Abstract
When in the late 1970s Foucault announced that “freedom in the liberal regime is not a ready-made region which has to be respected… [i]t is something that has to be constantly produced” (Foucault, 2008, p. 65), he was reflecting on a self-misunderstanding at the heart of liberalism that a spirited feminist critique had already begun to disclose. When a nascent feminism tried to put liberal descriptions of “natural” private freedoms to its own uses, it discovered that they depended on repressive gender ideologies. Its response that “the personal is political” sometimes meant attempting to do away with the distinction altogether (Firestone, 1970). For the most part though feminists have recognized that the separation between the private and public spheres is essential to modern individuality and so vital to its own concerns (see Blatterer, this volume, Chapter 5). Rejecting those feminisms that “would abandon the distinction between private and public entirely,” Beate Rössler makes the point that “the difficulties associated with the liberal distinction between a public and a private sphere are not so categorical that the distinction becomes problematic in principle” (2005, p. 23, original emphasis). The challenge now is to reconstruct private freedoms that promise release from the gendered productions that underpin a liberal faith in their “givenness.” My paper critically reviews some episodes in feminist controversies over how to redescribe the freedoms of private life and offers its own contribution.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arendt, H. (1958), The Human Condition ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim (1995), The Normal Chaos of Love ( Cambridge: Polity).
Benhabib, S. (1996), “On Hegel Women and Irony,” in P. J. Mills (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of G.W.F Hegel ( Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Press ), 25–44.
Brown, W. (1995), States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity ( Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Coontz, S. (2005), Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage ( New York: Penguin).
Elshtain, J. B. (1981), Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought ( Oxford: Mart in Robertson).
Elshtain, J. B. (1982), The Family in Political Thought ( Sussex: The Harvester Press )
Evans, M. (2003), Love: An Unromantic Discussion ( Cambridge: Polity).
Firestone, S. (1970), The Dialectic of Sex ( New York: Morrow).
Foucault, M. (2008), The Birth of Biopolitics; Lectures at the College de France 1978–79 ( Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan ).
Giddens, A. (1992), The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies ( Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Hegel, G. W. F. (1991), Elements of a Philosophy of Right ( Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).
Honneth, A. (2004), “Between Justice and Affection: The Family as a Field of Moral Disputes,” in B. Rössler (ed.), Privacies: Philosophical Evaluations ( Stanford: Stanford University Press ), 142–63.
Honneth, A. (2007), “Love and Morality: On the Moral Content of Emotional Ties,” in Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory ( Cambridge: Polity ), 163–80.
Illouz, E. (1997), Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism ( Berkley: University of California Press).
Johnson, P. (1994), Feminism as Radical Humanism ( San Francisco: Westview).
Kristjansson, K. (2006), “Parents and Children as Friends,” Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 37, no. 2, 250–65.
Landes, J. (1998), Feminism, the Public and the Private ( New York: Oxford University Press).
Landes, J. (2003), “Further Thoughts on the Public Private Distinction,” Journal of Women’s History, vol. 15, no. 2, 28–39.
Lewis, C. S. (1960), The Four Loves ( London: Geoffrey Bles).
Levinas, E. (1969), Totality and Infinity ( Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press).
Luhmann, N. (1986), Love as Passion: The Codification of Intimacy ( Cambridge: Polity Press).
Noddings, N. (1984), Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education ( Berkley: University of California Press).
Okin, S. Moller (1989), Justice Gender and the Family ( Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Okin, S. Moller (1991), “Humanist Liberalism,” in N. L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life ( Cambridge: Harvard University Press ), 39–53.
Pahl, R. (2000), On Friendship ( Cambridge: Polity).
Pateman, C. (1988), The Sexual Contract ( Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Pauer-Struder, H. (2004), “Justice as Pre-condition of Affection and Care. A Comment on Axel Honneth,” in B. Rössler (ed.), Privacies: Philosophical Evaluations ( Stanford: Stanford University Press ), 142–63.
Paz, O. (1996), The Double Flame: Essays on Love and Eroticism ( London: Harvill Press).
Rössler, B. (2005), The Value of Privacy ( Cambridge: Polity Press).
Silver, A. (1996), “‘Two Different Sorts of Commerce’ or Friendship and Strangership in Civil Society,” in J. Weintraub and K. Kumar (eds), Public and Private Thought and Practice: Perspectives on the Grand Dichotomy ( Chicago: Chicago University Press ), 43–74.
Vernon, M. (2005), The Philosophy of Friendship ( New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
Walzer, M. (1983), Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality ( New York: Basic Books).
Zeldin, T. (1994), An Intimate History of Humanity ( New York: Harper and Collins).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Johnson, P. (2010). Images of Intimacy in Feminist Discussions over Private/Public Boundaries. In: Blatterer, H., Johnson, P., Markus, M.R. (eds) Modern Privacy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230290679_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230290679_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31927-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29067-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)