This important new collection considers Jurgen Habermas's discourse theory from a variety of feminist vantage points. Feminist scholars have been drawn to Habermas's work because it reflects a tradition of emancipatory political thinking rooted in the Enlightenment and engages with the normative aims of emancipatory social movements. The essays in Feminists Read Habermas analyze various aspects of Habermas's work, ranging from his moral theory to political issues of identity and participation. The contributors share a conviction about the potential significance of (...) Habermas's work for feminist reflections on power, norms and subjectivity. (shrink)

Discourse ethics represents an exciting new development in neo-Kantian moral theory. William Rehg offers an insightful introduction to its complex theorization by its major proponent, Jürgen Habermas, and demonstrates how discourse ethics allows one to overcome the principal criticisms that have been leveled against neo-Kantianism. Addressing both "commun-itarian" critics who argue that universalist conceptions of justice sever moral deliberation from community traditions, and feminist advocates of the "ethics of care" who stress the moral significance of caring for other individuals, Rehg (...) shows that discourse ethics combines impartiality with solidarity. He provides the first systematic reconstruction of Habermas's theory and explores its relationship to the work of such contemporary philosophers as Charles Taylor. His book articulates a bold alternative to the split between the "right" and the "good" in moral theory and will greatly interest philosophers, social and legal scholars, and political theorists. (shrink)

In this article I argue that Butler and Benhabib work with models of the self that should be jettisoned. Butler relies on what I call the outside-to-inside model, while Benhabib shuttles between an outside-to-inside and an inside-to-outside model. Because of the inherent limitations of these models neither can do what both authors set out to do, which is to describe the ontogeny of the self. I trace their discussions over the course of their writings and then propose that the notion (...) of emergence that one finds in Developmental Systems Theory offers a much better starting point for account of the nature and development of the self. (shrink)

Habermas’ account of the radically intersubjective constitution of subjectivity is of great use to feminist theorists, as is his defense of the rational character of normative claims. Feminists must however, reject his reductive identification of subjectivity with language and rationality. Some feminists’ concerns insist on continuing to distinguish morality from legality, something that Habermas, despite his own better intuitions and arguments, is sometimes disinclined to do.

In this essay I argue that despite Arendt's dislike of psychology, she, like all political theorists, relies on a particular understanding of human nature. Her account, which can be discovered with a careful reading of her work, including Eichmann in Jerusalem , The Human Condition and The Origins of Totalitarianism , resonates with the explicitly psychoanalytic one of Jessica Benjamin. When the two accounts are considered together one can find the outline of a very interesting conception of the self which (...) is neither the deconstructed, discontinuous self of postmodernism nor the strongly unified, rational subject of liberalism. This account also points to a way of under18 standing both the allure of evil and the political remedies that can stymie its realization. (shrink)

Provoked by postmodernist critiques such as those of Jean‐François Lyotard and Judith Butler, Linda Nicholson and Nancy Fraser, in their essay, “Social criticism without philosophy,” reject feminist essentialism and foundationalism and speculate as to how to combine “a postmodern incredulity toward metanarrative with the social‐critical power of feminism”. Lyotard had offered the sweeping argument that “grand narratives of legitimation,” like the Enlightenment story of the gradual and inevitable progress of reason and its concomitant notions of human rights, were no longer (...) credible. While such narratives once functioned to legitimate social institutions, practices, and discourses as true and just, he claimed they could no longer do so. The metaphysics in which they are grounded are no longer persuasive and thus we are forced to recognize a polytheism of competing, equally unprivileged discourses. While Fraser and Nicholson recognize that feminists have often lapsed into problematic foundationalism and essentialism because of metaphysically grounded theoretical commitments to such narratives, they argue that feminists committed to avoiding these modernist mistakes need not abandon theoretical tools of evaluation and analysis, as there is nothing inherently contradictory in the notion of postmodern theory. Lyotard himself, they argue, paradoxically offers a normative vision of a good society made up of democratic self‐managing groups while having ruled out the possibility of the normative political theorizing which would legitimate such a vision. (shrink)