Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-64ff6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T20:27:33.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a New Feminist Liberalism: Okin, Rawls, and Habermas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Amy R. Baehr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While Okin's feminist appropriation of Rawls's theory of justice requires that principles of justice be applied directly to the family, Rawls seems to require only that the family be minimally just. Rawls's recent proposal dulls the critical edge of liberalism by capitulating too much to those holding sexist doctrines. Okin's proposal, however, is insufficiently flexible. An alternative account of the relation of the political and the nonpolitical is offered by Jürgen Habermas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 11 , Issue 1: Special Issue: The Family and Feminist Theory , Winter 1996 , pp. 49 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, Bruce. 1994. Political liberalisms. Journal of Philosophy 91(7): 364–86.10.2307/2940935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth. 1992a. Constructivism and practical reason in Rawls. Analyse & Kritik 14:18–32.10.1515/auk-1992-0102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth. 1992b. The normative grounds of social criticism: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth. 1995. Democracy and the Rechtsstaat: Habermas's Faktizität und Geltung. In The Cambridge companion to Habermas. See White 1995.10.1017/CCOL052144120X.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity: Normative analysis of the state. See Hamlin and Pettit 1989.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. Structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Gekung: Beitrüge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. Reconciliation through the public use of reason: Remarks on John Rawls's Political liberalism. Journal of Philosophy 92(3): 109–31.Google Scholar
Hamlin, A., and Pettit, P., eds. 1989. The good polity: Normative analysis of the state. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hanen, Marsha, and Nielsen, Kai. 1987. Science, morality, and feminist theory. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1987. Non‐contractual society: A feminist view. In Science, morality, and feminist theory. See Hanen and Nielsen 1987.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva. 1995. Taking dependency seriously: The family and medical leave act considered in light of the social organization of dependency work and gender equality. Hypatia 10(1): 8–29.10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb01351.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1991. Rethinking the family. Philosophy and Public Affairs 20(1): 77–97.Google Scholar
Martin, Rex. 1985. Rawls and rights. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Meehan, Johanna. 1995. Feminists read Habermas: Gendering the subject of discourse. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moon, J. Donald. 1994. Constructing community: Moral pluralism and tragic conflicts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1994. Political liberalism, justice, and gender. Ethics 105(1): 23–43.10.1086/293677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1989. The sexual contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1975. Fairness to goodness. Philosophical Review 84(4): 536–54.10.2307/2183853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1980. Kantian constructivism in moral theory. Journal of Philosophy 77(9): 515–72.10.2307/2025790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1985. Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs 14(3): 223–51.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1995. Reply to Habermas. Journal of Philosophy 92(3): 132–80.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1993. The partial constitution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
White, Stephen K. 1995. The Cambridge companion to Habermas. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar