This article is concerned with the relationship between feminism on the one hand, and republicanism and liberalism on the other hand. Feminism is interested in dissolving the private-public boundary by politicizing the home and challenging role divisions within it. Some scholars have suggested advancing this project by importing the republican view of political contest as a good in itself: no claim to privacy may stand against it, so that received family structures may be exposed to debate and change. In contrast to such views, I argue that a perception of the home as a ground on which autonomous actors meet for open-ended engagement is incompatible with republicanism, and that republican ideas, in their turn, undermine efforts to open up the private sphere for deliberation. On the other hand, the liberal focus on protecting individuality provides a basis for deliberation in the home and so is compatible with the idea of persistent contestation in multiple arenas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arendt, H.1963. On Revolution. London: Faber and Faber.
2.
Barber, B. R.1984. Strong Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Behnhabib, S.1996. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.” In S. Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference, pp. 67-84. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Coole, D.1988. Women in Political Theory. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
5.
Dagger, R.1997. Civic Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
Dietz, M.2002. Turning Operations. New York: Routledge.
7.
Frazer, E.1996. “Feminism and liberalism.” In J. Meadowcroft, ed., The Liberal Political Tradition, pp. 115-137. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
8.
Gerson, G.2002. “Liberal Feminism: Individuality and Oppositions in Wollstonecraft and Mill.”Political Studies50 (4): 792-808.
9.
Held, V.1993. Feminist Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Herzog, A.2001. “The Poetic Nature of Political Disclosure: Hannah Arendt’s Storytelling.”Clio30: 169-194.
11.
Honig, B.1993. Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12.
Honig, B.1996. “Difference, Dilemmas and the Politics of Home.” In S. Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference, pp. 257-277. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Jones, K. B.1998. “Citizenship in a Woman-Friendly World.” In G. Shafir, ed., The Citizenship Debates, pp. 221-247. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press..
14.
Kahane, D.1999. “Diversity, Solidarity and Civic Friendship.”Journal of Political Philosophy7 (3): 267-286.
15.
Kymlicka, W., and Norman, W.1995. “Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory.” In R. Beiner, ed., Theorizing Citizenship, pp. 283-322Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
16.
Longo, P.2001. “Revisiting the Equality/Difference Debate: Redefining Citizenship for the New Millennium.”Citizenship Studies5 (3): 269-284.
17.
MacIntyre, A.1984. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
18.
Makus, I.1996. Women, Politics and Reproduction. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
19.
Mansbridge, J.1999. “Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System.” In S. Macedo, ed., Deliberative Politics, pp. 211-229. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
Mill, J. S.1969. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. 10. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
21.
Mill, J. S.1977. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. 18. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
22.
Mill, J. S.1984. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Vol. 21. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
23.
Okin, S. M.1989. Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic.
24.
Okin, S. M.1998a. “Feminism and Political Theory.” In J. A. Kourany, ed., Philosophy in a Feminist Voice, pp. 116-144. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Okin, S. M.1998b. “Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences.”Hypatia13 (2). 32-52.
26.
Okin, S. M.2002. “Mistresses of Their Own Destiny”: Group Rights, Gender, and Realistic Right of Exit.”Ethics112: 205-230.
27.
Oldfield, A.1990. Citizenship and Community. London and New York: Routledge.
28.
Pateman, C.1989. The Disorder of Women. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
29.
Pettit, P.1997. Republicanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
Phillips, A.1993. Democracy and Difference. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
31.
Phillips, A.2000. “Feminism and Republicanism: Is this a Plausible Alliance?”Journal of Political Philosophy8 (2): 279-293.
32.
Pitkin, H.1984. Fortune Is a Woman. Berkeley: University of California Press.
33.
Pitkin, H.1998. The Attack of the Blob. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Pocock, J. G. A.1975. The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Richards, D. A. J.1993. “Political Theory and the Aims of Feminism.”Nomos35: 413-422.
36.
Sandel, M.1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Sandel, M.1996. Democracy’s Discontent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
Skinner, Q.1981. Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
Skinner, Q.1998). Liberty before Liberalism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Voet, R.1998. Feminism and Citizenship. London: Sage.
41.
Vogel, U.2000. “Private Contract and Public Institution.” In M. Passerin D’Entrèves and U. Vogel, eds., Public and Private, pp. 177-199. London and New York: Routledge.
42.
Werbner, P.1999. “Political Motherhood and the Feminisation of Citizenship: Women’s Activisms and the Transformation of the Public Sphere.” In N. Yuval-Davis and P. Werbner, eds., Women, Citizenship and Difference, pp. 221-245. London and New York: Zed.
43.
Young, I. M.1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In S. Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference, pp. 120-135. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
Young, I. M.1997. Intersecting Voices. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Zerilli, L. M. G.1994. Signifying Woman. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
