Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:52:40.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender Constructions and the Possibility of a Generous Economic Actor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Iulie Aslaksen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I discuss various approaches to human motivation, considering how the image of economic actors as motivated by narrow self-interest and greed may be changed to one of self-interest combined with generosity and social responsibility. I draw inspiration from feminist economics as well as from psychological, anthropological and mythological material. As an example, I consider the role of self-interest and generosity as motivating forces for ethical investment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 17 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Love and Work , Spring 2002 , pp. 118 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 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

Akerlof, George A. 1982. Labor contracts as partial gift exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics 97 (4) 543–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angel, James J., and Rivoli, Pietra. 1997. Does ethical investment impose a cost upon the firm? A theoretical perspective. The Journal of Investing 6 (4): 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beblo, Miriam. 1999. The leisure gap between working parents. An empirical application of an alternating offers game to infrafamily time allocation. Discussion paper, Free University of Berlin.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Jessica. 1988. The bonds of love: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and the problem of domination. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri. 1959. Euvres, édition de centenaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Butz, Cristoph, and Plattner, Andreas. 1999. Sustainable investments: An analysis of returns in relation to environmental and social criteria. Sarasin Basic Report, Basel.Google Scholar
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cixous, Hélène. 1976. The laugh of the Medusa. Signs 1 (4): 875–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cixous, Hélène. 1981. Sorties. In New French feminism. Anthology, An, ed. Marks, Elaine and De Courtivron, Isabelle. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, Tad. 1994. The secret life of money. New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
Eliade, Mircea. 1959. The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Ende, Michael. 1984. Momo. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Flynn, Patrice. 1999. Contributions feminist economics can make to the quality of life movement. Feminist Economics 5 (2): 133–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folbre, Nancy. 1995. Holding hands at midnight. The paradox of caring labor. Feminist Economics 1 (1): 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fürst, Elisabeth L'Orange. 1997. Cooking and femininity. Women's Studies International Forum 20 (3): 441–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottsman, Laura, and Kessler, Jon. 1998. Smart screened investments: Environmentally screened equity funds that perform like conventional funds. The Journal of Investing 7 (3): 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, Hazel. 1996. Building a win‐win world. San Francisco: Berret‐Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Arlie. 1989. The second shift. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Melanie. 1956. A study of envy and gratitude. In The selected Melanie Klein, ed. Mitchell, Juliet, 1986. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Linder, Staffan B. 1970. The harried leisure class. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
Mauss, Marcel. 1990. The gift: The form and reason of exchange in archaic societies. Trans. Halls, W.D.London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Miringoff, Marc, Luisa Miringoff, Marque, and Opdycke, Sandra. 1999. The social health of the nation. How America is really doing. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Needleman, Jacob. 1991. Money and the meaning of life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Nelson, Julie A. 1992. Gender, metaphor and the definition of economics. Economics and Philosophy 8 (1): 103–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Julie A. 1996. Feminism, objectivity and economics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nelson, Julie A. 1997. Feminism, ecology and the philosophy of economics. Ecological Economics 20, 155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Julie A. 1999. Of markets and martyrs. Is it OK to pay well for care? Feminist Economics 5 (3): 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hara, Sabine U. 1999. Economics, ecology and quality of life: Who evaluates? Feminist Economics 5 (2): 133–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schor, Juliet B. 1992. The overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schor, Juliet B. 2000. Do Americans shop too much? Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Sisson, Colin P. 1986. Your right to riches. Auckland: Total Press Ltd.Google Scholar