David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio Juris 24 (1):25-48 (2011)
In this paper, I argue that Habermas' proceduralist model of law can be put to feminist ends in at least two significant ways. First, in presenting an alternative to the liberal and welfare models of laws, the proceduralist model offers feminism a way out of the equality/difference dilemma. Both these attempts to secure women's equality by emphasising women's sameness to men or their difference from men have placed the onus on women to either find a way of integrating themselves into existing institutions or to confront the so-called question of women's difference. The proceduralist model renders this dilemma irrelevant. Instead, it proceeds from the fact of sexual difference; a fact that produces competing and conflicting needs and interests that require interpretation by both men and women. This, I argue, marks a change in the very way we conceptualise the so-called problem of women's difference, insofar as the question is no longer framed in these terms. Second, I argue that this deliberative process over the interpretation of conflicting interests affects a fundamental shift in the nature of legal institutions themselves, insofar as law is no longer a vehicle for promoting male interests
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Amy Gutmann (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
David M. Rasmussen, Jurgen Habermas, Christian Lenhardt & Shierry Weber Nicholsen (1993). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Philosophical Quarterly 43 (173):571.
Jürgen Habermas (1998). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. The MIT Press.
Catriona Mackenzie & Natalie Stoljar (eds.) (2000). Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Automony, Agency, and the Social Self. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Simone Chambers (2000). The Cultural Foundations of Public Policy: A Comment on Georgia Warnke. Philosophy and Social Criticism 26 (3):75-81.
Maxine Baca Zinn & Bonnie Thorton Dill (1996). Theorizing Difference From Multiracial Feminism. Feminist Studies 22 (2):321-331.
Jennifer A. Parks (2004). Grin and Bare It. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 11 (1):45-53.
Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer & Maurice Rickard (1998). Reconciling Impartial Morality and a Feminist Ethic of Care. Journal of Value Inquiry 32 (4):451-463.
Kate Nash (1998). Universal Difference: Feminism and the Liberal Undecidability of "Women". St. Martin's Press.
Mariana Szapuova (2006). Mill's Liberal Feminism: Its Legacy and Current Criticism. Prolegomena 5 (2):179-191.
Michèle Barrett & Anne Phillips (eds.) (1992). Destabilizing Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates. Stanford University Press.
Bettina Schmitz (2008). Balancing Feminism. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 25:95-108.
Heidi Nelson Hochenedel & Douglas Mann (2001). On the Impotence of Cultural Post-Feminism. Social Philosophy Today 17:163-178.
Judith Evans (1995). Feminist Theory Today: An Introduction to Second-Wave Feminism. Sage Publications.
Patricia Ward Scaltsas (1992). Virtue Without Gender in Socrates. Hypatia 7 (3):126 - 137.
Penelope Deutscher (2002). A Politics of Impossible Difference: The Later Work of Luce Irigaray. Cornell University Press.
Luce Irigaray (2007). Je, Tu, Nous: Toward a Culture of Difference: With a Personal Note by the Author. Routledge.
Added to index2011-02-23
Total downloads38 ( #107,979 of 1,907,621 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #273,183 of 1,907,621 )
How can I increase my downloads?