Feminism: Friendship

I argue that justice and love are interconnected, where one makes little sense in isolation from the other. Love and justice have often been conceived as not only sharply distinct, but divergent in their aims and sometimes, conflicting in their demands. Justice has been perceived as having no place in loving relations, while some have argued that the particularistic and partial nature of loving is inconsistent with impartial, universal morality. I refer to this perceived contrast as the “love and justice (...) dichotomy,” LJD. I will briefly examine a few theories of love and care to illustrate the history of the LJD, and explore those theorists whose work challenges the LJD, particularly Velleman’s. I then argue for the beginnings of in what a feminist-focused theory of love consists (empowering and promoting the autonomy of the beloved), resulting in a further breaking down of the LJD. Drawing upon these challenging works and my own conception of love, I argue that the LJD is an illusion. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the transition and its meaning of the central figure used by Donna J. Haraway. Along with her achievement in primatology and gender, her prior manifesto about cyborgs, in which she utilized the image of hybrids from science fiction as a tool for analyzing actual women, has received significant attention and has made her an essential researcher in feminist science studies. On the other hand, her recent concern has led her to publish another (...) manifesto about species relationships, discussing ethics in coexistence and cohabitation. Influenced by her complicated portrayal of “companion species” and the expression of artless intimacy with dogs, previous studies had often incorrectly interpreted Haraway’s new manifesto as a simple renunciation of her older notion of cyborg by the new companion species. The present study interrogated the validity of those interpretations by examining other texts and statements by Haraway published between the two manifestoes. As a result, this study elucidates that both manifestoes include a sustained inclination to create a specific type of solidarity to replace heteronormativity and human exceptionalism. It provides a broader philosophical basis for the consideration of difference and solidarity. (shrink)

This essay examines antiracist feminist writing and activist oral histories, finding in these scholars' and organizers' attention to the role of spirit in their work an approach it names “loving criticism.” Loving criticism seeks knowledge that does something besides expose the truth of oppression. It seeks to amplify kindness, creativity, love, and joy wherever it can find it, so that the critic, activist, and the world can draw on these resources. Love leads us to bring old knowledges into our work (...) and to find common ground with those whom we protest and criticize. Through loving criticism, we look for and encourage the best in others and ourselves, trusting that nourishing our creative parts is intrinsically good. Love helps us find alternatives to oppositional thinking and violence so that we can create deep, lasting change. (shrink)

One WHY LOVERS CAN'T BE FRIENDS James Conlon That one's spouse is also one's closest friend is a common claim and seems innocent enough. ...

Despite clear parallels between Jürgen Habermas's discourse ethics and recent scholarship in feminist ethics, feminists are often suspicious of discourse ethics and have kept themselves mostly separate from the field. By developing a sustained application of Habermas's discourse ethics to friendship, Keller demonstrates that feminist misgivings of discourse ethics are largely misplaced and that Habermas's theory can be used to develop a compelling moral phenomenology of interpersonal relations.

Drawing on Iris Marion Young's essay, “House and Home: Feminist Variations on a Theme,” Weir argues for an alternative ideal of home that involves: the risk of connection, and of sustaining relationship through conflict; relational identities, constituted through both relations of power and relations of mutuality, love, and flourishing; relational autonomy: freedom as the capacity to be in relationships one desires, and freedom as expansion of self in relationship; and connection to past and future, through reinterpretive preservation and transformative identification.

This essay attempts to show that sophisticated consequentialism is able to accommodate the concerns that have traditionally been raised by feminist writers in ethics. Those concerns have primarily to do with the fact that consequentialism is seen as both too demanding of the individual and neglectful of the agent's special obligations to family and friends. Here, I argue that instrumental justification for partiality can be provided, for example, even though an attitude of partiality is not characterized itself in instrumental terms.

This chapter provides a general introduction to the theoretical frameworks the contributors to the volume Feminists Contest Politics and Philosophy draw on to address wide-ranging topics and critical questions in feminist politics, theory, and philosophy. In particular, this chapter outlines the four major topics – aesthetics and female representation, love and psychoanalysis, care and ethics, and the different understandings of ‘women,’ which are core in the volume.

In neocolonial contexts of globalization, the epistemological terrain of radical diversity poses significant ethical challenges to transnational feminisms. In view of historical associations between knowledge and discourses of love which were conditioned by imperialist brands of humanism and benevolence under colonialism, this paper argues for a deconstructionist approach to conceptualizing love in relation to knowledge and for an ethics that severs the association with benevolence, instead making alterity the basis for its account.

This essay attempts to show that sophisticated consequentialism is able to accommodate the concerns that have traditionally been raised by feminist writers in ethics. Those concerns have primarily to do with the fact that consequentialism is seen as both too demanding of the individual and neglectful of the agent's special obligations to family and friends. Here, I argue that instrumental justification for partiality can be provided, for example, even though an attitude of partiality is not characterized itself in instrumental terms.

: If liberal theory is to move forward, it must take the political nature of family relations seriously. The beginnings of such a liberalism appear in Mary Wollstonecraft's work. Wollstonecraft's depiction of the family as a fundamentally political institution extends liberal values into the private sphere by promoting the ideal of marriage as friendship. However, while her model of marriage diminishes arbitrary power in family relations, she seems unable to incorporate enduring sexual relations between married partners.

Game theorists assume that rational defensibility is a necessary condition for moral, social, or political justification. By itself, this is a fairly uncontroversial claim; most moral or political philosophers would agree. And yet game theorists tend to be advocates of the free market. External critics of game theory usually claim this is because game theorists assume that individuals are atomistic and self-interested. Game theorists themselves deny this, however, for what strike us as good reasons. In principle, game theory has no (...) necessary ties to right-wing distribution schemes. Why, then, is game theory almost exclusively the province of conservative philosophers, political scientists, and economists? The problem, we believe, lies in the theory of rational choice standardly employed by game theory. Even if we accept, for the purposes of argument, game theory's account of the justification of moral dispositions — that a disposition is morally justified if and only if, in its absence, it would be game theoretically rational to acquire it — we need not be led to right-wing solutions. If we expand the kinds of choices facing individuals to include choices about what we will call ‘institutional roles,’ then we can explain the game theoretic rationality of the kinds of emotions and behavior exemplified by duty, loyalty, and love. (shrink)

Virginia Held's Feminist Morality defends the idea that it is possible to transform the “public” sphere by remaking it on the model of existing “private” relationships such as families. This paper challenges Held's optimism. It is argued that feminist moral inquiry can aid in transforming the public sphere only by showing just how much the allegedly “private” realms of families and personal relationships are shaped—and often misshapen—by public demands and concerns.

Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt, edited by Bonnie Honig, a collection of critical feminist essays on Hannah Arendt, illustrates both the disorientation and the insights that can result when feminist philosophers come to terms with a canonical figure who is a woman.

Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt, edited by Bonnie Honig, a collection of critical feminist essays on Hannah Arendt, illustrates both the disorientation and the insights that can result when feminist philosophers come to terms with a canonical figure who is a woman.

Rousseau's Julie, ou La Nouvelle Héloise is two novels in one: a story of wifely virtue and a counterstory of women's friendship. Whereas the virtue story exemplifies what feminist readers since Mary WoRstonecraft have considered to be the most oppressive of Rousseau's prescriptions for women, the friendship counterstory questions the ethical foundations and social manifestations of the model of patriarchal authority that Rousseau ordinarily defends. In this essay, I read the novel with an eye for both stories and the tension (...) between them. (shrink)

This review essay on Janice Raymond's A Passion for Friends, sympathetic to the author's inquiry into the institutional contexts of female friendship, criticizes as unnecessary its rejection of feminist separatism and of the “lesbian continuum” and formulates a possible connection of its account of sources of passionate friendship among women to the new research on women and violence.

This review of Janice Raymond's A Passion for Friends focuses on her strong sense of the individual and of individuality. However, and this is the central contention of my paper, her perspective is quite distinct from liberal individualism. It is also a complex variation on the feminist concern with selves in relationships.

This review essay on Janice Raymond's A Passion for Friends, sympathetic to the author's inquiry into the institutional contexts of female friendship, criticizes as unnecessary its rejection of feminist separatism and of the "lesbian continuum" and formulates a possible connection of its account of sources of passionate friendship among women to the new research on women and violence.

This essay is a response to the comments and critique, included in this issue, of Claudia Card and Marilyn Friedman to my book, A Passion for Friends. In this response, I emphasize the crucial distinction between female separation and dissociation from the world, so as to register the difference between the positive and negative separations in which women are engaged. I also expand the discussion of individuality and individualism. The latter has arisen within the context of a feminist liberal campaign (...) for sexual liberation which defends, among other things, sadomasochism, prostitution, pornography, and surrogacy. (shrink)