public” conceals power relations that limit women’s liberty and equality Private sphere isn’t the sphere of ”the natural” Gendered division of labour within the household isn’t “natural” Limits women’s capacity to exercise Liberalism as a gendered tradition Liberal thought: Humans as rational Naturally free and equal Consent necessary for legitimate government But early liberal thinkers implicitly or explicitly excluded women Perceived as not rational Rousseau Men as providers and defenders: women weak & dependent Women – educated for what is suitable or appropriate for them to know Women ought to be dedicated to the family and private sphere (Weiss 1987) Liberalism as a gendered tradition Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) Capacity for reason not dependent on gender Perceived lack of reason a result of education and socialization (nurture), not nature Liberalism as a gendered tradition John Stuart Mill, Subjection of Women (1869) Women also capable of reason and self-development Blamed sex-specific education Psychology of male power “Men do not want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments” Picture of Harriet Taylor Mill Liberalism as a gendered tradition John Stuart Mill Advocate of women’s rights, however: Concerned about reproduction of the poor & women’s sexuality Supported 1834 Poor Law Amendment Women as “the guardians of a well-ordered society” (quoted in Zerilli 2015, 359) Liberal individualism Society understood as composed of autonomous individuals Liberalism primarily concerned with government’s role as protecting individuals from infringements of their rights by government and by other individuals Critique of liberal individualism We are relational, rather than autonomous, beings (will return to this) Our life chances are determined by structures that shape our identity, capacities, and opportunities Women as a group subjected to men as a group E.g. gender pay gap Rates of poverty Fewer women in leadership positions in government and private sector Women’s subjection to violence https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b- d&q=soaierse+ronan+graham+nortpn#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:c8988c62,v id:Eb5kpEZ7bTA,st:0 Principle of equality Equal to whom? For example: car design https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23 /truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes Medicine Understanding of citizenship, work, leadership based on “masculine” ideals Access to workplace – on masculine terms Legal equality Theoretically, equality in divorce – however, until recently reluctance to raise family violence issues DARVO – Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim & Offender Ethics of care approach Relational approach Individuals understood as being in relationships Not necessarily harmonious Capacity to be autonomous depends on being cared for All humans vulnerable & fragile at some point in their life All humans at once recipients and givers of care How is this related to democracy? Care an important part of our lives “Care deficit” and the “democratic deficit” related to each other Every political theory has an implicit or explicit theory of care Ancient democracy – women, enslaved excluded Realm of “necessity” outside the public/political Franchise excluded those who were dependent Women, men without property Women initially included on basis of relation to men in military How is this related to democracy? “Democratic theory has not yet finished its work if everyone is expected both to work and to be citizens, but some are left with disproportionate caring duties” (Tronto 2013, 27-8) Equality of citizens essential to democracy What does this mean? In standard view: Equal human rights Equal respect towards human rights In Tronto’s view: Quality of being needy is shared equally by humans Requires that caring become a central value Caring democracy “Democratic politics should center upon assigning responsibilities for care, and for ensuring that democratic citizens are as capable as possible of participating in this assignment of responsibilities” (Tronto 2013, 30) Caring democratic theory – “exposes how social and political institutions permit some to bear burdens (and joys) of care and allow others to escape them” (32-3) Concept of care ”…a species activity that includes everything that we do to maintain, continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as possible. That world includes our bodies, our selves, and our environment, all of which we seek to interweave in a complex, life- sustaining web” (Fisher and Tronto, quoted in Tronto 2013, 19) The processes of care: 1. Caring about – someone notices a need for care 2. Caring for – someone takes responsibility for ensuring needs are met 3. Care giving – the work of care is done 4. Care receiving – the receiver receives care and, if possible, responds to it; the carer assesses the response Democratic care: Caring with: Needs for care and the ways in which they are met need to be consistent with democratic commitments to justice, equality, and freedom for all Ethical qualities which align with care practices: Caring about – attentiveness Suspension of self-interest, consider from perspective of the one in need of care Caring for – responsibility Care giving – competence Care receiving - responsiveness Ethical qualities corresponding to care pratices Caring with – plurality, communication, trust and respect, solidarity Feminist critique of the social contract Similar to Charles Mills’ idea of the racial contract (He draws on Carole Pateman’s work) Sexual contract underpins social contract Social contract among men, who were presumed heads of households Contracts of access to women’s bodies Women subordinates rather than agents of social contract Consigned to private realm, the “natural” rather than the social Relations supposed to be governed by Feminist critique of the social contract Locke – anti-patriarchal But still sees women as subject to men in the home Controls familial property His will in family matters final Man’s authority dominates Boucher – critique of Pateman But: Wife has right to enter into marriage & divorce Can own property outside the marriage Children have duty to honour her Husband doesn’t have power of life and death Contract not about sexual access, but about accumulation of private property Divine purpose of the family the accumulation of property My response The final end of women’s subjection different in Locke than in Pateman’s interpretation – but women still subjected to male (patriarchal) authority References Abbey, Ruth. 2011. The Feminist Critique of Liberalism Boucher, Joanne. 2003. Male Power and Contract Theory: Hobbes and Locke in Carole Pateman’s The Sexual Contract. Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol 36 No 1 23-38 Robinson, Fiona. 2018. A Feminist Practical Ethics of Care. In The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory, edited by Chris Brown and Robyn Eckersley, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Weiss, Penny A. 1987. Rousseau, Antifeminism, and Woman's Nature, Pol. Theory 81 Zerilli, Linda. 2015. Feminist Critiques of Liberalism, In The Cambridge Companion to Liberalism, Edited by Steven Wall, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.