Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 14, 2018

The Robust Demands of Oppression Problematizing Pettit’s Account of Attachments

Federica Gregoratto

Abstract

The article critically discusses Pettit’s account of love as an intimate attachment. I will not question his notion that love implies care; my aim is to show how, under certain social structural conditions, the demands of love bring about and/or reproduce oppression. First, I recap and discuss Pettit’s conception of love. Second, I show how the traditional gender order generates asymmetries in the provision of care, thus setting the ground for situations in which the demands of care become oppressive. Third, I critically discuss the ways in which a person can resist the oppression implied in the demands of care. In a fourth step, I consider Pettit’s critique of problematic forms of love. Finally, I conclude by drawing upon the categories of freedom and domination as key concepts for developing a more critical account of love.

References

Baier, A. (1991). ‘Unsafe Loves’, in R.C. Solomon and K.M. Higgins (eds.). The Philosophy of (Erotic) Love (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas), pp. 433–450.Search in Google Scholar

Beauvoir, S. De. (2010). The Second Sex (London: Vintage Books).Search in Google Scholar

Benjamin, J. (1988). The Bonds of Love. Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination (New York: Pantheon Books).Search in Google Scholar

Brake, E. (2012). Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Federici, S. (2012). Revolution at Point Zero. Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle (New York: PM Press).Search in Google Scholar

Folbre, N. (2002). The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values (New York: The New Press).Search in Google Scholar

Folbre, N. and Bittmann, M. (eds.) (2004). Family Time. The Social Organization of Care (London/New York: Routledge).Search in Google Scholar

Frankfurt, H. (2004). The Reasons of Love (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Gregoratto, F. (2017a). ‘Why Love Kills. Power, Gender Dichotomy and Romantic Femicide’, Hypatia 32 (1): 135–151.Search in Google Scholar

Gregoratto, F. (2017b). ‘Love Is a Losing Game: Power and Exploitation in Romantic Relations’, The Journal of Political Power 10 (3): 326–341.Search in Google Scholar

Gregoratto, F. (2018). ‘The Ambiguity of Love. Beauvoir, Honneth and Arendt on the Relation between Recognition, Power and Violence’, Critical Horizons 19 (1): 18–34.Search in Google Scholar

Grunow, D. and Evertsson, M. (eds.) (2016). Couples’ Transitions to Parenthood. Analysing Gender and Work in Europe (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).Search in Google Scholar

Hegel, G.W.F. (2006). Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Helm, B.W. (2009). Love, Friendship, and the Self. Intimacy, Identification, and the Social Nature of Persons (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Honneth, A. (1995). The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (Cambridge: Polity Press).Search in Google Scholar

Honneth, A. (2014). Freedom’s Right (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Illouz, E. (2012). Why Love Hurts. A Sociological Explanation (Cambridge: Polity Press).Search in Google Scholar

Jónasdóttir, A.G. (1994). Why Women Are Oppressed (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Krebs, A. (2015). Zwischen Ich und Du. Eine Dialogische Philosophie der Liebe (Berlin: Suhrkamp).Search in Google Scholar

Liao, M.S. (2006). ‘The Idea of a Duty to Love’, The Journal of Value Inquiry 40: 1–22.Search in Google Scholar

Nozick, R. (1989). ‘Love’s Bond’, in his Examined Life. Philosophical Meditations (New York: Simon & Schuster), pp. 68–86.Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (2012). On the People’s Terms. A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (2015). The Robust Demands of the Good. Ethics with Attachments, Virtue and Respect (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Rössler, B. (2007). ‘Work, Recognition, Emancipation’, in B. Van Den Brink and D. Owen (eds.). Recognition and Power: Axel Honneth and the Tradition of Critical Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 135–163.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, M.J. (2018). ‘The Two Faces of Domination in Republican Political Theory’, European Journal of Political Theory. 17(1): 44–64.Search in Google Scholar

Young, I.M. (2007). ‘Recognition of Love’s Labor: Considering Axel Honneth’s Feminism’, in B. Van Den Brink and D. Owen (eds.). Recognition and Power: Axel Honneth and the Tradition of Critical Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 189–212.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-6-14
Published in Print: 2018-6-26

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston