Feminism, Liberalism, and Relational Autonomy

Abstract

In this dissertation, I respond to the feminist critique of traditional theories of autonomy, which revolves around the charge that such theories are too individualistic. Feminists argue against the liberal atomism that they see at the center of traditional autonomy theories. Their resulting theory of relational autonomy is meant to remedy that traditional theories of autonomy posit an individualistic conception of both the self and autonomy. Instead, feminists have argued for a theory of autonomy that takes account of the ways in which persons are irreducibly social, and the ways in which autonomy itself is only possible within certain types of social relationships. I separate the feminist charges against liberalism from the feminist charges against traditional autonomy, since it is at least prima facie possible to consider personal autonomy separately from political autonomy. I thus isolate the feminist critique of liberal atomism from the feminist critique of individualistic autonomy. The first chapter examines the feminist critique of liberalism to determine why it is that the charge of liberal atomism continues to stick, even though it has been clearly established by both feminist and mainstream liberals that liberalism is not guilty of such a charge. While I do not provide a full defense of liberalism, I do argue that such a defense is possible, and possible in a way that upholds feminist goals. Having separated the critiques of liberalism from the critiques of traditional autonomy, the rest of the dissertation focuses exclusively on the autonomy debate. I present an argument against the most robustly relational feminist accounts of autonomy those which accept a relational account of both the self and autonomy. I argue that, although such theories are explicitly designed to vindicate the normative commitments of feminism, their implications yield unwelcome results from this very same feminist perspective. I then present my own procedural account of autonomy. Because it is not constitutively social, it is unlikely to be characterized as a relational account at all. I argue, however, that it is this very feature which allows my account to vindicate the feminist normative commitments espoused by constitutively relational accounts

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Nurse Autonomy as Relational.Chris MacDonald - 2002 - Nursing Ethics 9 (2):194-201.
Autonomy and the feminist intuition.Natalie Stoljar - 2000 - In Catriona Mackenzie & Natalie Stoljar (eds.), Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press.
Relational Professional Autonomy.Chris Macdonald - 2002 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 11 (3):282-289.
Women’s Autonomy and Feminist Aspirations.Marilyn Friedman - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Research 21:331-340.
Autonomy and Chronic Impairment.Carolyn Norine Ells - 2000 - Dissertation, The University of Tennessee

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-06-10

Downloads
42 (#370,011)

6 months
10 (#251,846)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Emily McGill
Coastal Carolina University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Free agency.Gary Watson - 1975 - Journal of Philosophy 72 (April):205-20.
Free Agency.Gary Watson - 1975 - In Free Will. Oxford University Press.

View all 59 references / Add more references