Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:39:18.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private Dependence, Public Personhood: Rethinking “Nested Obligations”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2014

Laura Back
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper responds to Love's Labor, Eva Feder Kittay's seminal contribution to feminist disability theory, arguing that Kittay's “nested obligations” approach creates a two‐tiered system of justice in which care relationships built around private dependence and private obligation are figured as wholly prepolitical, to the detriment of both gender justice and disability justice. I suggest that centering the civic membership of the disabled person allows us to keep what is valuable in Kittay's contribution, namely her theorization of the nature of care and its political significance, and her call for collective support of care relationships, while omitting the nesting of obligations and resituating care recipients and care workers as equal and interdependent.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 30 , Issue 1: Special Issue: New Conversations in Feminist Disability Studies , Winter 2015 , pp. 115 - 131
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.)

Footnotes

Christine Di Stefano and Jamie Mayerfeld provided invaluable advice and encouragement throughout my work on this paper. I also received extremely helpful feedback on earlier drafts from Jack Turner, Kim Q. Hall, two anonymous Hypatia referees, and numerous participants in a University of Washington graduate conference on Care, Work, and Diversity, organized by Anna Haley‐Lock and Kim England. Alexei Kosut and Robert Au provided proofreading, encouragement, and the care on which I have often depended.

References

“Ashley's Mom and Dad.” 2007. The “Ashley Treatment”: Towards a better quality of life for “pillow angels.” http://pillowangel.org/Ashley%20Treatment%20v7.pdf (accessed August 2, 2014).Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 2002. The claims of culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erevelles, Nirmala, and Kafer, Alison. 2010. Committed critique: An interview with Nirmala Erevelles. In Disability studies: Interdisciplinary perspectives, ed. Burch, Susan and Kafer, Alison. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice interruptus. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
FRIDA (Feminist Response in Disability Activism). 2007. Feminist Response in Disability Activism to lead “Ashley treatment action” at the American Medical Association headquarters. http://fridanow.blogspot.com/2007/01/for-immediate-release-january-10-2007.html (accessed August 2, 2014).Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 2006. The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy J. 1995. Rethinking obligation for feminism. In Revisioning the political, ed. Hirschmann, Nancy J. and Di Stefano, Christine. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1999. Love's labor. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1690/1980. Second treatise of government. ed. Macpherson, C. B. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Longmore, Paul. 2003. Why I burned my book and other essays on disability. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Cal. 2001. Critic of the dawn. In Ragged edge online 2. http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/0501/0501cov.htm (accessed August 2, 2014).Google Scholar
Not Dead Yet. 2007. Not Dead Yet statement on “growth attenuation” experimentation. http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/07/01/ndyashley.htm (accessed August 11, 2014).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rivas, Lynn May. 2002. Invisible labors: Caring for the independent person. In Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy, ed. Ehrenreich, Barbara and Russell Hochschild, Arlie. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy E. 1994. Motherhood and crime. Iowa Law Review 79 (1): 95–141.Google Scholar
Silvers, Anita. 1998. Formal justice. In Disability, difference, discrimination, ed. Silvers, Anita, Wasserman, David and Mahowald, Mary B. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Tronto, Joan. 1993. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1997. Intersecting voices. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar