Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:31:48.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Simone de Beauvoir and Confucian Role Ethics: Role‐Relational Ambiguity and Confucian Mystification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Abstract

This article argues that there has been a general misunderstanding of the nature of role relations in Confucian role ethics. Recasting constitutive role relations in light of Beauvoir's ethics of ambiguity will aid in developing Confucian role ethics as a contemporary vision of human flourishing that can internally accommodate the need for a feminist transformation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 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

Ames, Roger T. 1993. The meaning of body in classical Chinese philosophy. In Self as body in Asian theory and practice, ed. Kasulis, Thomas P., Ames, Roger T., and Dissanayake, Wimal. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ames, Roger T. 1994. The focus‐field self in classical Confucianism. In Self as person in Asian theory and practice, ed. Ames, Roger T., Dissanayake, Wimal, and Kasulis, Thomas P.Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ames, Roger T. 2011. Confucian role ethics. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Ames, Roger T., and Hall, David L. 2001. Focusing the familiar. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Ames, Roger T., and Rosemont, Henry Jr. 1998. The analects of Confucius. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Arp, Kristana. 2001. The bonds of freedom. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
de Beauvoir, Simone. 1976. The ethics of ambiguity. Trans. Bernard Frechtman. New York: Citadel Press.Google Scholar
de Beauvoir, Simone. 2011. The second sex. Trans. Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany‐Chevallier. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Chan, Sin Yee. 1993. An ethic of loving. PhD dissertation. Department of Philosophy, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Dalmiya, Vrinda. 2009. Caring comparisons. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 36 (2): 192209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, Virginia. 2006. The ethics of care. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ivanhoe, Philip J. 2008. The shade of Confucius. In Polishing the Chinese mirror, ed. Chandler, Marthe and Littlejohn, Ronnie. New York: Global Scholarly Publications.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Catriona, and Stoljar, Natalie, eds. 2000. Relational autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mattice, Sarah A. 2010. On “rectifying” rectification. Asian Philosophy 20 (3): 247–60.Google Scholar
May, Larry. 1992. Sharing responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres.Google Scholar
Noddings, Nel. 2002. Starting at home. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nuyen, A. T. 2007. Confucian ethics as role‐based ethics. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (3): 315–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, John. 2013. The role dilemma in early Confucianism. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 8 (3): 376–87.Google Scholar
Rosemont, Henry Jr. 1991. Rights‐bearing individuals and role‐bearing persons. In Rules, rituals, and responsibility, ed. Bockover, Mary I.Ill, La Salle.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Rosemont, Henry Jr. 2015. Against individualism. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Rosemont, Henry Jr, and Ames, Roger T. 2008. Family reverence (xiao 孝) as the source of consummatory conduct (ren 仁). Dao 7 (1): 919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosemont, Henry Jr, and Ames, Roger T. 2009. The Chinese classic of family reverence. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Rosenlee, Li‐Hsiang Lisa. 2014. Confucian care. In Asian and feminist philosophies in dialogue, ed. McWeeny, Jennifer and Butnor, Ashby. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Scarth, Fredrika. 2004. The other within. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar