Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:01:17.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feminism, Adaptive Preferences, and Social Contract Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Mary Barbara Walsh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminists have long been aware of the pathology and the dangers of what are now termed “adaptive preferences.” Adaptive preferences are preferences formed in unconscious response to oppression. Thinkers from each wave of feminism continue to confront the problem of women's internalization of their own oppression, that is, the problem of women forming their preferences within the confining and deforming space that patriarchy provides. All preferences are, in fact, formed in response to a (more or less) limited set of options, but not all preferences are unconscious, pathological responses to oppression. Feminist theory therefore requires a method for distinguishing all preferences from adaptive or deformed preferences. Social contract theory provides such a tool. Social contract theory models autonomous preference‐acquisition and retention at both the external level of causation and the internal level of justification. In doing so, social contract theory exposes preferences that do not meet those standards, acting as both a conceptual test that identifies adaptive preferences and as a practical tool for personal and social clarification. A social contract approach helps persons and societies to identify and to confront preferences rooted in unconscious response to oppression.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , Fall 2015 , pp. 829 - 845
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 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

Abbey, Ruth. 2011. The return of feminist liberalism. Durham, UK: Acumen Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Brake, Elizabeth. 2001. A liberal response to Catharine MacKinnon. Southwest Philosophical Studies 22: 17–23.Google Scholar
Bruckner, Donald. 2009. In defense of adaptive preferences. Philosophical Studies 142 (3): 307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruckner, Donald. 2011. Colburn on covert influences. Utilitas 23 (4): 451–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colburn, Ben. 2011. Autonomy and adaptive preferences. Utilitas 23 (1): 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1983. Sour grapes: Studies in the subversion of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eminem. 2010. Love the way you lie. Recovery. Compact disc. Shady Records, Aftermath Entertainment, and Interscope Records.Google Scholar
Friedman, Marilyn. 2003. Autonomy, gender, politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, Jean. 2004. Feminist contractarianism. In Varieties of feminist liberalism, ed. Baehr, Amy R. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Inc.Google Scholar
Khader, Serene. 2011. Adaptive preferences and women's empowerment. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levey, Ann. 2005. Liberalism, adaptive preferences, and gender equality. Hypatia 20 (4): 128–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1989. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Millett, Kate. 1970. Sexual politics. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company Inc.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 1999. Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 2004. Beyond the social contract: Capabilities and global justice. Oxford Developmental Studies 32 (1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness, ed. Kelly, Erin. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radzik, Linda. 2005. Justice in the family: A defense of feminist contractarianism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (10): 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Janice. 2007. Contemporary feminist perspectives on social contract theory. Ratio Juris 20 (3): 402–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sample, Ruth. 2002. Why feminist contractarianism? Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (2): 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, Michael. 2009. Justice: What's the right thing to do?. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. 2010. Elizabeth Cady Stanton. In American political thought, ed. Dolbeare, Kenneth M. and S, Michael. Cummings. 6th edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Natalie. 2013. Feminist perspectives on autonomy. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-autonomy (accessed November 14, 2014).Google Scholar
US DOJ (United States Department of Justice). n.d. About domestic violence. http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm (accessed March 24, 2011).Google Scholar
US DOJ (United States Department of Justice). 2010. National crime victimization survey: Criminal victimization, 2009. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf (accessed March 24, 2011).Google Scholar
US OMB (United States Office of Management and Budget and the Economics and Statistics Administration within the Department of Commerce). 2011. Women in America: Indicators of social and economic well‐being. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/data-on-women (accessed March 24, 2011).Google Scholar
Westlund, Andrea C. 2003. Selflessness and responsibility: Is deference compatible with autonomy? Philosophical Review 112 (4): 483–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westlund, Andrea C. 2009. Rethinking relational autonomy. Hypatia 24 (4): 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar