Hypatia 25 (4):834-851 (2010)

Authors
Jean Keller
St. John's University, College of St. Benedict
Abstract
In the early 1990s, Sara Ruddick's Maternal Thinking was criticized for harboring a latent ethnocentrism. Ruddick responded to these critiques in the 1995 edition of her book, but her response has not yet been addressed in the feminist philosophical literature. This essay addresses this lacuna in the scholarship on Ruddick. In the last installment of this critique, Alison Bailey and Patrice DiQuinzio suggested that the only way for Ruddick to avoid the ethnocentrism charge would require her near-universalistic claims about mothering to be rejected in favor of “particularized, localized accounts of mothering.” In this essay I'll show that this claim goes too far. After reviewing Lugones's and Bailey's critiques of Ruddick, along with Ruddick's response, I propose a “modified universalism” that addresses the concerns raised by Ruddick's critics while preserving key elements of her theory
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01139.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,242
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-09-29

Total views
28 ( #374,852 of 2,419,596 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #542,199 of 2,419,596 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes