Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:05:31.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem with “Caring” Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Kari Greenswag
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Daniel Engster's “caring” human rights are, on the surface, a compelling way to bring the concept of care into the international political realm, I argue they actually serve to perpetuate some of the same problems of mainstream human‐rights discourses. The problem is twofold. First, Engster's particular care theory relies on an uncritical acceptance of our dependence relations. It can, therefore, not only overlook how local and global institutions, norms, and the marketplace shape our relations of (inter)dependence, but also serve to further naturalize our current dependence relations. Second, Engster's caring human rights are only minimally feminist, which means that they do not pay attention to the way in which women's full and equal political participation is a necessary component to challenging and overcoming the oppression, marginalization, and exploitation of women and their caring labor worldwide. Although I am sympathetic to Engster's goals and some of his proposed policy solutions, I argue that we should not abandon the critical, feminist lens of care ethics in favor of “caring” human rights that cannot overcome the care critique of mainstream human‐rights discourses.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Fall 2017 , pp. 801 - 816
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 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

Engster, Daniel. 2004. Care ethics and natural law theory: Toward an institutional political theory of caring. The Journal of Politics 66 (1): 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engster, Daniel. 2005. Rethinking care theory: The practice of caring and the obligation to care. Hypatia 20 (3): 50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engster, Daniel. 2006. Care ethics and animal welfare. Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (4): 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engster, Daniel. 2007. The heart of justice: Care ethics and political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engster, Daniel. 2014. The social determinants of health, care ethics and just health care. Contemporary Political Theory 13 (2): 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engster, Daniel. 2015. Justice, care, and the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erel, Umut. 2012. Introduction: Transnational care in Europe—changing formations of citizenship, family, and generation. Social Politics 19 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gheaus, Anca. 2010. Review of The heart of justice: Care ethics and political theory, by Daniel Engster. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (4): 619–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gheaus, Anca. 2013. Care drain: Who should provide for the children left behind? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 16 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1990. Feminist transformations of moral theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (Supplement): 321–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, Virginia. 2006. The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 2008. Review of The heart of justice: Care ethics and political theory, by Daniel Engster. Perspectives on Politics 6 (2): 369–70.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2002. Love and gold. In Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy, ed. Ehrenreich, Barbara and Hochschild, Arlie Russell. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Fiona. 1999. Globalizing care: Ethics, feminist theory, and international relations. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Fiona. 2003. Human rights and the global politics of resistance: Feminist perspectives. Review of International Studies 29 (S1): 161–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Fiona. 2008. The importance of care in the theory and practice of human security. Journal of International Political Theory 4 (2): 167–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Fiona. 2011. Care ethics and the transnationalization of care: Reflections on autonomy, hegemonic masculinities, and globalization. In Feminist ethics and social policy: Towards a new global political economy of care, ed. Mahon, Rianne and Robinson, Fiona. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Fiona. 2013. Global care ethics: Beyond distribution, beyond justice. Journal of Global Ethics 9 (2): 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sander‐Staudt, Maureen. 2009. Review of The heart of justice: Care ethics and political theory, by Daniel Engster. Signs 34 (3): 719–20.Google Scholar
Tronto, Joan C. 1993. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weir, Allison. 2008. Global care chains: Freedom, responsibility, and solidarity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (S1): 166–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Fiona. 2011. Towards a transnational analysis of the political economy of care. In Feminist ethics and social policy: Towards a new global political economy of care, ed. Mahon, Rianne and Robinson, Fiona. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar