Skip to main content

The Challenge of Care to Idealizing Theories of Distributive Justice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Feminist Ethics and Social and Political Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal

Abstract

The ideal of distributive justice as a means of ensuring fair distribution of social opportunities is a cornerstone of contemporary feminist theory. Feminists from various disciplines have developed arguments to support the redistribution of the work of care through institutional mechanisms. I discuss the limits of such distribution under the conditions of theories that do not idealize human agents as independent beings. People’s reliance on care, understood as a response to needs, is pervasive and infuses almost all human interaction. I argue that the effect of care on shaping the social opportunities of all individuals is huge, although often invisible. Much of the optimism of theories of distributive justice comes from ignoring or downplaying the way in which care influences most factors of social success. Jonathan Wolff distinguished between three types of resources whose fair distribution is important: internal, external and structural. Care, I argue, does not fit well in any of these types. Inseparably interwoven with relational realities, care cuts across these categories and thus poses a challenge to the feasibility of equal chances. I focus on the under-analyzed issue of bad care and show how difficult it is to dismantle legacies of bad care. Their effect on even close-to-ideal social arrangements is too significant to be disregarded, yet very difficult to tackle through institutional mechanisms. A commitment to certain elements of individual ethics – as opposed to merely political institutions – is required in order to bridge the gap between ideal theories of justice and feasible practical aims.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

  • Anderson, E. 1999. ‘What is the Point of Equality?’ Ethics 109(2): 287–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, A.C. 1994. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics (Harvard: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, J. 1988. The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and the Problem of Domination (New York: Pantheon Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bubeck, D.E. 1999. ‘A Feminist Approach to Citizenship’. In O. Hufton and Y. Kravaritou (eds.) Gender and the Use of Time (The Hague: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 401–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Card, C. 1996. The Unnatural Lottery: Character and Moral Luck (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, L. 2006. ‘That Many of Us Should Not Parent. In Hypatia 21(4): 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, A. 1999. The Ethical Education of Self-Talk. In M.S. Katz, N. Noddings and K.A. Strike (eds.) Justice and Caring. The Search for Common Ground in Education (New York and London: Teachers College Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign Virtue. The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabre, C. 2006. Whose Body Is It Anyway? Justice and the Integrity of the Person (New York: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. 1994. ‘After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare State’. In Political Theory 22(4): 591–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gheaus, A. 2006. ‘Gender Dimensions of the Romanian Tutoring System’. In J. Sempruch, K. Willems and C. Casarella (eds.) Multiple Marginalities. An Intercultural Perspective on Gender in Education (Kongstein: Helmer Verlag), 264–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gheaus, A. 2007. ‘Irreversible Moral Damage’. In B. Schreier (ed.) Culture and Irreversibility (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press), 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornick, J.C. and M.K. Meyers. 2003. Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, V. 1993. Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society and Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, V. 1997. ‘Feminism and Moral Theory’. In D.T. Meyers (ed.) Feminist Social Thought: A Reader (New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E.F. 1999. Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency (New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFollette, H. 1980. ‘Licensing Parents’. In Philosophy and Public Affaires 9(2): 182–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. 2002. Starting at Home. Caring and Social Policy (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1972. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, S. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace (Boston: Beacon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, S. 1998. ‘Care as Labor and Relationship’. In J.G. Haber and M.S. Halfon (eds.) Norms and Values: Essays on the Work of Virginia Held (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, J. 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care (New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. 1981. Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, J. 2003. The Message of Redistribution. Disadvantage, Public Policy and the Human Good: a Catalyst Working Paper (London: Catalyst).

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anca Gheaus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gheaus, A. (2009). The Challenge of Care to Idealizing Theories of Distributive Justice. In: Tessman, L. (eds) Feminist Ethics and Social and Political Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6841-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics