A Feminist Critique of the Liberal Conception of Citizenship
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.espo.n48a02Keywords:
Citizenship, Liberalism, Feminism, Differentiated Universalism, Private Sphere, Public SphereAbstract
The prevailing vision of citizenship in the liberal tradition, with its emphasis on universal rights and equal treatment under the law, is, while valued, also highly questionable from a feminist perspective. In the feminist political theory, beyond the existing heterogeneity among different positions, it is possible to identify some common aspects that provide a basis for the critique of the liberal conception of citizenship. Based on a normative critical analysis of this concept, the article argues for the vindication of a differentiated universalism, as defended by Ruth Lister, and the need for a new linkage between the public sphere and the private sphere. Finally, the article highlights the importance of a differentiated universalism in order to progress towards, among other objectives, a more equitable distribution of responsibilities within the family, since, otherwise, equality of citizenship in its political dimension will remain something merely formal for women, an issue that has not been sufficiently emphasized in current debates.
Downloads
References
(1) Abbey, Ruth (ed.). (2013). Introduction. Biography of a Biography: Three Decades of Feminist Response to Rawls. En: Feminist Interpretations of John Rawls (pp. 1-23). University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
(2) Baumeister, Andrea. (2000). The New Feminism. En: O'Sulivan, Noël (ed.). Political Theory in Transition (pp. 49-69). London: Routledge.
(3) Bryson, Valerie. (2002). Gender. En: Blakeley, Georgina y Bryson, Valeria (eds.). Contemporary Politica Concepts: A Critical Introduction (pp. 108-125). London: Pluto.
(4) Bryson, Valerie. (2003). Feminist Political Theory: An Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-00576-1
(5) Butler, Judith. (2007). El género en disputa: el feminismo y la subversión de la identidad. Barcelona: Paidós.
(6) Carver, Terrel. (2003). Gender. En: Bellamy, Richard y Manson, Andrew (eds.). Political Concepts (pp. 169-181). Manchester: Manchester University.
(7) Chambers, Clare. (2012). Gender. En: McKinnon, Catriona (ed.). Issues in Political Theory (pp. 234-256). Oxford: Oxford University.
(8) Chambers, Clare. (2013). The Family as a Basic Institution: A Feminist Analysis of the Basic Structure as Subject. En: Abbey, Ruth (ed.). Feminist Interpretations of John Rawls (pp. 75-95). University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
(9) Dietz, Mary G. (1987). Context is All: Feminism and the Theories of Citizenship. Daedalus, 116 (4), pp. 1-24.
(10) Dorlin, Elsa. (2008). Sexe, genre et sexualités. París: Presses Universitaires de France. https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.dorli.2008.01
(11) Farrelly, Colin (ed.). (2004). Introduction. En: Cotemporary Political Theory (pp.181-184). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.sj.8340157
(12) Gilligan, Carol. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard University.
(13) Hekman, Susan. (2006). Feminism. En: Malpas, Simon y Wake, Paul (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Critical Theory (pp. 91-101). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203412688_chapter_8
(14) Held, David. (2008). Modelos de democracia. Madrid: Alianza.
(15) Held, Virginia. (2002). Feminism and Political Theory. En: Simon, Robert L. (ed.). The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy (pp. 154-176). Massachusetts: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756621.ch7
(16) Heywood, Andrew. (2004). Political Theory: An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
(17) Kymlicka, Will. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University.
(18) Lister, Ruth. (1997). Citizenship: Towards a Feminist Synthesis. Feminist Review, 57, pp. 28-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/014177897339641
(19) Lister, Ruth. (2002). Sexual Citizenship. En: Isin, Engin F. y Turner, Bryan S. (eds.). Handbook of Citizenship Studies (pp. 191-207). Londres: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608276.n12
(20) Lister, Ruth. (2003). Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. London: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80253-7
(21) Lister, Ruth. (2004). Citizenship and Gender. En: Nash, Kate y Scott, Alan (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology (pp. 323-332). Oxford: Blackwell.
(22) Lister, Ruth. (2005). Being Feminist. Government and Opposition, 40 (3), pp. 442-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00159.x
(23) Lister, Ruth et al. (2007). Gendering Citizenship in Western Europe: New Challenges for Citizenship Research in a Cross-national Context. Bristol: The Policy.
(24) Mansbridge, Jane y Okin, Susan Moller. (2007). Feminism. En: Goodin, Robert E.; Pettit, Philip y Pogge, Thomas. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Volume I (pp. 332-359). Oxford: Blackwell.
(25) Miller, David. (2011). Filosofía política: Una breve introducción. Madrid: Alianza.
(26) Mottier, Véronique. (2004). Feminist and Gender Theory: The Return of the State. En: Gaus, Gerald F. y Kukathas, Chandran (eds.). Handbook of Political Theory (pp. 277-288). Londres: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608139.n21
(27) Mouffe, Chantal. (1999). El retorno de lo político. Comunidad, ciudadanía, pluralismo, democracia radical. Barcelona: Paidós.
(28) Oakley, Ann. (1972). Sex, Gender and Society. Londres: Temple Smith.
(29) Okin, Susan M. (1989). Justice, Gender and Family. Nueva York: Basic Books.
(30) Okin, Susan M. (1994). Political Liberalism, Justice, and Gender. Ethics, 105 (1), pp. 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1086/293677
(31) Okin, Susan M. (2004). The Public/Private Dichotomy. En: Farrelly, Colin (ed.). Cotemporary Political Theory (pp.185-194). Londres: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215272.n22
(32) Okin, Susan. (2005). 'Forty Acres and a Mule' for Women: Rawls and Feminism. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 4 (2), pp. 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X05052540
(33) Pateman, Carole. (1991). Feminist Critiques of the Public-Private Dichotomy. En: Pettit, Philip (ed.). Contemporary Political Theory (pp. 116-137). Nueva York: Macmillan.
(34) Pateman, Carole. (2011). Feminism and Democracy (1983). En: Carver, Terrell y Chambers, Samuel A. (eds.). Carole Pateman. Democracy, Feminism, Welfare (pp. 66-77). London: Routledge.
(35) Pe-a, Javier. (2000). La ciudadanía hoy. Problemas y propuestas. Universidad de Valladolid: Valladolid.
(36) Pe-a, Javier. (2008). Nuevas perspectivas de la ciudadanía. En: Quesada, Fernando (ed.). Ciudad y ciudadanía: Senderos contemporáneos de la filosofía política (pp. 231-251). Madrid: Trotta.
(37) Phillips, Anne. (1998). Democracia y feminismo: ¿Qué tiene de malo la democracia liberal? En: del Águila, Rafael et al. (eds.). La democracia en sus textos (pp. 319-339). Madrid: Alianza.
(38) Rawls, John ([1971] 2010). Teoría de la justicia. México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
(39) Rawls, John. ([1993] 1996). Liberalismo político. México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
(40) Rawls, John. ([2001] 2004). La justicia como equidad. Una reformulación. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
(41) Richardson, Diane. (2000a). Claiming Citizenship? Sexuality, Citizenship and Lesbian/Feminist Theory. Sexualities, 3 (2), pp. 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346000003002009
(42) Richardson, Diane. (2000b). Constructing Sexual Citizenship: Theorizing Sexual Rights. Critical Social Policy, 20 (1), pp. 105-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/026101830002000105
(43) Sargent, Lyman Tower. (2009). Feminism. En: Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 159-180). Belmont: Wadsworth.
(44) Stark, Barbara. (2009). Reproductive Rights and Reproduction of Gender. En: McClain, Linda C. y Grossman, Joanna L. (eds.). Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (pp. 345-356). Cambridge: Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627095.018
(45) Tong, Rosemarie. (2009). Feminist Thought. A more Comprehensive Introduction. Colorado: Westview.
(46) Wharton, Amy S. (2005). Sociology of Gender. An Introduction to Theory and Research. Oxford: Blackwell.
(47) Young, Iris M. (1981). Beyond the Unhappy Marriage: A Critique of the Dual Systems Theory, en Sargent, Lydia (ed.). Women and Revolution: A Discussion of the Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism (pp. 43-69). Boston: South End.
(48) Young, Iris M. (1998). Imparcialidad y lo cívico-público: algunas implicaciones de las críticas feministas a la teoría moral y política. En: del Águila, Rafael et al. (eds.). La democracia en sus textos (pp. 413-444). Madrid: Alianza.
(49) Young, Iris M. (2001). Equality of Whom? Social Groups and Judgments of Injustice, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 9 (1), pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00115
(50) Young, Iris M. (2006). Taking the Basic Structure Seriously. Symposium, 4 (1), pp. 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592706060099
(51) Zerilli, Linda. (2006). Feminist Theory and The Canon of Political Thought. En: Dryzek, John S.; Honing, Bonnie y Phillips, Anne (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (pp. 106-124). Oxford: Oxford University.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Estudios Políticos authorizes the copy of articles and texts for academic purposes or the internal use of institutions as long as the proper citation of the source is provided. Total or partial reproduction of the journal with different purposes should have an explicit authorization by the Institute of Politic Studies of the University of Antioquia.
The views and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessary reflect or bind those of the Institute of Political Studies of the University of Antioquia.
