Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relational Autonomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Relational Autonomy and Family Law

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

Abstract

The concept of relational autonomy is a response to the traditional individualised concept of autonomy. Mackenzie and Stoljar (2000, p. 4), two leading proponents of the concept, characterise it in these terms: ‘‘‘relational autonomy’’ is an umbrella term, designating a range of related perspectives…premised on a shared conviction that persons are socially embedded, that agents’ identities are formed within the context of social relationships and shaped by a complex of intersecting social determinants, such as race, class, gender, and ethnicity’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baker K (2011) Family, the law, and the constitution(s). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1106423

  • Barclay L (2000) Autonomy and the social self. In: Mackenzie C, Stoljar N (eds) Relational Autonomy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 52–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Barvosa-Carter E (2007) Mestiza autonomy as relational autonomy: Ambivalence and the social character of free will. J Polit Philos 15:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker M (1999) Patriarchy and inequality: towards a substantive feminism. University of Chicago Legal Forum 21–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogenschneider K (2013) Making a global case for family policy. In: Abela A, Walker J (eds) Contemporary issues in family studies. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Busby N (2011) A right to care? Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Carers UK (2010) Valuing carers. Carers UK, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Carers UK (2012) Growing the care market. Carers UK, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Carle S (2005) Theorizing agency. Am Univ Law Rev 55:307–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Code L (1991) Second persons. In: Code L (ed) What can she known? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Cornell University Press, Ithica

    Google Scholar 

  • Curk P (2011) Passions, dependencies, selves. In: Lind C, Keating H, Bridgeman J (eds) Taking responsibility, law and the changing family. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 51–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Diduck A, Kaganas F (2013) Family law, gender and the state. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Donchin A (2000) Autonomy, interdependence, and assisted suicide: respecting boundaries/crossing lines. Bioethics 14:187–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas G, Woodward H, Humphrey A (2011) Enduring love? Attitudes to family and inheritance law in England and Wales. J Law Soc 38:245–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eekelaar J (2013) Self-restraint: Social Norms, individualism and the family. Theor Inquiries Law 13:75–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman M (2000) Cracking the foundational myths: independence, autonomy and self-sufficiency. Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law 8:13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman M (2004) The autonomy myth. New Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (2000) Autonomy, social disruption, and women. In: MacKenzie C, Stoljar N (eds) Relational autonomy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen KJ (2009) Relational being: beyond self and community. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen KJ (2011) Relational being: a brief introduction. J Constructivist Psychol 24:280–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Glendinning C, Tjadens F, Arksey H, Morée M, Moran N, Nies H (2009) Care provision within families and its socio-economic impact on care providers. University of York, York

    Google Scholar 

  • Glendon MA (1989) The transformation of family law. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornick J, Meyers M (2003) Families that work: policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2009) Relational autonomy and rape. In: Day Sclater S, Ebtehaj F, Jackson E, Richards M (eds) Regulating autonomy: sex, reproduction and family. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2013a) Caring and the law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2013b) Forging a relational approach: best interests or human rights? Med Law Int 13:32–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himmelweit S (2005) Can we afford (not) to care: prospects and policy. Open University, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmelweit S, Land H (2008) Reducing gender inequalities to create a sustainable care. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson L (1999) Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the `pure relationship’. Sociology 33:477–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson A (1997) Gender Knot. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufer-Ukeles P (2008) Selective recognition of gender difference in the law: Revaluing the caretaker role. Harvard J Law Gend 31:1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckey R (2007) Contracting claims and family law feuds. Univ Toronto Law J 57:1–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie C, Stoljar N (eds) (2000) Relational autonomy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie C (2008) Relational autonomy, normative authority and perfectionism. J Soc Philos 39:512–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marin M (2013) Care, oppression and marriage. Hypatia forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • McClain L (2006) The place of families: fostering capacity, equality and responsibility. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendus S (1995) Human rights in political theory. Polit Stud 43:10–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulinari D, Sandell K (2009) A feminist re-reading of theories of late modernity: Beck, Giddens and the location of gender. Crit Sociol 35:493–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedelsky J (1989) Reconceiving autonomy: sources, thoughts and possibilities. Yale J Law Feminism 1:7–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedelsky J (2012) Law’s relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013), Huge elderly care bill threatens family ties. The Telegraph (available at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8501333/OECD-huge-elderly-care-bill-threatens-family-ties.html)

  • Oshana M (2006) Personal autonomy in society. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Reece H (2003) Divorcing responsibly. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribbens McCarthy J (2012) The powerful relational language of ‘family’. The Sociological Review 1:75–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders L (2013) “You’re not you”: caregiver autonomy and disability rights. Available at http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/sanders_yny.pdf

  • Sevenhuijsen S (2000) Caring in the third way: the relation between obligation, responsibility and acre in third way discourse. Crit Soc Policy 20:5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw S (2008) Family leisure and changing ideologies of parenthood. Sociol Compass 2:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwin S, Winsby M (2011) A relational perspective on autonomy for older adults residing in nursing homes. Health Expectations 14:182–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer P (1995) How are we to live? Ethics in an age of self-interest. Prometheus Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Slife B, Richardson F (2011) Is Gergen’s relational being relational enough? J Constructivist Psychol 24:304–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart C (2007) Personal life. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoljar N (2011) Informed consent and relational conceptions of autonomy. J Med Philos 36:375–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verkerk M (1999) A care perspective on coercion and autonomy. Bioethics 13:358–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verkerk M (2001) The care perspective and autonomy. Med Health Care Philos 4:289–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voena A (2013) Yours, mine and ours: do divorce laws affect the intertemporal behavior of married couples. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2007575

  • Williams F (2002) The presence of feminism in the future of welfare. Econ Soc 31:502–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams J (2010) Reshaping the work-family debate: why men and class matter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

Cases

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Exeter College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Jonathan Herring

Authors
  1. Jonathan Herring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Herring .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Herring, J. (2014). Relational Autonomy. In: Relational Autonomy and Family Law. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04987-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation