No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Mother Lords: Original Maternal Dominion and the Practice of Preservation in Hobbes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2023
Abstract
Hobbes's justification for original maternal dominion is often evaluated in connection to the ambiguous status of women in his political thought. Many feminist interpreters explain this ambiguity as a contradiction: following Carole Pateman, they see maternal dominion as one term of the “paradox of parental power.” The first aim of this article is to elaborate a second, alternative approach within some critical responses to Pateman's reading. Rather than as one part of a contradiction, in these interpretations maternal dominion emerges as a self-standing form of authority that is very different from patriarchal domination. By offering a new synthesis of some of these interpretations, I aim to show this second view as more comprehensive and compelling than that offered by Pateman. Then, building upon this view, I give a new reading of the concept of preservation that establishes the mother's dominion as an intersubjective practice that reflects an awareness about the interdependent conditions for human well-being and, hence, challenges the standard approach to Hobbesian individualism and sovereign power. Finally, drawing from my interpretation of preservation, I offer a new way to understand Hobbes's argument that “parental authority is derived from the child's consent.”
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hypatia, a Nonprofit Corporation
References
Boucher, Joanne. 2003. Male power and contract theory: Hobbes and Locke in Carole Pateman's The Sexual Contract. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique 36 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Theresa, and Pateman, Carole. 1979. Mere auxiliaries to the commonwealth: Women and the origins of liberalism. Political Studies 27 (2): 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, Alexandra, and Odzuck, Eva. 2020. Introduction. Feminist perspectives on Hobbes. Hobbes Studies 33 (1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunther–Canada, Wendy. 2006. Catherine Macaulay on the paradox of parental authority. Hypatia 21 (2): 150–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy J. 1992. Rethinking obligation: A feminist method for political theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy J. 2008. Gender, class, and freedom in modern political theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy J. 2012. Gordon Schochet on Hobbes. In Feminist interpretations of Hobbes, ed. Hirschmann, Nancy J. and Wright, Joanne H.. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy J. 2013. Hobbes on the family. In Oxford handbook of Hobbes, ed. Martinich, A. P. and Hoekstra, Kinch. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy J., and Wright, Joanne H., ed. 2012. Feminist interpretations of Hobbes. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas, Bramhall, John, and Chappell, V. C.. 1999. Hobbes and Bramhall: On liberty and necessity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1994. The elements of law, natural and politic, ed. Gaskin, J. C. A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1991. De Cive: Man and citizen, ed. Gert, Bernard. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett.Google Scholar
Jaquette, Jane S. 1998. Contract and coercion: Power and gender in Leviathan. In Women writers and the early modern British tradition, ed. L, Hilda. Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. A. 2012. Power and sexual subordination in Hobbes's political theory. In Feminist interpretations of Hobbes, ed. Hirschmann, Nancy J. and Wright, Joanne H.. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. A. 2020. By force or by wiles: Women in the Hobbesian hunt for allies and authority. Hobbes Studies 33 (1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odzuck, Eva. 2019. “Not a woman-hater,” “no rapist,” or even inventor of “the sensitive male”? Feminist interpretations of Hobbes's political theory and their relevance for Hobbes studies. In Interpreting Hobbes's political philosophy, ed. Lloyd, S. A.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paganini, Gianni. 2020. How far can a “radical” philosopher go? Thomas Hobbes's paradox of gender relations, and one possible solution. Hobbes Studies 33 (1): 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1989. “God hath ordained man a helper”: Hobbes, patriarchy and conjugal right. British Journal of Political Science 19 (4): 445–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schochet, Gordon J. 1967. Thomas Hobbes on the family and the state of nature. Political Science Quarterly 82 (3): 427–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schochet, Gordon J. 1990. Intending (political) obligation. In Thomas Hobbes and political theory, ed. Dietz, Mary G.. Lawrence: University of Kanas Press.Google Scholar
Sreedhar, Susanne. 2012. Parental Authority. In The Bloomsbury companion to Hobbes, ed. Lloyd, S. A.. London: Bloomsbury, 193–95.Google Scholar
Wright, Joanne H. 2002. Going against the grain: Hobbes's case for original maternal dominion. Journal of Women's History 14 (1): 123–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Joanne H. 2004. Origin stories in political thought: Discourses on gender, power, and citizenship. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar