Skip to main content

Images of Intimacy in Feminist Discussions over Private/Public Boundaries

  • Chapter
Book cover Modern Privacy

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.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arendt, H. (1958), The Human Condition ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim (1995), The Normal Chaos of Love ( Cambridge: Polity).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. (1995), States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity ( Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coontz, S. (2005), Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage ( New York: Penguin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, J. B. (1981), Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought ( Oxford: Mart in Robertson).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, J. B. (1982), The Family in Political Thought ( Sussex: The Harvester Press )

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. (2003), Love: An Unromantic Discussion ( Cambridge: Polity).

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, S. (1970), The Dialectic of Sex ( New York: Morrow).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2008), The Birth of Biopolitics; Lectures at the College de France 1978–79 ( Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan ).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1992), The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies ( Stanford: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, G. W. F. (1991), Elements of a Philosophy of Right ( Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illouz, E. (1997), Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism ( Berkley: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1994), Feminism as Radical Humanism ( San Francisco: Westview).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristjansson, K. (2006), “Parents and Children as Friends,” Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 37, no. 2, 250–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landes, J. (1998), Feminism, the Public and the Private ( New York: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, J. (2003), “Further Thoughts on the Public Private Distinction,” Journal of Women’s History, vol. 15, no. 2, 28–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. S. (1960), The Four Loves ( London: Geoffrey Bles).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. (1969), Totality and Infinity ( Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1986), Love as Passion: The Codification of Intimacy ( Cambridge: Polity Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. (1984), Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education ( Berkley: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Okin, S. Moller (1989), Justice Gender and the Family ( Stanford: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Okin, S. Moller (1991), “Humanist Liberalism,” in N. L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life ( Cambridge: Harvard University Press ), 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, R. (2000), On Friendship ( Cambridge: Polity).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, C. (1988), The Sexual Contract ( Stanford: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paz, O. (1996), The Double Flame: Essays on Love and Eroticism ( London: Harvill Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rössler, B. (2005), The Value of Privacy ( Cambridge: Polity Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, M. (2005), The Philosophy of Friendship ( New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1983), Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality ( New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeldin, T. (1994), An Intimate History of Humanity ( New York: Harper and Collins).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics