Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:29:53.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dependency Relations: Corporeal Vulnerability and Norms of Personhood in Hobbes and Kittay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Abstract

Theories of the liberal tradition have relied on independence as a norm of personhood. Feminist theorists such as Eva Kittay in Love's Labor have been instrumental in critiquing normative independence. I explore the role of corporeal vulnerability in Kittay's account of personhood, developing a comparison to the role it plays in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. Kittay's crucial contribution in Love's Labor is that once we acknowledge the facts of corporeal vulnerability, we must not only acknowledge but also affirm dependency in a genuinely inclusive affirmation of personhood. While endorsing Kittay's “dependency critique,” I discover difficulties that beleaguer Kittay's development of new norms of personhood. I trace these to a dependency of Kittay's account on a crucial premise of the liberal model it resists. I argue that in order to affirm dependency in a manner that departs more thoroughly from the criticized aspects of liberal personhood, we must cease to position it in a dichotomy of power and vulnerability. I suggest that attending to the corporeality of vulnerability can aid us in developing the terms of a discourse affirming relational personhood while undermining that dichotomy.

Type
Freedom, Dependency, and Vulnerability
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of injury: power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Frost, Samantha. 2008. Lessons from a materialist thinker: Hobbesian reflections on ethics and politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gatens, Moira. 1996. Imaginary bodies: ethics, power, and corporeality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Roger. 2002. The tasks of embodied love: Moral problems in caring for children with disabilities. Hypatia 17 (3): 225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1985. Leviathan. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1999. Love's labor: essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 2002. Love's labor revisited. Hypatia 17 (3): 237–50.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 2002. Introduction to the symposium on Eva Kittay's Love's Labor. Hypatia 17 (3): 194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1982. Women and the making of the sentimental family. Philosophy and Public Affairs 11 (1): 6588.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ruddick, Sara. 2002. An appreciation of Love's Labor. Hypatia 17 (3): 214–23.Google Scholar
Taylor, Astra. 2008. Examined life. New York: Zeitgeist Films.Google ScholarPubMed
Tong, Rosemary. 2002. Love's labor in the health care system: Working toward gender equity. Hypatia 17 (3): 200–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, Gail. 1999. Body images: embodiment as intercorporeality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar