Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:02:28.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Precarity and Resistance: A Critique of Martha Fineman's Vulnerability Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2021

Benjamin P. Davis  and
Eric Aldieri
Benjamin P. Davis*
Affiliation:
Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto, 15 Devonshire Place, Toronto, OntarioCanada and Department of Philosophy, DePaul University, 2352 North Clifton Ave. Suite 130, Chicago, Illinois60614
Eric Aldieri*
Affiliation:
Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto, 15 Devonshire Place, Toronto, OntarioCanada and Department of Philosophy, DePaul University, 2352 North Clifton Ave. Suite 130, Chicago, Illinois60614
*
Corresponding authors. Email [email protected] and [email protected]
Corresponding authors. Email [email protected] and [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary feminist theory by and large agrees on criticizing the traditional, autonomous subject and instead maintains a relational, dependent self, but the vocabulary used to describe the latter remains contested. These contestations are seen in comparing the approach of some feminist legal theory, as demonstrated by Martha Fineman, to the approach of some feminist theory that draws on continental philosophy, as demonstrated by Judith Butler. Fineman's concept of vulnerability emphasizes the universality of vulnerability in the human condition, arguing that a “responsive state” is most conducive to producing subjects who are “resilient” in the face of neoliberal pressures. We argue that vulnerability, as an existential as opposed to a political description, is a limited rubric under which to organize against neoliberal forces. Further, we contend that Fineman's rhetoric of resilience risks reiterating a neoliberal logic of individualized self-management. In response, we look to Butler's concept of precarity, which underscores particular social conditions, as opposed to universal ontological vulnerabilities, that debilitate certain subjects. At stake is how we respond to neoliberal forces today: a vocabulary of precarity poses a more effective challenge than one of vulnerability, for it opens onto not merely individual or institutional resilience but grounded, communal resistance.

Type
Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , Spring 2021 , pp. 321 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hypatia, a Nonprofit Corporation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
American Heritage Dictionary. 2020. s.v. “Responsible,” https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=responsible.Google Scholar
Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 2006. Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 2009. Frames of war: When is life grievable? New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 2015. Notes toward a performative theory of assembly. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fineman, Martha. 2004. The autonomy myth: A theory of dependency. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha. 2014. Vulnerability, resilience, and LGBT youth. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 23 (2): 307–30.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha. 2015. Equality and difference: The restrained state. Emory Legal Studies Research Article 15–348.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha. 2017. Vulnerability and inevitable inequality. Oslo Law Review 4 (3): 133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 2013. Fortunes of feminism: From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. 2007. Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hong, Grace Kyungwon. 2015. Death beyond disavowal: The impossible politics of difference. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Robin. 2015. Resilience and melancholy: Pop music, feminism, and neoliberalism. Alresford: Zero Books.Google Scholar
Keller, Catherine. 2018. Political theology of the earth: Our planetary emergency and the struggle for a new public. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorey, Isabell. 2015. State of insecurity: Government of the precarious. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Murphy, Ann V. 2011. Corporeal vulnerability and the new humanism. Hypatia 26 (3): 575–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagle, Angela. 2018. The left case against open borders. American Affairs 2 (4): 17–30.Google Scholar
Petherbridge, Danielle. 2016. What's critical about vulnerability? Rethinking interdependence, recognition, and power. Hypatia 31 (3): 589–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, Sheryl, and Grant, Adam. 2017. Option B: Facing adversity, building resilience, and finding joy. New York: A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Sharpe, Christina. 2016. In the wake: On blackness and being. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Weil, Simone. 2001. Prospects: Are we heading for the proletarian revolution? In Oppression and liberty. Trans. Arthur Wills and John Petrie. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weil, Simone. 2005. Human personality. In Simone Weil: An anthology. Trans. Miles, Siân. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Zambrana, Rocío. 2013. Paradoxes of neoliberalism and the tasks of critical theory. Critical Horizons 14 (2): 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, Robin. 2018. Precarity is a feminist issue: Gender and contingent labor in the academy. Hypatia 33 (2): 235–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar