Can Liberalism Account for Women's “Adaptive Preferences”?
Social Philosophy Today 23:175-186 (2007)
| Abstract | Feminist philosophers have questioned whether liberal theory can account for the phenomenon of adaptive preferences, specifically women’s preferences that are formed under conditions of sexist oppression. In this paper, I examine the argument of one feminist who addresses the problem of women’s “deformed desires” by relying on a liberal framework. Assessing her argument, I conclude that liberalism provides inadequate resources for responding to this issue since it errs in understanding adaptive preferences as exceptional, provides little explanation of how changes in individual preferences are motivated, and often fails to identify the adaptive nature of such preferences. I illustrate my arguments through a brief discussion of women’s choices around motherhood and sexuality, and I conclude by offering several suggestions of how an alternative theory might better address the problems raised by preference adaptation in the context of oppression | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDonald W. Bruckner (2009). In Defense of Adaptive Preferences. Philosophical Studies 142 (3):307 - 324.
Ann Levey (2005). Liberalism, Adaptive Preferences, and Gender Equality. Hypatia 20 (4):127-143.
Hugh Breakey (2010). Adaptive Preferences and the Hellenistic Insight. Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics 12 (1):29-39.
Lisa L. Fuller (2011). Knowing Their Own Good: Preferences & Liberty in Global Ethics. In Thom Brooks (ed.), New Waves in Ethics. Palgrave MacMillan.
H. E. Baber (forthcoming). Worlds, Capabilities and Well-Being. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
Sandrine Berges (2011). Why Women Hug Their Chains: Wollstonecraft and Adaptive Preferences. Utilitas.
Donald Bruckner (2011). Second-Order Preferences and Instrumental Rationality. Acta Analytica 26 (4):367-385.
John D. Walker (1995). Liberalism, Consent, and the Problem of Adaptive Preferences. Social Theory and Practice 21 (3):457-471.
Serene J. Khader (2012). Must Theorising About Adaptive Preferences Deny Women's Agency? Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4):302-317.
Jeffrey Friedman (1991). Accounting for Political Preferences: Cultural Theory Vs. Cultural History. Critical Review 5 (3):325-351.
Martha C. Nussbaum (2001). Symposium on Amartya Sen's Philosophy: 5 Adaptive Preferences and Women's Options. Economics and Philosophy 17 (1):67-88.
Linda Lemoncheck (1998). Loose Women, Lecherous Men: A Feminist Philosophy of Sex. Philosophical Studies 89 (2-3):369-373.
D. M. Hausman (2011). Mistakes About Preferences in the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (1):3-25.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-12-02Total downloads13 ( #87,816 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,729 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
