You are on page 1of 11

Political Obligation, Freedom and Feminism

Author(s): Carole Pateman, Nancy J. Hirschmann, G. Bingham Powell, Jr.


Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Mar., 1992), pp. 179-188
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1964023
Accessed: 20/04/2009 22:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org
American Political Science Review Vol. 86, No. 1 March 1992

OBLIGATION,
POLITICAL ANDFEMINISM
FREEDOM

ow should feminist theorists approachthe analysis of political obligation and freedom? In


her article in the December 1989 issue of this Review, Nancy Hirschmann proposeda
fundamental reconstructionof these concepts. CarolePatemanagrees that liberalobligation
theory inadequately treats the coercion of women and other groups under the guise of voluntary
obligations. But she argues that Hirschmann goes too far, particularly in rejecting the priority of
freedom. Hirschmann explicates their disagreementsand her approach.

inopoli and Hirschmann's (1991) controversy in tion of modern government, whether in the state, the
the Review unfortunately fails to confront Hir- plantation, or the workplace or of men over women,
schmann's (1989) major claim that the idea of into a general and permanent problem.
voluntary, or self-assumed, obligation and the prior- In contrast, consent must be given to something. It
ity thus given to freedom is a serious problem for is precisely "consent theory" that treats obligation as
feminists. She concludes that obligation must be already established or given. Indeed, at one point
reformulated in terms of involuntary, nonconsen- Hirschmann writes of "the necessity of consent to
sual, or "given" social relations and put into a context obligation" (1989, 1234). In the case of theories about
of connection and responsibility. original contracts, consent is (said to be) given by the
I agree with Hirschmann about the inadequacy of next generation of citizens to the political obligation
contemporary theories of political obligation and created through the original agreement. In contem-
their patriarchal character and endorse her call for a porary theory, as in classic contract theory, the prob-
new approach and new questions, but I want to take lem is taken to be to show how consent is given or,
issue with her discussion of political obligation and why there are reasons for obedience, rather than to
her conclusion. I will not examine object relations show how political obligation is created and recreated
theory, although I do not believe that this provides an or whether it exists. The prevailing assumptions by
appropriate new approach (see e.g. Young 1984) political theorists are that political obligation exists
because, as I shall indicate, the case can be made that and consent is always given, thus, a variety of
standard arguments about political obligation are hypotheses are advanced to explain how this takes
patriarchal from a consideration of classic and con- place; that is, self-assumed obligation is turned into
temporary arguments. what I called hypothetical voluntarism. The problem
about political obligation is conjured away (see Pate-
man 1985). Ironically, Hirschmann presents as a
OBLIGATION feminist alternative the "given" obligation that is
central to almost all contemporary consent theory.
Hirschmann argues that critics (including myself) of Hirschmann might argue that even hypothetical
what she calls "consent theory" have failed to look voluntarism is still voluntarism, and that is the prob-
deeply enough at the well-known problems with the lem. Hypothetical voluntarism still is an example of
theory; the symptoms, not the causes have been the "fear and refusal" of consent theory to which she
addressed. The critics take it for granted that obliga- refers in her reply to Sinopoli, to admit "nonconsen-
tion is self-assumed, and they have not asked why sual obligations." She argues that consent theory has
abstract individualism is so central to consent theory. segregated nonconsensual obligations in the private
A major problem in Hirschmann's discussion is sphere, assigned them to various groups, "women,
that she assimilates obligation to consent. She states, workers, slaves", and then denied those groups a
for example, that I argue for a "fully consistent political voice (Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, 228). I
consent theory" (1989, 1228) when I took consider- am not clear whether Hirschmann is arguing here
able pains to distinguish my argument about self- that consent theory ignores these groups or that they
assumed obligation from arguments about consent actually have nonconsensual obligations. Such
(Pateman 1985). I may not have succeeded but groups have been incorporated into voluntarist "con-
Hirschmann does not show this. The idea of self- sent theory." Men become "workers" by entering
assumed obligation is important because to enter an into, or consenting to, the employment contract,
obligation-to commit oneself-is to create a new social women become "wives" by entering into the mar-
relationship. The idea is also very radical, because it riage contract, and it has even been argued by some
depends on the assumption that individuals are free classic contract theorists and defenders of slavery in
and equal to each other. The only way, therefore, that the Old South that "slaves" are constituted through a
this assumption can be maintained and legitimate contract. To be sure, socialists and feminists have
government created is through free agreement, or the argued that the marriage and employment contracts
voluntary creation of such an arrangement. The idea are not valid contracts-that workers and wives, like
of self-assumed obligation thus turned the justifica- slaves, are coerced. Such an argument implies that

