Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:45:24.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dependency in Justice: Can Rawlsian Liberalism Accommodate Kittay's Dependency Critique?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Asha Bhandary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay assesses the compatibility of Eva Kittay's dependency critique with Rawlsian political liberalism. I argue for the inclusion of a modified version of Kittay's revisions within Rawlsian theory in order to yield a theory that supports much of dependency work. Beyond these selected changes, however, I argue that Kittay's other proposed changes should not be included because they are incompatible with Rawls, and furthermore, their incorporation does not yield a theory that includes utter dependents.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 25 , Issue 1: Special Issue: FEAST I: Current Work in Feminist Ethics and Social Theory , Winter 2010 , pp. 140 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 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

Anderson, Joel and Honneth, Axel. 2005. Autonomy, vulnerability, recognition, and justice. In Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism, ed. Anderson, Joel and Christman, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar
Bubeck, Diemut. 1995. Care, gender, and justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1995. Taking dependency seriously: The family and medical leave act considered in light of the social. Hypatia 10 (1): 8–29.10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb01351.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1998. Dependence, equality, and welfare. Feminist Studies 24 (1): 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1999. Love's labor: Essays on women, equality and dependence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 2001. A feminist public ethic of care meets the new communitarian family policy. Ethics 111 (3): 523–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 2002. Love's labor revisited. Hypatia 17 (3): 237–51.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 2005. At the margins of moral personhood. Ethics 116 (1): 100–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness: A restatement. 2nd rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism. Expanded 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Stark, Cynthia. 2007. How to include the severely disabled in the contractarian theory of justice. Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (2): 127–45.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00257.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tronto, Joan. 1993. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wong, Sophia. 2007. The moral personhood of individuals labeled “mentally retarded”: A Rawlsian response to Nussbaum. Social Theory and Practice 33 (4): 579–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar