Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T00:04:06.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Women and the standpoint of concrete others

From the criticism of discourse ethics to feminist social criticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2013

By
James Gordon Finlayson
Edited by
Jude Browne
Jude Browne
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Que nous veulent les lois du juste et de l’injuste?

Baudelaire

γυμνωτέος δη πάντων πλην δικαιοσυνύνης

Plato

From the mid 1980s onwards an influential strand of feminist criticism of Rawls arose from a confluence of Gilligan’s moral psychology and Sandel’s communitarian critique which was subsequently turned against a certain kind of moral theory, including Habermas’s discourse ethics. In particular, Benhabib’s distinction between the standpoint of the generalised other and the standpoint of the concrete other was crucial to this debate and inspired many to follow this critical path. In my view, however, this distinction is misconceived, and the interpretation of Habermas’s discourse ethics to which it gives rise, mistaken. At best, it leads Benhabib to develop criticisms of Habermas’s conception of the moral standpoint, some of which are valid, though in need of further specification. However, neither these valid criticisms of discourse ethics, nor, I believe, the broader feminist critique of moral theory are obviously germane to feminism, and it remains unclear to this day how they advance the practical aims of feminist social criticism, such as the overcoming of ongoing injustice and the emancipation from patriarchal oppression.

Type
Chapter
Information
Dialogue, Politics and Gender , pp. 13 - 51
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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

Austin, J. L.Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Baier, Kurt. The Moral Point of View. New York: Random House, 1965.Google Scholar
Baier, Kurt. The Point of View of Morality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 32:2 (1954), pp. 104–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth. Habermas’s ‘Kantian Pragmatism’. In The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, ed. White, Stephen K.. Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 194–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. The Generalized and the Concrete Other: The Kohlberg–Gilligan Controversy and Feminist Theory. In Feminism as Critique. Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late-Capitalist Societies, ed. Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, Drucilla. London: Polity Press, 1987, pp. 96–110.Google Scholar
Benhabib, SeylaSituating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. London: Routledge, 1992.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, Drucilla, eds. Feminism as Critique. Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late-Capitalist Societies. London: Polity Press, 1987.
Benhabib, Seyla and Dallmayr, Fred R., eds. The Communicative Ethics Controversy (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought). Boston, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.
Blum, Lawrence A., Gilligan, Carol and Kohlberg, Lawrence. Implications for Moral Theory. Ethics 98 (1988), pp. 472–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, J.Discourses in Different Voices. In Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Meehan, Johanna. London: Routledge, 1995, pp. 205–30.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon. The Habermas–Rawls Dispute Redivivus. Politics and Ethics Review 3:1 (2007), pp. 144–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlayson, James GordonWhat are Universalisable Interests?Journal of Political Philosophy 8:4 (2000), pp. 446–72.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian, eds. Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political. London: Routledge, 2011.
Flanagan, Owen and Jackson, Kathryn. Justice, Care and Gender: The Kohlberg–Gilligan Debate Revisited. Ethics 97 (1987), pp. 622–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, vol. III, Care of the Self. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. What is Critical about Critical Theory? In Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Meehan, Johanna. London: Routledge, 1995, pp. 21–56.Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond. Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. Remapping the Moral Domain. In Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought, ed. Heller, T., Sosna, M. and Wellbury, D.. Stanford University Press, 1986, pp. 237–52.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. Autonomy and Solidarity. Interviews with Jürgen Habermas, trans. and ed. Dews, P.. London: Verso, 1992.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Frankfurt-on-Main: Suhrkamp, 1996.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt-on-Main: Suhrkamp, 1991.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Lenhardt, Christian and Nicholson, Shierry Weber. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. Reconciliation through the Use of Public Reason. Journal of Philosophy 92:3 (1995), pp. 109–31.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.Introductory Lectures on Fine Art, trans. Bosanquet, Bernard. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1993.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50: supplement (1990), pp. 321–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, VirginiaThe Meshing of Care and Justice. Hypatia 10:2 (1995), pp. 128–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höffe, Otfried. Is Rawls’s Theory of Justice really Kantian?Ratio 26:2 (1984), pp. 103–23.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant, vol. III, trans. Gregor, Mary J., ed. Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen. Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 37–108.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Lawrence. Essays on Moral Development, vol. I, The Philosophy of Moral Development. Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, book II, 1954–55. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. Of Gods and Demons: Habermas and Practical Reason. In Habermas: Critical Debates, ed. Thompson, J. B. and Held, D.. London: Macmillan, 1982, pp. 134–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. Feminist Discourse, Moral Values, and the Law–A Conversation. The1984 James McCormick Mitchell Lecture. With Dubois, Ellen C., Dunlap, Mary C., Gilligan, Carol J. and Menkel-Meadow, Carrie J.. Buffalo Law Review 34:1 (1985), pp. 11–87.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue. Ethics 105 (1994), pp. 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. Reply. In Habermas and Pragmatism, ed. Aboulafia, Mitchell. London: Routledge, 2004.Google Scholar
McMahon, C.Ethics and Dialogue. Ethics 110 (2000), 514–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P.. Value and Agent-Relative Reasons. Utilitas 7 (1995), pp. 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maihofer, Andrea. Care. In A Companion to Feminist Philosophy, ed. Jaggar, Alison M. and Young, Iris M.. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, pp. 383–92.Google Scholar
Markus, Maria. Women, Success and Civil Society. Submission to, or Subversion of the Achievement Principle. In Feminism as Critique. Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late-Capitalist Societies, ed. Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, Drucilla. London: Polity Press, 1987, pp. 96–110.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers, 1970.Google Scholar
Mead, George H.Mind, Self and Society. University of Chicago Press, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehan, Johanna. Feminism and Habermas’s Discourse Ethics. Philosophy and Social Criticism 26:3 (2000), pp. 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehan, Johanna, ed. Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse. London: Routledge, 1995.
Okin, Susan. Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic Books, 1989.Google Scholar
Ovid, . The Art of Love and Other Poems, ed. and trans. Mozley, J. H.. London: William Heinemann, 1962.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. The Basic Structure as Subject. American Philosophical Quarterly 14 (1977), pp. 554–74.Google Scholar
Rawls, JohnCollected Papers, ed. Freeman, S.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Rawls, JohnJustice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Rawls, JohnKantian Constructivism in Moral Theory. Journal of Philosophy 77:9 (1980), pp. 515–72.Google Scholar
Rawls, JohnPolitical Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Rawls, JohnA Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. The Moral Point of View. In Reason, Ethics and Society: Themes from Kurt Baier with his Responses, ed. Schneewind, J. B.. Chicago, Ill.: Open Court, 1998.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. Insight and Solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J.Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J.The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self. Political Theory 12:1 (1984), pp. 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M.What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Thompson, Janna. Discourse and Knowledge: Defence of a Collectivist Ethics. London: Routledge, 1998.Google Scholar
Thomson, Janna and Held, David. Habermas: Critical Debates. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tronto, Joan. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethics of Care. London: Routledge, 1993.Google Scholar
Wiggins, David. Ethics. Twelve Lectures on the Philosophy of Morality. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2006.Google Scholar
Young, Iris M.Impartiality and the Civic Republic. In Feminism as Critique. Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late-Capitalist Societies, ed. Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, Drucilla. London: Polity Press, 1987, pp. 56–77.Google Scholar
What do they want with us, the laws of the just and the unjust? Charles Baudelaire, ‘Lesbos’, Les Fleurs du mal, ed. Adam, A. (Paris: Editions Garniers, 1961), p. 167
Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Shorey, Paul (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press and London: William Heinemann, 1969)Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982)Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, Drucilla, eds., Feminism as Critique. Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late-Capitalist Societies (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987)
Blum, Lawrence, Carol Gilligan and Lawrence Kohlberg, Implications for Moral Theory, Ethics 98 (1998), pp. 472–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (London: Routledge, 1992)Google Scholar
Rehg, William, Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994)Google Scholar
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 251–7Google Scholar
Rawls, John, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory, Journal of Philosophy 77:9 (1980), pp. 515–72Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Lawrence, Essays on Moral Development, vol. I, The Philosophy of Moral Development. Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice (New York: Harper & Row, 1981), p. 197Google Scholar
Rawls is explicit in The Basic Structure as Subject, American Philosophical Quarterly 14 (1977), pp. 554–74
Thompson, Janna, Discourse and Knowledge: Defence of a Collectivist Ethics (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 53Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol, Remapping the Moral Domain, in Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought, ed. Heller, T., Sosna, M. and Wellbury, D. (Stanford University Press, 1986), p. 238Google Scholar
McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P., Value and Agent-Relative Reasons, Utilitas 7 (1995), pp. 31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon, What are Universalisable Interests?, Journal of Political Philosophy 8:4 (2000), pp. 446–72Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon, The Habermas–Rawls Dispute, Redivivus. Politics and Ethics Review 3:1 (2007), pp. 144–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla (The Communicative Ethics Controversy (Boston, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990), pp. 349 and 351–8)Google Scholar
Held, Virginia (Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50: supplement (1990), pp. 321–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Meshing of Care and Justice, Hypatia 10:2 (1995), p. 128)CrossRef
Kant, Immanuel, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant, vol. III, trans. Gregor, Mary J., ed. Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 543–67Google Scholar
Ovid, , The Art of Love and Other Poems, ed. and trans. Mozley, J. H. (London: William Heinemann, 1962), pp. 124–5Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, vol. III, Care of the Self (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990)Google Scholar
Tronto, Joan, Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethics of Care (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 105ffGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), p. 27Google Scholar
Austin, J. L.’s warning: ‘One can’t abuse ordinary language without paying for it’ (Sense and Sensibilia (Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 15)Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will, Liberalism, Community and Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 55Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael, The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self, Political Theory 12:1 (1984), pp. 81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, ’s theory of right or law. Otfried Höffe offers a very comprehensive discussion of these points (Is Rawls’s Theory of Justice really Kantian?, Ratio 26:2 (1984), pp. 103–23)Google Scholar
Rawls, John, Collected Papers, ed. Freeman, S. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 449Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy, What is Critical about Critical Theory, in Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Meehan, Johanna (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 45Google Scholar
Rawls, John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2001), pp. 451–744Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond, Philosophy and Real Politics (Princeton University Press, 2008), p. 42ffGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl, The German Ideology (New York: International Publishers, 1970), p. 64Google Scholar
Gilligan, C., Dubois, E., Dunlop, M., MacKinnon, C., Menkel-Neadow, C., Buffalo Law Review 34:1 (1985), p. 39ff
Meehan, Johanna, Feminism and Habermas’s Discourse Ethics, Philosophy and Social Criticism 26:3 (2000), p. 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Lenhardt, C. and Nicholson, S. W. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), p. 93Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, Die Einbeziehung des Anderen (Frankfurt-on-Main: Suhrkamp, 1996), p. 60Google Scholar
Lukes, Stephen in Thomson, Janna and Held, David, Habermas: Critical Debates (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1982), p. 257Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik (Frankfurt-on-Main: Suhrkamp, 1991), p. 202Google Scholar
Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political, ed. Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian (London: Routledge, 2011)
Habermas, Jürgen, Reconciliation through the Use of Public Reason, Journal of Philosophy 92:3 (1995), p. 131Google Scholar
Rawls’, objection, see Political Liberalism (2005), pp. 421–32
McMahon, C., Ethics and Dialogue, Ethics 110 (2000), pp. 514–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth, Habermas’s ‘Kantian Pragmatism’, in The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, ed. White, Stephen K. (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 194–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas, Reply, in Habermas and Pragmatism, ed. Aboulafia, Mitchell (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 4Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Lenhardt, Christian and Nicholson, Shierry Weber (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990), p. 123Google Scholar
Care, , in A Companion to Feminist Philosophy, ed. Jaggar, Alison M. and Young, Iris M. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), p. 386Google Scholar
Lacan, Jaques, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, book II, 1954–55 (Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 7)Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F., Introductory Lectures on Fine Art, trans. Bosanquet, Bernard (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1993), p. 12Google Scholar
Mead, George H., Mind, Self and Society (University of Chicago Press, 1967), pp. 154–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob and Grimm, Wilhelm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, 16 vols. in 32 parts (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1854–1960), Quellenverzeichnis 1971Google Scholar
Baier, Kurt, The Point of View of Morality, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 32:2 (1954), p. 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, David, Ethics. Twelve Lectures on the Philosophy of Morality (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2006), p. 10Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph, On the Moral Point of View, in Reason, Ethics and Society: Themes from Kurt Baier with his Response, ed. Schneewind, J. B. (Chicago: Open Court, 1998), p. 58Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas, What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 4Google Scholar
Baier, Kurt, The Moral Point of View (New York: Random House, 1965 [1958]Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×