179
Obligation, Freedom and Feminism Mmah 1992

consequently there are no "obligations", merely en- cause any single promise presupposes that obliga-
forced obedience. However, the status of Hirsch- tions bind. To say "I promise" or the equivalent
mann's nonconsensual obligations is not clear. She would be meaningless if there were not an intersub-
mentions "unfair bargaining positions," for example jective understanding that to say these words is to
(1989, 1239), but what does this imply for her major commit oneself (see Pateman 1985, ch. 2).1 The prac-
claim that obligations are given and nonconsensual? tice of self-assumed obligation therefore entails the
Are they valid? Her answer in the case of mothers' social relations, connection, responsibility, and, I
given obligation to care for their children (the focus of would add trust, stressed by Hirschmann.
her argument) is equivocal (p. 1240). But this avoids This argument does not answer Hirschmann's
the question whether "obligation" is the appropriate question why abstract individualism is important in
term, in this case, or in the case of workers and theories of political obligation. Instead, it illustrates
slaves, or whether other terms should be used. the kind of problems generated by widespread ad-
Hirschmann notes that she does not discuss herence to this standpoint. However, like Sinopoli
"duty" (ibid., 1243); but she does not mention (Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, 222), I am not clear
"ought" or "obedience" either. "Nonconsensual ob- exactly what kind of question Hirschmann is ask-
ligation" could refer, depending on the context, to a ing-whether about cause or meaning. She charges
variety of social relations. For instance, such "obliga- that critics of consent theory have not investigated
tions" might be an example of enforced obedience. the cause of abstract individualism. Her own argu-
Or "duty" might be the relevant concept: we do not ment about mother-only childrearing, and masculine
choose our duties, they come with our involuntary "reactive autonomy" appears to be causal. Hir-
stations in life. Again, "nonconsensual obligation" schmann claims that reactive autonomy "justifies-
could refer to actions that we ought to perform or indeed, creates and perpetuates-the radical and
from which we should forbear or point to the fact that abstract individualism of liberal democratic theory,
there are others, at home or far away, for whom we the market model of society, a theory that obligation
should care. We may be forced to do something, or can exist only by virtue of voluntary assumption"
morally we ought to do it-but we do not have an (1989, 1237).
obligation to do so unless we have made an explicit One difficulty with this approach is that some great
commitment. In colloquial speech "obligation" is critics of abstract individualism-namely, Rousseau,
often used broadly to cover "ought" and "duty", but Hegel, and Marx-either explicitly excluded women
that is no reason for political theorists to fail to from citizenship or failed to break free from patriar-
distinguish them. To assume an obligation takes an chal theory.2 More importantly, if Hirschmann
individual beyond a personal moral judgment (I wishes to give an account of patriarchy as "constitut-
ought to do [not do] X) to a public commitment to ed by the cultural, social, political, sexual, economic
action (forbearance) and into a new relationship and and interpersonal structures of the modern liberal
responsibility. era" (Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, 226), then I find
it hard to see why a causal question about abstract
individualism is appropriate or why mothers' caring
ABSTRACT INDIVIDUALISM for their children should bear the weight of explana-
tion.
Hirschmann's argument presupposes that the con- Indeed, in her reply to Sinopoli Hirschmann ap-
cept of self-assumed obligation depends on abstract pears to draw back from causal argument, treating
individualism. On the contrary, abstract individual- object relations theory as interpretive (ibid.,) and
ism prevents an adequate understanding of obliga- stating that she is "build[ing] an account" that un-
tion and, in its most radical form (as Hobbes demon- derstands "a world of meaning that allows only
strated), makes obligation impossible. Individuals certain ideas and views to emerge" (p. 229). Thus,
seen in abstraction from each other and their social she seems to be asking how "the individual" is
relations can necessarily make judgments only from a interpreted, or what meaning is given to the "indi-
subjective, self-interested perspective, and obligation vidual" and the "self" in the modern liberal era. An
must be seen as a series of discrete acts. Thus, elucidation of this meaning(s) does not require a
abstract individualism generates an endemic problem discussion of mothering. To imagine that individuals
about entering and keeping commitments, best known could be seen as if they were separate from their
in the formulation of the "problem" of promising. relations and institutions was a brillant feat of theo-
To assume an obligation is to commit oneself retical innovation. This development occurred as the
(promise). But why should promises be kept? From "old world" of tradition and natural, ascribed hierar-
an abstractly individualist viewpoint there is no good chy was giving way to the "new world" of universal-
reason at all; self-interest will dictate that any promise ism, equality, and freedom, the world of the market
might be broken. From an alternative perspective that and constitutional government. For the first time
might be called social individuality, there is no gen- "individuals" appeared, outside of any network of
eral problem about obligation (which is not to say that duties and obedience; to be a "free individual" meant
no questions arise about assuming and fulfilling that the old constraints were swept away.
obligations). Self-assumed obligation is a social prac- Theorists were faced with the new, general prob-
tice and individuals can create obligations only be- lem about power and government generated by the

180
American Political Science Review Vol. 86, No. 1

premise of individual freedom and equality. If the political obligation theory" (p. 229; see also p. 226),
problem was to be circumvented and individuals but what is the connection between theory, women's
were to (be said to) consent to modern govern- duties as mothers, and their citizenship in practice?
ment-or to make the point another way-if new She also comments that she is not "suggesting that
constraints were to be instituted, the advantages of we model political obligations on the relationship
(modern) government had to be made clear. Here, of between mother and child" (1989, 1242), but this still
course, theorists used the device of the state of nature leaves open the question of how motherhood; citizen-
in which its inhabitants were pictured as abstracted, ship; and women's political obligation, duty, or obe-
to a greater or lesser degree, from the bonds of social dience are connected.
life (from the "old world") and subject to insecurity An emphasis on exclusion obscures the fact that
or even war. Hence, a "new world" was needed. the political inclusion of women is at issue too. Classic
Reason then dictated that they should enter into the contract theory is about women's inclusion into the
original contract and continue, as subsequent gener- political order as men's subordinates, as well as their
ations should also continue, to give consent. Abstract exclusion from citizenship. Exclusion from citizen-
individualism remains influential, I would suggest, ship did not mean that women were excluded as
because it enables theorists to avoid asking critical political subjects or that they had no political duties,
questions about social structures and to assume that even though women's inclusion is not discussed by
political obligation is "given." All that remains is to political theorists. Contemporary theorists assume
show how consent can be said to take place. that their arguments can apply to women or men
Stories about original contracts describe the cre- (many of them now carefully add "she" even where
ation of a new, free political order, or civil society, in completely inappropriate), but they do not ask
which individuals become citizens. The "individuals" whether men's and women's political incorporation
in question, as Hirschmann stresses, are masculine. has taken the same form or, now that women have
Sexual difference, as constructed by the classic con- won virtual equality in formal rights with men,
tract theorists, is a political difference-the difference whether the meaning of citizenship is the same for
between freedom and subordination. Their picture of both sexes.
manhood and womanhood is a political construct, For instance, theorists of political obligation never
albeit that they use the language of nature. Only look to see if there has been a vehicle for women's
men, therefore, can create the new body politic and political inclusion that corresponds to that of "sol-
ties of political obligation. They establish the modern, dier" or "worker" for men. In some recent work, I
"free" patriarchal order. (For details of the preceding have begun to explore "motherhood" as a political
argument, see Pateman 1988). The classic contract status and as a means of political incorporation from
theorists had reason to attack the divine right of arguments about Republican motherhood in the
kings, despotism in the state, and claims by patriar- United States to arguments and policies about popu-
chal theorists that kings and fathers were one and the lation decline, eugenics and abortion and controver-
same (the "old world"). They had no wish, however, sies about the welfare state (see Pateman 1992).
to overthrow men's jurisdiction over women; rather, Political theorists claim that the ultimate duty of
they had a reason to modernize patriarchy because citizens is to be willing, if the state so demands, to
they had vital interests at stake as men. risk or give up their lives as soldiers. They do not stop
Does this mean that women are, therefore, ex- to consider the significance that until very recently
cluded from the new political order? Hirschmann's only men have been called as soldiers, or to consider
answer appears to be that they are, but the implications whether an analogous duty to risk their lives has been
of her argument for women's citizenship are unclear. demanded of women-in bearing babies to provide
the population and future citizens of the state.
"Motherhood", in this sense, does not mean rela-
CITIZENSHIP tions between mothers and children; rather, it refers
to the political tasks, service, and contribution of
The conventional subject matter under the heading women that can be compared to the political contri-
political obligation is the relation between citizens and bution of men as workers or soldiers. The paradox is
state. Hirschmann (1989) discusses some contempo- that motherhood has been constructed as quintessen-
rary theorists of political obligation, and subse- tially private, so that women's political duty of moth-
quently states, "My focus is political obligation" erhood has been seen as opposed to citizenship. This
(Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, 228). Her argument construction has been challenged by feminists, many
about women, though, is not about women's obliga- of whom have demanded, at least since the 1790s,
tion as citizens but women's obligation in the family, that motherhood, as a service to the state, should be
especially as mothers. Feminists may well argue that part of citizenship.
this is a political question, or that women's public Hirschmann states that the "contingent gender
standing as citizens cannot be understood without bias of voluntarist obligation"-that is, cultural bias
taking account of their private status, but Hir- and practices that deny women opportunities for
schmann does not spell out how the two are con- consent, and exclude women from standard means of
nected. She remarks, "the point of my original article consent (1989, 1229)-treats women as "incapable of
[was to] highlight women's systematic exclusion from consent." Even if a capacity for consent is granted,

181
Obligation, Freedom and Feminism March 1992

women are excluded because their experiences are dom, a social conception in which freedom inheres in
denied (p. 1240). Certainly, women's experiences are a certain form of sociopolitical relations (relations that
denied political significance by political theorists; the include "oughts"). The idea of "obligation" enables
problem is that this denial takes place in a context individuals to do more than take these relations as
where women are included in (not excluded from) given; it allows them both to reinforce interdepen-
the "standard" practices of consent, whether these dencies where appropriate and to create new bonds.
are part of marriage, sexual relations, voting, or other Obligation is thus a means through which individuals
activities typically held to indicate consent. and associations can exercise, maintain, and some-
times, depending on the character and content of the
bonds, enhance their freedom.
Hirschmann states that "the purpose of a feminist
FREEDOM approach to obligation is not to bind us more tightly
to the state or to relations" (1989, 1242), but her
Hirschmann argues that women's exclusion derives argument about given "obligation" points in that
from the priority given to negative liberty or reactive direction. Liberal theory is not alone in giving priority
autonomy in obligation theory. A feminist theory, to freedom; socialist theory has also shared that goal.
therefore, would not give freedom priority (1989, Liberalism and socialism, however, have been patri-
1241). Such a conclusion depends on the identifica- archal in theory and practice. Feminists need to do a
tion of freedom with absolute, negative freedom and good deal of theoretical reformulation, and I endeav-
a view of positive liberty as coercive (p. 1234).4 ored to contribute to that task in The Sexual Contract,
Hirschmann writes, for example, that consent (i.e., where I looked at the construction of various dichot-
obligation) "rests on a concept of liberty as absence of omies, notably public/private, that have been central
restraint" (ibid.). This argument entails that any bond to both the understanding of their subject matter by
created when an individual assumes an obligation is "political" theorists and the practice of contract in-
a restraint on freedom, but, as I have argued, this is volving property in the person. Feminists have no
to misunderstand obligation-and its connection to need to jetison the concept of obligation or, indeed,
freedom. freedom, (there are a variety of nonnegative views
Sinopoli criticises Hirschmann for an overly atom- available on which to draw), but theoretical work
istic reading of Locke (Sinopoli and Hirschmann goes only so far; the structure of social and political
1991, 224), but the criticism of her reading of the institutions also has to be confronted. Contemporary
classic texts can be taken further. She writes of "the theories of political obligation typically assume that a
absolute natural freedom of the state of nature out- free political order exists, but this is not self-evidently
lined by the social contract theorists" (1989, 1234), but the case.
this is true only of Hobbes. All the other classic Feminists would be ill advised to give up the
contract theorists picture the natural condition as one priority of freedom, for no one else has given much
of bonds and relations between the inhabitants, in- heed to the problem of men's power and women's
cluding conjugal and familial ties. Hirschmann also subordination. This is not to suggest that feminists
claims that since freedom is the "hallmark of human- should not be concerned with care, which Hir-
ity," women are not seen as human; that if they were, schmann sees as the feminist priority, but to draw
they would have a right to freedom (1989, 1236). I attention to two questions. The first is whether the
would not deny that doubts have been cast on voice of care is always that of the powerless (see
women's human status by extreme misogynists and Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, 226). The powerful
patriarchalists, but the classic contract theorists are talk of noblesse oblige, and of the caring duties of
hardly guilty of this. On the contrary, not only does "good masters" of all kinds, and are very accom-
Hobbes's portrayal of the natural condition include plished at caring for each other. The second question
the striking presupposition that natural freedom and is whether a political order in which all are cared for
equality are the birthright of women as well as can be created if freedom for all is relinquished as a
men-in the state of nature women are lords (see priority.
Pateman 1991)-but the other contract theorists have CAROLEPATEMAN
to admit women's freedom at the same time that they
deny it.5 In their states of nature, unlike Hobbes's, University of California, Los Angeles
marriage exists and this "natural" relation is carried
over into civil society. They all agree that marriage is
based on a contract (this is true even of Hegel) and
women are parties to this contract. Therefore, it I am grateful to Carole Pateman for providing this
follows that women share in freedom and the human opportunity to expand on several complex points that
status signified by "consent", notwithstanding that had to be compressed in my original article (Hir-
their "natural" subordination to men is institutional- schmann 1989) but that I take up in my book Rethink-
ized through the original contract (see Pateman 1988). ing Obligation: A Feminist Method for Political Theory
Hobbes showed that an abstract, absolute concep- (1992). My argument raised many controversial is-
tion of freedom is no freedom at all. Self-assumed sues, not all of which could be addressed within the
obligation presupposes a very different idea of free- confines of a single article. Though I hope that my

182
American Political Science Review Vol. 86, No. 1

new book addresses these issues satisfactorily, Pate- freedom in the modern era. Furthermore, in the
man's commentary raises important ideas that merit process, I show that this dichotomy between free
discussion in these pages. men and bonded women is a constitutive element of
There are many similarities between Pateman's modern understandings of the terms freedom and
work and my own. Indeed, many of the arguments obligation;they demand women's continued exclusion
she makes in her critique are at least guiding assump- from the class of "free" political actors, by definition.
tions, if not explicit aspects, of my own argument. As I particularly stressed, political obligation on the
We are both concerned with political obligation, the social contract model is flawed not merely because it
social contract, and state legitimacy as they relate to gives an important role to individual choice per se,
the historical, political, ethical, and philosophical but rather for its artificial and oversimplified reifica-
position of women. We both believe that there is a tion of choice, as well as of human relationship
severe disjunction in liberal obligation theory be- (Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, esp. 230). This di-
tween the language of voluntarism and the reality of chotomy then carries over into the rest of human
coercion for women and other groups. We both social relations: men are naturally free, women natu-
emphasize participatory democracy as an important rally unfree. But in order for women to gain greater
feature of a theory of political obligation. Finally, we freedom and choice, men must recognize their share
both see a problematic relationship between the in- in these unchosen obligations; and we must all rec-
dividual and society in modern obligation theory. ognize the role of such "private" activities in consti-
But whereas Pateman seems to want to refine that tuting the public realm.
relationship, I am interested in questioning our un- Liberal obligation theory tacitly admits the impor-
derstanding of it altogether by considering the epis- tance of the nonconsensual obligations represented
temological framework that determines the meaning by women's experience. But it publicly denigrates
of the terms involved. This leads (as Pateman indi- them; and that is one of the purposes of its particu-
cates) to disagreements between us about the priority larly modern version of the public/private split. That
of freedom and the meaning of consent. But these, I they seem unimportant to liberal theory stems not
believe, are by-products of our strongest disagree- from their inherent value but from their bifurcated
ment-over how best to conduct feminist analyses of representation. By taking all of the aspects of life that
political theory. Whereas Pateman's critique of patri- cannot be honestly described as contractual, assigning
archy seeks to alter the particular construction of them to women (even under the name of "duties," as
gender relationships within a liberal epistemological if that answered, rather than begged, the question of
framework, I seek to analyze the framework itself and choice), and then overtly disvaluing them, liberal
to identify the bias that exists in the epistemological theory can ensure that these aspects are taken care of
underpinnings that define the modern world. The without having to recognize the contradictions they
problematic relationships between individual and pose for the theory. This, then, leaves men ostensibly
community, freedom and authority, and male power free in the public sphere to choose (allegedly) all of
and female subjugation are not to be addressed by their connections, relationships, and obligations.
reorganizing the pieces on the board. Rather, the board Pateman (1979, 1985) is rightly critical of consent
itself must be reassessed and reconfigured before any theory for its disingenuous elitism. She is attracted to
such reorganization will have the desired effect. a Rousseauist participatory democracy because it
provides for more genuine individual participation
and choice, since citizens have a role in deciding the
content of their obligations-i.e. what they will con-
CHOICE, CONSENT, AND sent to. But within the existing epistemological frame-
GIVEN OBLIGATION work, this focus on equal citizens freely choosing
offers a consistent rendering of the liberal ideal.6 A
Pateman presents my argument as follows: women totally voluntarist theory of obligation is possible only
have traditionally been considered naturally bound to because of the existence of a class of people who take
care for husbands, children, and others. But rather than care of the nonconsensual obligations that character-
seeing this historical bondage as problematic, we need ize human life. Women's subjugation has endured
to accept it as a new feminist starting point for thinking precisely because of theorists' refusal to incorporate
about politics. In short, she believes, my feminist the- the aspects of life typified in women's experience; it is
ory of obligation could be taken to glorify women's because of the theoretical contradictions they pose
oppression and exploitation and could give rise to a sort that women must be relegated to the private sphere
of feminist totalitarianism where individual difference and then devalued.
and choice are suppressed in the interests of care. Pateman's desire to create the conditions that can
But Pateman's misconstrual is obvious. In seeking provide for better choice is in itself admirable. I, too,
to construct an alternate vision of obligation based on am interested in creating such conditions, for wom-
a feminist standpoint of connection and mutual rec- en's choicelessness in history is pernicious and pres-
ognition, I refer to women's history of care not as a ents a serious contradiction for.modern (liberal) pol-
simplistic endorsement of women's lack of choice but itics. But the argument cannot stop there; to focus
to understand why it is that women have historically only on choice leads one into the trap of taking a
lacked choice while men have defined and exercised reified masculinist experience as the norm that

183
Obligation, Freedom and Feminism March 1992

women should follow. Pateman does this, for in- THE PRIORITY OF FREEDOM
stance, in calling the liberal abstraction of individuals
from relationships and institutions "brilliant" (p. Hence, at least onie "connection between theory,
180); for in reality, it was brilliant only for (white, women's duties as mothers, and their citizenship in
bourgeois) men, since this notion of freedom and practice" (as Pateman calls for, p. 181) is clear.
individualism vitally depended on the subjugation of Consent theorists do not want to explore the impli-
large groups of other people, particularly women. cations of "private" relationships for public ones,
because this would require them to compromise the
That consent theory excludes women is not just
natural liberty they wish to claim for men. As I have
happenstance (any more than it is conscious conspir-
argued twice already, theorists like Locke do not
acy) but a function of the epistemological structure of present as starkly negative a conception of liberty as
liberalism. It is only because liberalism has the public Hobbes (Hirschmann 1989, 1233-34; Sinopoli and
language of contract and can reify and separate Hirschmann 1991, 228); yet the foundation of their
noncontractual reality from the public discourse of consent theory is importantly negative. Pateman's
political theory that the ideology is sustainable claim that only Hobbes talks of "the absolute natural
(Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, 228). And this em- freedom of the state of nature" (p. 182) is far from
phasis on the public is possible only because of a true. Indeed, even though Rousseau embraces posi-
repressed private realm, that is, a realm of noncon- tive liberty in his ideal social contract, he is very
tractual obligations assigned to women and then similar to Hobbes in his description of the early stages
repressed or conveniently forgotten when liberal ob- of the state of nature, in that natural freedom is
ligation theory is written. But when something is limited only by physical laws of nature (such as
repressed, it is still present even though such pres- gravity) and eventually, as people come into more
ence is consciously denied. frequent contact with one another, by the relative
This certainly does not mean that feminists need to strength of other individuals.
glorify women's exploitation as caretakers or that we Locke himself casts the laws of nature as "limits" to
cannot critically assess and reject patriarchy. But even natural freedom, which might suggest positive liberty
granting that feminists do not have obligations to the (Hirschmann 1989, 1233-34). But while such laws are
existing patriarchal context does not mean that wom- moral maxims (e.g., "Don't take more than you can
en-any more than men-can break free of all con- use, because God did not give the earth for us to
texts to drift in abstract freedom. Indeed, their great- spoil"), they are also rational conclusions. For exam-
ple, taking more than you can use wastes your labor
est obligation may be to forge a new context-which
in many ways is what feminism is all about. (although once money is developed, it is rational to
acquire more than you can use. Macpherson 1962).
Thus, my account of given obligation is hardly "the
But for Locke, it is as wrong to talk about rationality
'given' obligation that is central to almost all contem-
"limiting" your freedom as it is to talk about gravity
porary consent theory" (p. 179). The givenness of doing so: Why would anyone want to work for an
obligation in consent theory is covert, hidden, and entire day picking apples when half of them will
even subverted to the end of an overt and explicit spoil? God did not make men so imperfect. Or to the
public ideology of choice and freedom.7 My work extent that he did and individual men violate or
suggests that theorists need to attend to the aspects cannot access their God-given rationality, the social
of human existence that liberalism limits to the pri- contract provides the remedy to make men do what
vate sphere in order thereby to learn more about all they should want to do if they were rational enough.
kinds of obligation (including particularly political Hence, people who are not rational enough to see the
obligation), because "private" obligations constitute need to consent to the social contract are said to do so
the public. The dichotomy between public and pri- tacitly. Locke's natural freedom is thus just as abso-
vate obligation itself needs to be questioned. Pateman lute as Hobbes's, even if the parameters of that
claims to challenge that dichotomy, but her remarks freedom shift, and he binds people by as much of a
above actually endorse it. What could it mean to talk "rational fiat" as does Hobbes (Hirschmann 1989,
about "women's obligations as citizens" (which she 1239). If the laws of nature were only moral maxims
opposes to "women's obligation in the family" [p. and Locke defined freedom positively, then why
181]) in the sixteenth century, for instance? Such would we have to consent to government in the first
political obligations, like women's private obliga- place? Why would Locke not simply tell us what we
tions, were of obedience only-moreover, of obedi- should and should not do?8
ence within the privatesphere, to husbands and fathers. Pateman's parallel claim that Hobbes is a sexual
Pateman oversimplifies the distinctions between ob- egalitarian is similarly problematic. While Hobbes
ligation, duty, and obedience by ignoring how these argues that men and women are equal in the state of
terms are shuffled about and defined to suit patriar- nature, women suddenly drop out of Hobbes's dis-
chal theoretical needs. To say that women were course in the formation of civil society. He does not
"included" in consent theory is thus misleading. It is even include them in his description of the family, let
more accurate to say that they are subsumed-and alone discuss their role as citizens (Hobbes 1968, 253).
consumed-by it. Their agency is not only made This contradiction reveals that his social contract is
invisible, but effectively disabled as well. possible only if women become disempowered. In

184
American Political Science Review Vol. 86, No. 1

order to make sense of the fact that only men partic- essential to the successful working of the social
ipate in the social contract, Pateman argues that the contract as Emile's participation in the assembly. But
patriarchal nuclear family must predate the social the difference in their roles also reveals that Sophie is
contract (1988, 49); but she also notes the difficulty of unilaterally Emile's inferior from a moral-not to
this position. If women's childrearing created a tem- mention a political-perspective, primarily because
porary strategic disadvantage that enabled men to of women's animal sexuality (Rousseau 1979). Rous-
subjugate them, it is more likely to assume that seau clearly saw that the domestic sphere was impor-
infants would be abandoned by women. Faced with tant; but in the process of its dichotomization from
the choice of keeping a child and being subservient to the public, women are dehumanized. Rousseau's
a man or abandoning the child and maintaining her reassurance that women are "separate but equal"
ability to fight men on an equal basis, Hobbesian belies the reality that draws him to this construction
woman should choose the latter. of public and private.
Indeed, it would have made much more sense for This logic underlies other social contract theorists
Hobbes to declare that women consent equally to the as well, and accounts for the continued disempower-
social contract and then have the sovereign create ment and nonrecognition of women (see Hirschmann
patriarchy by commanding women to obey their 1992, chaps. 1-2). Hobbes postulates sexual equality
husbands. But while this would be more consistent in the state of nature but then introduces a radical
with natural sexual equality, it would also, paradoxi- disjuncture in the effort to disempower women in the
cally, make the structural sexism of Hobbes's social social contract. Similarly, Locke, while making cer-
contract more apparent. (For a fuller discussion, see tain gestures toward sexual equality (Sinopoli and
Hirschmann 1992, chap. 1 but also Di Stefano 1983). Hirschmann 1991, 228), nevertheless requires wom-
In light of this, Pateman's observation that Hobbes en's obedience to husbands to make his theory work.
was raised by women is rather curious, because it In defining the public as the realm of the essentially
supports my argument. As Di Stefano (1991) argues, human and the private as tacitly important but
Hobbes's life resonates strongly with an object-rela- overtly unimportant, women are by definition less
tional reading of his theory. It is, at least in part, than human because they are less than men.
because of the power of the mother that natural The issue of sexual equality is directly tied to the
women appear monstrous; and it is because of the priority of freedom; for as long as freedom is prior to
need to "escape the female" that women must dis- other sorts of concepts, women will continue to be
appear from Hobbes's account of the social contract considered men's inferiors. Politically, the centrality
and become subordinate to men. The social contract of freedom allows men to continue to shun their
and absolute authority of the sovereign represent the nonconsensual obligations in the name of freedom. It
turn to the father in the safe passage he offers away leaves intact a public ideology that somehow, women
from nature and the power of the mother to "nour- are less human than men because they cannot protect
ish, or expose" the child (Hobbes 1968, 254; see also their freedom by asserting themselves, standing up
Flax 1983). for themselves, by breaking free of their ties. Instead,
Hence, it is difficult to understand what Pateman as Gilligan's studies argue, women's experience sug-
can mean by saying that "the classic contract theorists gests a different reality (Gilligan 1982; Gilligan, Ly-
are hardly guilty" of saying that women are less than ons, and Hanmer 1990). It can reveal a moral schema
human, something she reserves for "extreme misog- that gives priority to aspects of human life that
ynists and patriarchalists" (p. 182); for if women's liberalism either makes invisible or allows the pow-
powerlessness is a necessary prescription for men's erful to repress when convenient.
activity in politics, and public and political activity are Hence, I agree with Pateman that liberal theorists
defined as the essentially human, then are women "have to admit women's freedom at the same time
not prohibited from engaging in the activities that that they deny it" (p. 000). Our difference seems to be
make them human? Are they not so prohibited on the that she wants to focus on the admission, while I seek
basis that they are not, in fact, human? Women's to understand the denial. I take my approach because
humanity could not be completely obliterated, of in understanding the denial, we unearth the theories'
course; if men are to attain recognition, women must contradictions so that we may attempt to resolve
retain enough humanity to give this recognition at them through a new theory. Certainly, "a new story
least a minimal value.9 But this is tacit at best; they about freedom is urgently needed" (Pateman 1988,
are certainly less than fully human. Again, there is a 232-33); and feminists should be engaged in its telling
discordance between the overt, conscious statements (Hirschmann 1990). But freedom, from a feminist
of liberal obligation theorists and the meaning that standpoint, must undergo a radical shift; it must be
underlies those statements; while liberalism tacitly reconceptualized as part of other concepts, such as
utilizes a notion of different degrees of humanity, it obligation, equality, and justice. It entails the priority
explicitly employs an either/or typology: humans of connection and relationship, enabling us to see
participate, women do not. that the well-being of others may enhance one's own
Rousseau is only the most explicit example of this capacity to act. In the process of this telling, it
phenomenon. There is a superficial way in which becomes clear that freedom is decentered: theoreti-
Rousseau seems to recognize the humanity of wom- cally, it cannot sustain the hegemonic centrality that
en: Sophie's role in the home is claimed to be as it occupies in liberal theory and simultaneously work

185
Obligation, Freedom and Feminism March 1992

interactively with these other concepts. This does not interests at stake as men" (p. 181). She thus suggests
mean that freedom is not vital or should be jetisoned. a conspiracy: men simply have not wanted to give up
Indeed, I clearly reject such a view (Hirschmann power. While this may be true in many ways, it does
1989, 1242; Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, 229-30). not go far enough; or perhaps it goes too far in
Rather, to paraphrase Pateman's closing sentence, attributing such motives to men. As I have empha-
the question is whether a political order in which all sized in my two earlier accounts, men suffer from the
are truly free can be created if care is relegated to the reified and abstract presentation of obligation almost
shadowy corners of a devalued and segregated pri- as much as women, though their position of power
vate sphere. has allowed them to circumvent many of its disad-
vantages. My approach, in contrast, shows why men
might be unwilling to give up such power; why such
EPISTEMOLOGY unwillingness might exist without consciousness of
that power (or indeed, of that unwillingness); and
While I have argued that Pateman's earlier work thus also why it might endure even in the face of
extends liberalism even as it claims to challenge it, I feminist arguments showing the hypocrasy and self-
have read her later work as agreeing with my argu- contradiction of liberalism. My approach also indi-
ments. In The Sexual Contract, she holds that "in cates how such power can translate into particular
modern civil society individual freedom is uncon- constructions of the political and how social relations
strained" for men only because of the "mastery and can be structured to support that vision of politics.
obedience" of women and that accordingly, "[a] free Attention to such epistemological issues is what
order cannot be a contractual order" (1988, 232). She gets feminists beyond "Men are the problem, femi-
problematizes the meaning of individual and links this nism the solution." By understanding the sexism of
to patriarchal dualities: "When feminists forget that, liberal epistemology, we can see that both men and
though acceptance of the 'individual' may be politi- women are caught in a particular construction of
cally necessary, so also is rejection, they acquiesce in reality that is simultaneously a product and a con-
the patriarchal construction of womanhood" (p. 14). strictor of human action. If the entrenchment in
And, of course, she has just mentioned "social indi- liberal theory of the public/private dichotomy guar-
viduality." In such passages, she seems to be work- antees the obliteration of women's experience from
ing toward the transcendence of duality and toward our ordinary-language understanding of political ob-
the feminist perspective of connection and relation- ligation, and if gender bias relates to the very episte-
ship that I develop through my feminist analysis of mological framework that defines the conceptual ter-
obligation. minology in which theories operate, then any
But these apparent similarities mask a deeper divi- analysis of "the problem of women" within the
sion between us which Pateman may or may not boundaries of existing theories of obligation will only
recognize but certainly does not discuss, a division be able to go so far. Such analyses will have only
over the epistemological issues that lie at the heart of limited depth by definition, because our conceptual
my argument. Neither Pateman nor Sinopoli have vocabulary is itself biased.
acknowledged my key claim that structural gender A consideration of epistemology helps clarify the
bias is structural because it is epistemological. This connections between choice, relationship, and obli-
certainly resulted in Sinopoli's missing the point of gation. Whatever women's history of coercion under
my article, and I believe it affects Pateman's reading patriarchy has been, contemporary women do have
as well. Pateman holds that the approach of object more choices than ever before. These choices present
relations is unnecessary because "the case can be perplexing and often intractable dilemmas, but they
made that standard arguments about political obliga- mark women's ability to assume obligations as they
tion are patriarchal from a consideration of classic and see fit and to act as free agents. Indeed, these choices
contemporary arguments" (p. 179).1o By this, I as- are in part due to liberalism-not the natural evolu-
sume she means that political obligation theory holds tion of liberal theory itself but feminist efforts to push
internal contradictions that do not make sense of the logic of liberalism to its extreme conclusion (Hir-
women's exclusion from political power. I agree that schmann 1989, 1240).
such a case can be made. She herself makes that case Yet even if we say that "women" have more
admirably; and I engage in a similar analysis (Hir- choices, the question as to which women really have
schmann 1992, chaps. 1-2). But that hardly precludes those choices and what those choices are remains
the epistemological argument. Indeed, it emphasizes crucial. The feminist literature that informs my own
the need for it, because it highlights the question, argument suggests that to the degree that such choice
Why is it that such contradictions have been histori- is genuine, women's experience reveals that choice,
cally tolerated in theorists' efforts to exclude women though important, is not enough. It would seem that
from political power? How and why has liberalism the original situation imposed on women by their
sustained itself in the face of these contradictions? nonconsensual obligations reflects particular aspects
Pateman says that "the classic contract theorists of human existence that should not be simply aban-
had reason to attack the divine right of kings.... doned as relics of a patriarchal past but explored and
they had no wish, however, to overthrow men's examined as material for new feminist understand-
jurisdiction over women . . . because they had vital ings of human relationship. Such examination is

186
American Political Science Review Vol. 86, No. 1

necessary to change the patriarchal structures within the sort of reductive and dichotomous treatment of
which women are fated never to have as much choice cause that Pateman seems to endorse.
as men. Feminism is certainly interested in challenging
This might seem circular; but it is so only from the such dualistic approaches to cause and meaning
standpoint of liberalism's dedication to the dichot- (Harding 1986). Perhaps the problem is due to a
omy between free men and subservient women. failure to distinguish between reasons and causes.
Taking obligation as a starting point is very different Reasonsmight better capture the multifacetedness of a
from taking it as an end point; and this is the signifi- feminist vision of explanation; for it allows for the
cance of taking given obligation as an epistemological synergistic, dynamic, and interactive qualities of hu-
and methodological claim (see Hirschmann 1989, man relationships without either abandoning the
1243). Treating given obligation as an end point question Why does this happen? or enshrining it in
results in the preservation of the oppressive status some social-scientific charade. Or if the language of
quo that Pateman rightly fears. But as a starting causation must be used, perhaps it should be consid-
point, from the perspective of women's experience, ered a contributing, rather than an efficient, cause; if
nonconsensual aspects of human relationships are the final cause of a political theory lies in particular
vital to our humanity. Rather than segregate them in historical events, such as the exclusion crisis or civil
the private sphere and consign them to nonpolitical war, the social relations of childrearing create the
female nonactors, feminism requires that men, as psychological and cultural environment that influ-
well as women, recognize and fulfill these given ences how theorists choose to respond to these
political phenomena. To ignore such cultural aspects
obligations. Only then can both women and men take
seems as misguided as to reduce childrearing rela-
part in greater and more genuine choice.
tions to a simple, singular cause of everything we
In the process, of course, the dichotomy between
find in liberal theory.
choice (freedom) and choicelessness (bondage) is
Feminists do not have to endorse the exact same
transformed into a relationship between the two,
approaches in order to be effective; nor can we
since it is revealed that many aspects of choice are assume that any individual author has the final word
contextual and intimately tied up with things about on a given topic in feminist or political theory. I think
which we have no choice. Feminists cannot end the it is important for nonfeminists in political science to
dualities of "natural/civil, private/public, women/in- understand this about feminism. So, it is particularly
dividual" that Pateman rightly locates at the heart of gratifying that two feminist political theorists are able
the patriarchy of liberal theory (1988, 232) without to engage in such a debate within these pages.
also challenging dualities between voluntaristic obli- Certainly, Pateman and I can agree that the differ-
gations and "natural" duties, choice and choiceless- ences between us are less important than our com-
ness, and freedom and obligation. By failing to rec- mon enterprise of exploring how the experiences of
ognize that this requires an alternate epistemology women can help us reformulate the way we conduct
and by failing to note how this must include some political theoretical inquiry.
idea of nonconsensual obligation, her solution tells
only half the story-and it is uncomfortably like the NANCY J. HIRSCHMANN
patriarchal half. Indeed, many of her remarks here The Mary IngrahamBunting Institute,
read as if she seeks only to fine-tune, rather than RadcliffeCollege and Cornell University
transcend, liberal paradigms.
Understanding the epistemological focus of my
work helps reveal why consent theory is so proble-
matic for feminists and how gendered experiences Notes
help produce particular perspectives that explain the
Hirschmann thanks Julie Mostov and Ian Shapiro for their
representation of reality that we find in liberal theory. comments and suggestions.
One can never reduce anything as complicated as 1. Rather oddly, Hirschmann gives an abstractly individu-
patriarchy to a single cause, as I have indicated alist account of promising. She writes, "The purpose of
(Sinopoli and Hirschmann 1991, 226); but that does promising as an institution is to ensure that people will keep
not mean gender psychology and standpoint episte- their word" (1989, 1239). But the practice of promising is
institutionalized word keeping (can anyone except an abstract
mology are not useful in explaining and understand- individualist ask about its purpose?). The attempt to ensure
ing the duration of patriarchal aspects of political that people keep faith is made through a variety of means.
thought. This concern with explanation does not 2. Sinopoli appears to present a similar objection (Sinopoli
make my argument reductively causal any more than and Hirschmann 1991, 223); but he refers to preliberal theo-
rists and so completely misses the point that general argu-
it ignores questions of cause. I addressed the ques- ments about political life that rely on abstract individualism
tion of causation versus meaning in my reply to are specifically modern doctrines.
Sinopoli, and Pateman is not clear why my remarks 3. Hirschmann neglects these aspects of consent, which are
do not satisfy her. However, Pateman's charge that I related to the "obligation" that women are held to have to
"draw back from causal argument" (p. 180) to bring allow men sexual access to their bodies. It can also be noted
that some women now become pregnant through artificial
in the issue of interpretation is severely misleading: insemination to avoid relations with men, because of fertility
How can I "draw back" from a position I never took problems, or to become "surrogate mothers." Another set of
in the first place? Indeed, I was critiquing precisely questions about consent and power are raised by these issues.

187
Obligation, Freedom and Feminism March 1992

4. In an argument calling for an end to dualisms, her


account of freedom depends on a very blunt dichotomy
References
between negative and positive freedom. Hirschmann dis-
misses Rousseau from consideration on the grounds that Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproductionof Mothering: Psy-
since he has a "positive" view of liberty, he is not a liberal choanalysisand the Sociologyof Gender. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
(1989, 1233), but it is not only liberals who are concerned with
Di Stefano, Christine. 1983. "Masculinity As Ideology in
political obligation. Political Theory: Hobbesian Man Considered." Women's
5. Hobbes was reared in a household full of women; but Studies InternationalForum 6:633-644.
Hobbes is the only classic contract theorist (and one of the few Di Stefano. 1991. Configurationsof Masculinity:A FeministReread-
political theorists) to start from the premise that women by ing in ModernPoliticalTheory.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
nature were as free as, and equal to, men. This seems to cast Flax, Jane. 1983. "Political Philosophy and the Patriarchal
doubt on Hirschmann's claims about mother-only childrearing. Unconscious: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Epistemol-
6. Pateman (1979) insists on a distinction between consent ogy and Metaphysics." In Discovering Reality, ed. Sandra
theory and her own theory primarily because in the former we Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka. Dordrecht, The Nether-
lands: D. Reidel.
have no influence over the content of what we may or may
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a DifferentVoice:PsychologicalTheoryand
not consent to, while in the latter such influence is para- Women'sDevelopment.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
mount. But surely, this is only a distinction between "liberal Gilligan, Carol, Nona P. Lyons, and Trudy Hanmer, eds.
democratic" consent and a more radical, egalitarian consent. 1990. Making Connections:The Relational Worlds of Adolescent
Consent can be a matter of meaningful choice (e.g., my Girls at Emma Willard School. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
husband's and my negotiating a schedule for sharing child sity Press.
care), as well as empty and meaningless (an illegal alien's Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism.
accepting below-subsistence wages). And while the former is Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
clearly superior to the latter (which is exemplified by social Hirschmann, Nancy J. 1989. "Freedom, Recognition, and
Obligation: A Feminist Approach to Political Theory."
contract theory), it nevertheless operates from similar as-
American Political Science Review 83:1227-44.
sumptions about individuals. While I certainly support the Hirschmann, Nancy J. 1990. "Three Concepts of Liberty: A
goal of enlarging women's choices, the feminist literature I Feminist Theory of Freedom." Presented at the annual
draw on suggests that social relationships will always contain meeting of the American Political Science Association, San
some elements of nonconsensual obligations. As long as these Francisco.
are denied, the abstraction of individuals from social relation- Hirschmann, Nancy J. 1992. Rethinking Obligation:A Feminist
ships persists. See Hirschmann 1992, chap. 2 for a fuller discus- Methodfor Political Theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
sion of my views on Pateman's theory of obligation; see Mapel Hobbes, Thomas. 1968. Leviathan. Ed. Crawford B. Macpher-
1990 for a similar (though not feminist) critique of Pateman. son. New York: Penguin Books.
Locke, John. 1990. Questions Concerningthe Law of Nature. Ed.
7. Similarly, the "caring" of noblesse oblige to which
Robert Horwitz, Jenny S. Clay, and Diskin Clay. Ithaca:
Pateman refers in closing hardly fits the account of caring Cornell University Press.
provided by Gilligan (1982; see also Gilligan, Lyons, and Macpherson, Crawford B. 1962. The Political Theory of Posses-
Hanmer 1990), which requires mutuality and interaction sive Individualism:Hobbes to Locke.London: Oxford Univer-
among subjects, rather than the imposition of the privileged sity Press.
person's perspective of how care is to be provided for others. Mapel, David R. 1990. "Democratic Voluntarism and the
8. Indeed, one could argue that in fact this is precisely what Problem of Justifying Political Bonds." Polity 6:233-53.
Locke does, particularly in Questions Concerning the Law of Okin, Susan Mahler. 1990. "Feminism, the Individual, and
Nature, where he distinguishes between "reason" and "right Contract Theory." Ethics 100:658-69.
Pateman, Carole. 1979. The Problem of Political Obligation: A
reason." Locke might hold that God purposely makes some
CriticalAnalysis of LiberalTheory. New York: John Wiley and
men irrationally "love the darkness" precisely so that all men Sons.
will inevitably move to the social contract; this would then Pateman, Carole. 1985. The Problem of Political Obligation: A
support Locke's implicit claim that his social contract is the Critique of LiberalTheory. Berkeley: University of California
only one that fits the divine order. But this even more strongly Press.
raises the question of why he felt compelled to hide this Pateman, Carole. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford
behind such a disingenuous account of consent. See Locke University Press.
1990, esp. quest. 1; cf. Hirschmann 1992, chap. 1. Pateman, Carole. 1991. "'God Hath Ordained to Man a
9. While the Hegelian master/slave dialectic from which I Helper': Hobbes, Patriarchy and Conjugal Right", in Femi-
nist Interpretationsand Political Theory, ed. Mary L. Shanley
develop the theme of recognition (Hirschmann 1989, 1236-37)
and Carole Pateman. College Park: Penn State Press.
indicates that the master (men) is dependent on at least a Pateman, Carole. N.d. "Equality, Difference, Subordination:
minimal human consciousness on the part of the slave (wom- The Politics of Motherhood and Women's Citizenship." In
en) for recognition, this could in fact be carried further. For Beyond Equality and Difference:Citizenship, Feminist Politics
men could receive recognition from animals and objects, just and Female Subjectivity, ed. Gisela Bock and Susan James.
as Hegel's slave receives it from nature. Women have cer- London: Routledge. Forthcoming.
tainly been considered animals, objects, and closer to nature Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1973. The Social Contract and Dis-
by political theorists-thus negating their humanity alto- courses. Trans. G. D. H. Cole. London: J. M. Dent and Son.
gether, not merely diminishing it. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1979. Emile; or, On Education. Trans.
Harold Bloom. New York: Basic Books.
10. This is a particularly curious claim, since Pateman
Sinopoli, Richard C., and Nancy J. Hirschmann. 1991. "Fem-
herself uses Freudian theory as an interpretive tool for read- inism and Liberal Theory." American Political ScienceReview
ing the sexual contract into liberal theory. Furthermore, I 85:221-32.
agree with Okin (1990, 664) that Pateman misreads Chodorow Young, Iris M. 1984. "Is Male Gender Identity the Cause of
(1978), whose work would be more useful than Freud's to Male Domination?" In Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory,
Pateman's argument. ed. Joyce Trebilcot. Totowa: Rowan & Allanheld.

188

You might also like