Will the private government really help women develop their identities?

Anderson in Unstrapping The Straitjacket of preference develops an idea of - The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle. This principle states that “principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). In her discussion of the principle she runs into the idea of rational self-identification and questions in what contexts is it rational to identify with others or see oneself as an independent agent (32). To illuminate this point, Anderson turns to women.


Anderson points to women, who are systematically disadvantaged in many parts of the world due to income inequality, inability to find employment, and wealth gaps and shows that it can be traced back to the institution of marriage. When a woman enters marriage she is assumed to be taking care of the household and doing all of the unpaid labour, thus stopping her self-development. All of this makes women not see themselves as  “rational egoists” because they do not see themselves as agents independent of their families. 


One way in which Anderson sees the problem can be solved is when women can enter the job market. Anderson states that being employed would allow (1) women to give a productive contribution to household resources and (2) allow women to interact with people, who have various identities beyond their family. However, I wonder why Anderson is propagating the idea of private government. And would it not just change the identity of the family to an identity of the company due to the nature of private governments. As an individual without the understanding of their rational egoist would enter a world full of indoctrination and working for the sake of profits of a corporation - wouldn’t they just assume another identity instead of developing a new comprehensive identity for them?  


I think it is likely to happen for two reasons. Women are socialised to be selfless. This is an idea explored by Hampton in Selflessness or Loss of Self – when a woman gives up a career to take care of children, she is praised by the society, although she herself might not see this as the described outcome. Therefore, I can imagine women giving up their private lives to fully embrace the private government and give their whole selves to it while at the same time losing themselves. Furthermore, this position would be praised rather than criticised by the higher-ups in the company hierarchy. 


Moreover, wouldn't private government limit the needed “freedom to determine one’s own priorities in committing oneself to various groups”?  I think Anderson would say yes, so how are women supposed to develop their comprehensive identities in places which do not allow for pluralism of opinions?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more