Authors
Charlotte Knowles
University of Groningen
Abstract
An important question confronting feminist philosophers is why women are sometimes complicit in their own subordination. The dominant view holds that complicity is best understood in terms of adaptive preferences. This view assumes that agents will naturally gravitate away from subordination and towards flourishing, as long as they do not have things imposed on them that disrupt this trajectory. However, there is reason to believe that ‘impositions’ do not explain all of the ways in which complicity can arise. This paper defends a phenomenological account of complicity which offers an alternative explanation.
Keywords Adaptive Preferences  Complicity  Phenomenology  Heidegger  Responsibility  Freedom  right wing women  female chauvinist pigs  Privilege  Oppression
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/ejop.12742
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 43 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defense of Adaptive Preferences.Donald W. Bruckner - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 142 (3):307 - 324.
Must Theorising About Adaptive Preferences Deny Women's Agency?Serene J. Khader - 2012 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4):302-317.
Must Adaptive Preferences Be Prudentially Bad for Us.Rosa Terlazzo - 2017 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 3 (4):412-429.
Autonomy and Adaptive Preferences.Ben Colburn - 2011 - Utilitas 23 (1):52-71.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-11-23

Total views
135 ( #85,348 of 2,498,760 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
135 ( #4,764 of 2,498,760 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes