Feminist perspective on contract theory - week 6
Formative assessment - 19th Nov - Questions on VLE - tips on how to to write a philosophy essay on website - if on this topic cite Richardson unless further reading is done
Feminist critiques:
The personal is political - the private sphere is not completely separate from the public sphere and is relevant i.e. female domestic labour
Political decisions plays a large part in the private sphere i.e. subsidised childcare
Susan Moller Okin criticised Rawls - uses male pronouns throughout, sex and gender not listed within the characteristics protected by the veil of ignorance - patriarchal in nature
Rawls - parties in OP are heads of families ( men ) - So how can we expect them to point out injustice within the family ?
Key Strands of critique:
Patriarchal assumptions on a universal basis
Social contract theories have blind spots when it comes to gender inequality
Questions:
➢Is the very idea of consent & contract the wrong way to theorise individual freedom under power structures?
➢Or is it just that the way that social contract theories have been pursued has involved blindspots, but the underlying concepts can still be useful to feminism
Pateman:
The structure of social contract theory is a mistaken vision of freedom
Contract theory is based on everyone as free and equal - so why would women consent to form a society where they are less than men?
Why? Possessive individualism ( we own ourselves ) which underlines social contract theory - so, we can consent to contract our labour to other people
The problem with possessive individualism:
Regarding marriage, employment and the social contract - they appear to evoke the idea of consent from the weaker party as they are deemed to agree to obey as they have no alternative.i.e. just because a woman has agreed to take on low pay, low skill work as she feels she has no other option, this cannot be seen as consent necessarily
Pateman - The idea of freely choosing to subordinate yourself to another is a skewed idea of freedom - contractarianism as a mean to preserve freedom denies us the ability to object to an oppressive system - this stifles active citizenship ( accept subordination )
Readings from this:
Background conditions are significant and must be taken into consideration when one is contracting i.e. marriage
BUT even if we knew about these conditions, the model of contracting itself is flawed as it usually ends in some sort of subordination
The descent of contract theory
The state enforces marriage contracts and employment contracts
Employment contract subordinates workers and marriage contracts subordinates women to their husbands
So, contracts cannot be a legitimate means to preserve freedom
Socialist feminists see the two types of contracts as related - The economy creates financial dependency of women on their husbands
Hampton:
The ideas of what we ‘would’ choose under fair conditions can help us realise power imbalances in our relationships
Centred around gender inequality in relationships
Research finding that girls tend to prioritise others whilst boys tend to prioritise themselves - adaptive preferences and socialisation
We would not rationally agree to a relationship where women put men first and men put themselves first either
Criticisms of Hampton:
Relies heavily on the self interest of the individual
Separates emotional ties and reason
Her response: The test is meant to help us think more clearly about what social relationships would/should look like
What can feminism take away from social contract theory?
Richardson:
If Hamptons test is to be carries out by each individual it may fall subject to adaptive preferences
But perhaps just collective consciousness raising
Richardson’s take:
➢ Pateman: We must interrogate the social structures that have led to oppressive conditions.
➢Hampton: We can use her test in a process of consciousness raising as a ‘technology of the self’ to challenge the status quo and examine assumptions
about the way that we