Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 47–60 | Cite as

Is Motherhood Compatible with Political Participation? Sophie de Grouchy’s Care-Based Republicanism

  • Sandrine BergesEmail author


Motherhood, as it is practiced, constitutes an obstacle to gender equality in political participation. Several options are available as a potential solution to this problem. One is to advice women not to become mothers, or if they do, to devote less time and energy to caring for their children. However this will have negative repercussions for those who need to be cared for, whether children, sick people or the elderly. A second solution is to reject the view that political participation is an important or necessary part of human flourishing, and allow that those who engage in caring activities can live good lives without having a say in how they are ruled. This has negative consequences for the carers who find themselves in a position, if not of direct oppression, of being dominated, and therefore susceptible of being oppressed. The solution I propose, inspired by the writings of Sophie de Grouchy, is that we look for a form of republicanism that regards caring activities as a form of political participation.


Caring Political participation Republicanism Feminism Sophie de Grouchy 


  1. Berges S (2013) Wollstonecraft’s a vindication of the rights of woman. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown K, McClellan J III (2008) Letters on sympathy (1798) A critical edition. Trans Am Philos Soc New Ser 98:4Google Scholar
  3. Costa V (2012) Is Neo-republicanism bad for women? Hypatia 28(4):921–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawson D (1991) Is sympathy so surprising? Adam Smith and French Fictions of Sympathy. Sociability Soc Eighteenth-Century Scotland, Eighteenth-Century Life 15(ns. 1&2):147–162Google Scholar
  5. Gheaus A (2011) Arguments for non-parental care for children. Soc Theory Pract 37(3):483–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gheaus A (2012) Is the family uniquely valuable? Ethics Soc Policy 6(2):120–131Google Scholar
  7. Gheaus A, Robeyns I (2011) Equality-promoting parental leave. J Soc Philos 42(2):173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hausmann R, Tyson LD, Zahidi S (2012) The global gender gap report 2012, world economic forum. Accessed 18 Mar 2014
  9. Holtzman E, Williams S (1987) Women in the political wolrd: observations. Deadalus 116(4):25–33Google Scholar
  10. Jacobus M (1992) Incorruptible milk: breastfeeding and the French revolution. In: Melzer SE, Rabine LW (eds) Rebel daughters women and the French revolution. OUP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Noddings N (2002) Starting at home. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Nussbaum M (1996) Compassion: the basic social emotion. Soc Philos Policy Found 13:27–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Okin SM (1989) Justice, gender and the family. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Pateman C (2007) Why republicanism? Basic Income Stud 2:2Google Scholar
  15. Paxton M, Figdor C, Tiberius V (2012) Quantifying the gender gap: an empirical study of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy. Hypatia 27:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Philips A (2000) Feminism and republicanism: is this a plausible alliance? J Polit Philos 8(2):279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rousseau J-J (1992) Emile ou de l’Education. Bordas, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Roussel P (1775) Système Physique et Moral de la Femme. Vincent, Imprimeur, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruddick S (1989) Maternal thinking. Beacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. Slote M (2011) The impossibility of perfection. Aristotle, feminism, and the complexities of ethics. OUP, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van der Dussen S (2012) Political participation of women and motherhood. The case of the Walloon Parliament. Paper given at the European Conference on Politics and Gender, Barcelona, December 2012. Accessed 24 Sep 2013
  22. Wollstonecraft M (1993) A vindication of the rights of woman. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Young I (1995) Mothers, citizenship, and independence: a critique of pure family values. Ethics 105:535–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations