Why Has the Ethics of Care Become an Issue of Global Concern?

Home , Ethics of care

International Journal of Japanese Sociology doi: 10.1111/ijjs.12048 2016, Number 25 Why Has the Ethics of Care Become an Issue of Global Concern?

YAYO OKANO

Abstract: Since Carol Gilligan published her masterpiece, In a Different Voice, many scholars, especially feminist scholars in various ﬁelds, including moral theory, philosophy, and political and legal theory, have been inspired to establish a more inclusive approach to social injustice as well as sexual inequality. The purpose of this article is to explore the depth and expanse of the ethics of care for its potential as a political philosophy. To pursue this end, the article analyzes ﬁrst the main claims of care ethics by responding to its typical counterarguments, which criticize the ethics of care as being too dependent on gender differences, particularism, and essentialism. The second section examines three challenges that care ethics poses to the male-oriented mainstream of political philosophy, especially the theory of justice. The ethics of care provides us with a new approach to moral and political issues because it focuses responsively on social injustice, proposes a new idea of relational self and takes the social connection model to justice. With these three perspectives proposed by the ethics of care in mind, the article turns its eyes to global implications of care ethics by referring to the issue of the “comfort women” of Japanese troops during the Second World War. Keywords: the ethics of care, global issue, comfort women

Introduction standards. Gilligan distinguished the ethics of care (which she identified in different ’ Carol Gilligan’s 1982 masterpiece, In a Dif- women s voice) from the morality of jus- ferent Voice, is well known to have influ- tice. The latter was used to function as the ’ enced various fields of study such as norm by which women s judgments were philosophy, political and social theory, eco- devalued as underdeveloped. nomics, pedagogics, and psychology. Instead Gilligan evaluated highly an Although the work discussed mainly empir- ethics of care, contrasted with the logic of “ ical inquires of the different moral develop- justice, because it was the central tenet fl ” ment between men and women, it not only of nonviolent con ict resolution, and fl “ explored the different images held by re ected belief in the restorative ” women and men, such as these of the self, activity of care, and attitudes to seeing “ the life cycle, human relations and the the actors in the dilemma arrayed not as human world, but also criticized male- opponents in a contest of rights but as centered epistemology and moral members of a network of relationship on whose continuation they all depend” (Gilligan, 1993: 30). ’ The copyright line for this article was changed on 13 Gilligan s work encouraged many femi- October 2016 after original online publication. nist scholars to pose “a challenge to both

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Japanese Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Sociological Society This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. 86 Yayo Okano traditional and contemporary assumptions 1996), I engage here with three closely underlying moral theory” and to be gath- related themes in the debates over care; ered under the banner of care ethics the approach to equality, the evaluation of (Kittay and Meyers, 1987: 3). mothering, and the understanding of gen- Inspired by Giillgan’s works, Eva Kittay der difference. These topics demonstrate and Diana Meyers organized the confer- clearly how deeply the theoretical root of ence on feminist moral theory at The State ethics of care is embedded in the history of University of New York, Stony Brook in feminism, especially that of US feminism.2 1985. They “relied on Carol Gilligan’s the- The first theme can be characterized as a sis that women undergo a moral develop- controversy over difference or sameness, ment distinct from but parallel to that of the second as a debate over the parochial men” (Meyers and Kittay 1987: 3). Even and private, or the universal and public, and though Milton Mayeroff published On Car- the third as a heated and ongoing argument ing in 1971 and characterized the signifi- about essentialism or social constructivism. cance and functions of caring (Mayeroff In a Different Voice and so-called care fem- 1971), it was In a Different Voice that inists were mainly criticized as siding with encouraged feminists and other scholars to the former positions in all these three criticize the exclusive focus on morality of debates. In this part, I briefly discuss the rights, theory of justice, individual auton- context of each criticism to show where its omy and that contributed to the establish- critical edge as political philosophy exists. ment of feminist ethics. The first controversy, difference or same- Upon its publication the book met with ness, can be understood as reflecting a criticisms from theorists, including feminist dilemma inherent to feminism’s long his- scholars, for its lack of empirical evidence,1 tory of struggle for equality as a full-fledged yet the theoretical claims in Gilligan’s book citizen. Once described as “Wollstone- have urged a radical re-examination of the craft’s dilemma,” women’s history of fight- premises of human and social sciences. ing for political citizenship started with the The purpose of this article is to explore issue of what value they should emphasize the depth and expanse of the ethics of care in their demand for equality with male citi- for its potential as a political philosophy. zens (Pateman, 1992). Pateman viewed To pursue this end, the article analyzes first women’s struggle for citizenship, especially the main claims of care ethics by respond- for the suffrage as the following: ing to its typical counterarguments. The second section examines three challenges From at least 1792, when Mary Wollstone- that care ethics pose to the male-oriented craft’s A Vindication of the Rights of mainstream of political philosophy. Then Woman was published, women have the article turns to the global implications demanded both equal civil and political of care ethics by referring to the issue of rights, and that their difference from men the “comfort women” of Japanese troops should be acknowledged in their citizen- during the Second World War. ship. (Pateman, 1992: 14)

The Ethics of Care as a Critical Theory Even though Wollstonecraft and the suf- In a Different Voice has received a wide fragettes in 19th and 20th century demanded range of responses from feminists in vari- both equality and difference, the rift over ous different ﬁelds. While the debates over the question of equality in feminist move- care could be characterized as one over the ments was often intensiﬁed, especially relation between the theory of justice and when the demand for social reform became the ethics of care (see Held, 1995, Clement, pressing.

In the same vein, a crucial conversation disdained women’s work within the family over Gilligan’s work was published as “an (Dietz, 1998). edited transcript of the discussion held in By mainly referring to Elshtain’s (1981) 1984 at the law school of the State Univer- work,4 Dietz distinguishes sharply political sity of New York in Buffalo” (MacKinnon activities from familial and private ones, et al., 1985: 11). In this conversation, Cath- which both Elshtain and Ruddick evaluate arine MacKinnon, who takes the domi- positively as bearing dignity and purpose. nance approach to gender equality With the traditional Aristotlean definition (see MacKinnon, 1987),3 contextualizes In of the political in mind, Dietz emphasizes a Different Voice as a feminist struggle over the universal and the most inclusive aspects an unsolved question about equality. of political activities, which also determine MacKinnon regards Gilligan’s work as the notion of the private and the public. adopting a difference approach to equality. Therefore, it is logically impossible to re- She also points out the importance of prais- evaluate private moral imperatives, such as ing women’s experiences, reflected both in love and attention as a political ethos, female morality such as “relatedness, because they cannot “survey all other par- responsibility and care virtues” and in “the ticular activities from a more general point discipline of women’s history” (MacKinnon of view” (Dietz, 1998: 53). Dietz alerts us et al., 1985: 25). On one hand, MacKinnon to the inadequacy of values and activities in emphasizes the importance of the domi- the intimate sphere as a political basis for nance approach to equality in order to feminist politics: change the reality that women are forced to be either the same as men or different Because Elshtain envisions a world divided from them. On the other hand, she subtly naturally and abstractly into dual realms, criticizes the values of care ethics because it and human beings as either virtuous private has resulted in maintaining the status quo or arrogant pubic creatures, feminist politi- with respect to women. MacKinnon con- cal consciousness is perilously close to tinues by arging that affirming women’s becoming politically barren. (Dietz, voices is politically damaging because it 1998: 56) reinforces feminine stereotypes. She even states that she is infuriated by recognizing a The third controversy in the ethics of woman’s voice as her authentic voice care is closely related to, or more precisely, because “his foot is on her throat” (MacK- underlies the first and second debates. As innon et al., 1985: 74–75). Dietz’s criticism indicates, the ethics of care Second, many feminists are ambivalent led to the debate over what “femaleness” about the ethics of care because it seems to was, because the works of Gilligan and the have an affinity with maternalism, which care feminists were seen to naturalize the right-wing conservatives also support. As identity of women, especially that of MacKinnon pointed out, the ethics of care mothers. Although no feminist can ignore was characterized and manifested through the fact that the difference in nurturing the historically enforced work of women, boys and girls has influenced their different such as housekeeping and child care. In the identities, Ruddick and Gilligan have been article juxtaposing a conservative feminist criticized for being indifferent to historical, Jean B. Elshtain with an anti-militarist and cultural, or racial differences, that is, perpe- radical feminist Sara Ruddick (Ruddick, tuating “an implicit essentialism” 1989), Mary Dietz criticizes both as “pro- (Robinson, 1999: 21). family feminists” who ennoble or reverse Patricia Hill Collins, for example, argues the political value attributed to historically that mainstream feminists’ re-evaluation of

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Japanese Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Sociological Society 88 Yayo Okano motherhood might effectively challenge a conflicts. However, this skepticism fails to white, middle-class man’s image of mother- grasp care ethics’ radical re-examination of hood and yet that the white feminist stand- the male-oriented premise of human and point does not encompass black social sciences. She notes: motherhood. Black mothers historically created women-centered networks among If care ethics is understood solely as a “cor- grandmothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins, rective” to universalistic, impartialist the- all of whom are called “other mothers” ories, or simply as a “useful addition” to (Collins, 1995). They have struggled not our moral vocabulary, then it will always with the image of attentive, self-sacrificing, retain its image as a “private”, “personal” and passive women, but rather with that of morality which is antithetical to justice and “the white-male-created ‘matriarch’or the most relevant to women as mothers and, Black-male-perpetuated “superstrong more generally, occupiers of the private Black mother” (Collins, 1995: 119). sphere of the household and the family. Linda Nicholson also suggests that we (Robinson, 1999: 12) ought not rely too heavily on gender differences, but give more attentions to how In this part, I follow Robinson’s position “race, class, and the sheer specificity of his- and reconfirm her argument by revisiting torical circumstances also profoundly affect the Gilligan’s original claims. In a preface social life and thus a moral perspective” to the revised edition published in 1993, (Nicholson, 1993: 88). She asks why women 20 years after she began writing, Gilligan should limit their identities to one responded to readers’ unexpected female voice that differs from the Eurocen- responses. In the preface Gilligan first tric male voice, even in the age of sketched the historical context of when she post-structuralism when dogmatic fixity is started to research and write the book. This radically rejected for its oppressive was in the 1970s at the height of women’s exclusiveness. liberation movement and when, after a For all these three critiques of care ethics long history of suffering and subordination as being too dependent on gender differ- of women, the US Supreme Court epoch- ence, particularism, and essentialism, where making decision, Roe v. Wade upheld a and how can we find its critical potential- women’s right to an abortion (Gilligan, ity? Some feminists, such as Olena Han- 1993: ix). kivsky, argue that a second-generation of Indeed, Gilligan contrasts “an ethics of care ethics has emerged that is distinct from care” with “the logic of the justice,” each of the nascent articulation of care.5 While the which respectively reflects the responses of second generation maintains the value and 11-year old siblings Amy and Jake to purpose specific to care ethics, it combines Heinz’ dilemma.6 She points out that the ethics of care “in a respectful way with women tend to focus on a world of rela- the values of justice to ensure a balanced tionships whose “connection between peo- and reasoned resolution of practical issues ple gives rise to a recognition of and social problems” so that it can over- responsibility for one another,” and that come the limits of the first generation men usually see a world of contracts where (Hankivsky, 2004: 25). “the actors in the dilemma [are] arrayed … Others have called into question the as opponents in a contest of rights” premise of these controversies. According (Gilligan, 1993: 30). Her point, however, is to Fiona Robinson, the criticisms of care not to endorse these tendencies, but to ethics arose from the fear that it was not reveal how the speech acts of girls are effective in solving a wide range of moral interpreted and evaluated within the

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Japanese Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Sociological Society Ethics of Care as a Global Issue 89 hierarchal framework of traditional Well, I don’t think so. I think there might psychology. be other ways besides stealing it, like if he Contrary to the criticism that her could borrow the money or make a loan or research engages in empirically strict something, but he really shouldn’t steal the stereotyping of femaleness, Gilligan explic- drug—but his wife shouldn’t die either. itly argues that her project was about reval- (Gilligan, 1993: 28, emphasis mine). uing the norms and values held by traditional psychologists and moral theor- Gilligan sees Amy’s answer as showing ’ ists. She explicitly draws on Virginia Wolf s her capacity to acknowledge “a narrative of ’ philosophy for women s education, which relationships that extends over time” “ might break the historical cycle of violence (Gilligan, 1993: 28). This has the radical ” and domination (Gilligan, 1993: xii, potential to see our society in ways other emphasis mine). Gilligan reminds us of the than the male-oriented tradition of liberal- inseparable connection between our life, ism, which is based on a certain theory of 7 our history, politics, and psychology. justice, rights, and individualism. In the She rejects the question whether gender next section I analyze the three criticisms difference is biological or social, since it of the ethics of care in an effort to illustrate “ tends to reduce psychology either to soci- why is has become an alternative political ” ology or biology (Gilligan, 1993: xix). She theory that overcomes the limits of even asserts that such a reduction cultivates liberalism. the soil for totalitarianism, where our relationships and contexts are all controlled by a fixed ideology, as Hannah Arendt once Three Challenges of the Ethics noted (Arendt, 1973). of Care For example, although Heinz’ dilemma is So far I have not explained what I mean by usually cited as a typical and central argu- male-oriented tradition of liberalism. ment on gender identity in Gilligan’s work, Drawing on the works by Annette Baier Amy’s ambiguous answer to the question (1994) and Iris Young (1990), I here char- “should Heinz steal the drug?” ironically acterize it as a theory of justice that reveals the limits of of the traditional lib- “requires respect for each person’s individ- eral framework; its abstraction of the politi- ual rational will, or autonomy, and con- cal and social context, the monologue-style formity to any implicit social contract” of logic, and its indifference to human (Baier, 1994: 21). interdependence. Ruddick, for example, Both philosophers question why many sees Amy’s answer as a proposal to US activists suffering from domination and embrace alternative political values violence are unsatisfied with the main- (Ruddick, 1989: 94–95). stream theories of justice represented by Indeed, the responses to the question are John Rawls’ influential book, A Theory of not meant to go out of the framework that Justice, published in 1971. Young points was set by questioner, even though it is the out that the theoretical range of contempo- framework itself that creates Heinz’s rary arguments of justice is too narrow to dilemma. Heinz cannot negotiate the price eliminate the current situation of “institu- with a druggist, send his wife to a public tionalized domination and oppression” hospital where decent treatment is offered, (Young, 1990: 15). Young argues that the or ask anyone to help him. In this hypo- ironical consequence of resurgence of the- thetical question, surprisingly enough, his ories of justice, especially the Rawlsian wife’s opinion is not considered. This is type of distributive justice, obscures the how Amy responds: direct purpose of social justice, which is

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Japanese Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Sociological Society 90 Yayo Okano righting social injustice such as exploitation, obligations meant to female college stu- marginalization, powerlessness, cultural dents facing a dilemma over abortion.8 Gil- imperialism, and violence (Young, ligan listens to her interviewees and find 1990: 48–63). their concept of responsibility is “to discern Baier explicitly argues that the ethics of and alleviate the ‘real and recognizable care problematizes these shortcomings of trouble’ of this world” (Gilligan, 1993: theories of justice. “In a Different Voice is 100). She criticizes abstract moral questions of interest as much for its attempt to articu- because they turn our attention from the late an alternative to the Kantian justice social and political context in which moral perspective as for its implicit raising of the decisions must be made and the involve- question of male bias in Western moral the- ment and interdependence of human ory, especially liberal-democratic theory” beings at a certain point of time and space. (Baier, 1994: 21). In a liberal understand- She continues: ing, independent and autonomous citizens can freely choose to be dedicated mothers, Only when substance is given to the skele- persuade their partner to provide care for tal lives of hypothetical people is it possible them, or avoid pregnancy. On one hand, no to consider the social injustice that their liberal theorists obligate women to be the moral problems may reflect and to image primary caretakers of their own children. the individual suffering their occurrence On the other hand, they “exploit the cultur- may signify or their resolution engender. ally encouraged maternal instinct and/or (Gilligan, 1993: 100). the culturally encouraged docility of women” (Baier, 1994: 7). The idea of relational self against a Baier interprets Gilligan’s contribution structural violence as offering a perspective on social reality As Robison suggests, if we stop seeing the that leads to social change. Gilligan’s con- ethics of care as a useful addition to our trast between the theory of justice and the moral vocabulary, we might see the radical ethics of care reflects the Marxian notion of potentiality of care ethics, because it alienation (Baier, 1994: 23). The ethics of changes our perspective towards society as care tries to bring our attention to social well as human beings. On one hand, liberal and political impoverishment, where theorists respect the autonomous will when women’s work is exploited and therefore people make a decision, on the other hand, women are alienated from themselves as care theorists ask why and in what context well as from social connections. As long as people make such a decision. The differ- the sexual division of labor was maintained, ence derives from their respective concep- “liberal morality could continue to be the tualization of what it is to be a human official morality, by turning our eyes away being. from the contribution made by those it As Jake’s answer typically shows, a gen- excluded. The long unnoticed moral prole- eral and abstract understanding of moral tariat were the domestic workers, mostly problem keeps us distant from the histori- female” (Baier, 1994: 25–26, empha- cal and social embeddedness of human sis mine). beings. Steal the drug would be a right In contrast to MacKinnon’s criticism, the answer to the dilemma if we did not have ethics of care has uncovered the political to consider the consequence of this deci- implications of personal moral dilemmas sion. However, if we realize that that moral and brought to light social injustice that has dilemma hurts some people but not others, been historically unrecognized. Indeed, the answer cannot be found in the right Gilligan herself expressed what moral answer to dilemma.

One of Gilligan’s interviewees “sees That mothering is experienced in diverse Heinz’s decision as “the result of anguish”” and different forms reveals how illusionary whether he steals or not (Gilligan, 1993: “motherly love,” the masculine image of 103). She even thinks that the problem is the relationship between mother and child not the morality of his decision but the is. They are not and should not be a harmo- social situation in which he finds himself. nious symbiotic unit at all. A child is a Heinz is “the victim of exploitation” by a totally new and even strange being to the society “which breeds and legitimizes the world. Her needs are changing and unpre- druggist’s irresponsibility and whose injus- dictable even to her mother. tice is thus manifest in the very occurrence A mother sometimes is troubled by a of the dilemma” (Gilligan, 1993: 103). child’s whim. Children’s needs often over- Sensitivity to such social injustice is culti- whelm mothers’ needs and even herself. vated and elaborated through the concep- Therefore the ethics of care entails stronger tualization of a relational self in imperatives among them than among citi- comparison to an independent and autono- zens because the relation between mothers mous self of liberalism. This reconceptuali- and children is one between a powerful zation of the self is indeed gained though recipient of demands and a powerless the experience of mothering and house- claimant. Ruddick, therefore, carefully keeping. At first glance, an idea rooted in describes the efforts that mothers try real experiences appears to be constrained to make: in time and space, as Dietz noted, and moreover, motherhood has been too [S]ome mothers struggle to create nonvio- romanticized to be a political base for lent ways of living with and among chil- feminists. The idea of the relational self, dren. They school themselves to renounce however, involves wider and more pro- violent strategies of control and to resist found social and political implications and the violence of others despite provocation, challenges radically the liberal theory of exhaustion, and multiple temptations to justice. assault and passivity. (Ruddick, 1989: xix) Jennifer Nedelsky, who proposes a relational approach to law and social policy, identifies two meanings of the relational The strength of the imperative of care “ ’ ” “ self. One is based on personal relationships ethics, Don t hurt others, or avoid ” with others and social institutions, and the injuries, paradoxically indicates that other is based on a pattern of social rela- uncountable examples are overridden. On tionships (Nedelsky, 2011). Nedelsky starts the part of children, they are totally by describing how a girl is brought up dependent on those who take care of them. within a family, partly because it problema- It is easy to imagine how profoundly a ’ tizes the different treatment of boys and mother s response, whether with careful girls in the family and partly because it affection or with indifference and violence, fl ’ challenges the deep-rooted liberal idea that has in uenced her child s life over the family issues are matters of personal extended time. Children are too vulnerable choice. When we look at the concrete cases to resist to or escape from their relationship of personal relationships, we realize that with those who raise them. the relationship is not always benign. Many As Baier bitterly called those who raise “ feminists of care ethics emphasize that we children the long unnoticed moral ” should not romanticize relationships or proletariats, are historically and usually communities (see Ruddick, 1989; Tronto, positioned as the powerless in a wider soci- 1996; Kittay, 2001). ety. Once we take a relational approach to

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Japanese Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Sociological Society 92 Yayo Okano seeing personal choices, behavior and ten- rights, autonomy, law, and social policies dencies, we find: (Nedelsky, 2011: ch. 3), Virginia Held also argues that although personal relationships [H]ow these relationships intersect with among family members and friends are the institutions, such as family law (which most obvious paradigm of care ethics, the defines marriage and stipulates spousal and ethics of care is highly relevant in the realm parental obligations), a market economy, of global issues as well as political ones the presence or absence of state-supported (see Held, 2006, 2008). She condemns child care, the presence or absence of a global and national communities for their “family wage” (and thus norms of one or lack of concern about children: both parents in the paid labor force). (Nedelsky, 2011: 21) In a caring society, attending to the needs of every child would be a major goal, and Furthermore, we can add to Nedelsky’s doing so would be seen to require social lists the national policy on receiving foreign arrangements offering the kinds of eco- domestic workers and care workers. nomic and educational and child care and Liberal theorists might respond to these health care support that members of com- analyses by saying that they also agree that munities really need. (Held, 2006: human beings are always social beings. 136, emphasis mine) Nedelsky, however, argues that liberal notion of boundaries among the self, As I already discussed, emphasizing the others, and society that protects individuals importance of child rearing involves mean- from infringements of their rights by ings that are ontological (because it shows others presupposes “the existence and the interdependence of human beings), interaction of independent (potentially practical (because it reveals the vulnerable threatening) others (Nedelsky, 2011: 121). and unequal aspects of human beings), and She emphasizes that the individual critical (because it enables us to see the vio- capacity to find their own way of life is lence inherent in inequality). Held and being nurtured in the wider range of net- other authors also indicate that the ethics work from the intimate sphere to the global of care proposes a different approach to economy. social injustice from that of the traditional It is unnecessary to say that the notion of theory of justice. Such an approach self as socially constructed, but not com- uncovers the exclusive and closed character pletely determined is one of variants of the of the liberal understanding of justice. second wave feminist slogan, “the personal Arguing that the ethics of care has more is the political.” Taking a personal (moral) inclusive scope of concern than theories of problem to be a political one leads us to justice may sound unusual, given that lib- the notion of structural violence discovered eral theory of justice is based on the notion in the field of international politics or peace of universal and autonomous individuals, studies. Because there is unequal allocation and thus its scope seems to be universal of vulnerability to a social situation among and highly inclusive. Held and others, how- people, the inequality itself causes more ever, argue that this individualism itself violence to vulnerable people than to presupposes fixed ideas of rights, and a lim- others. Relational thinking enables us to ited scope of justice, especially with respect “see the violence inherent in inequality” to the current boundaries of nation-states. (Gilligan, 1993: 100). Liberal theories of justice have failed to Just as Nedelsky proposed a child- see injustice in the exploitation of domestic rearing model for approaching human workers, as in them it is the image of

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Japanese Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Sociological Society Ethics of Care as a Global Issue 93 economically independent male citizens Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which that defines what kinds of rights should be exemplifies this change. respected. Liberal theorists would respond Even though liberal theorists of justice, to such a criticism by asserting that their such as Ronald Dworkin, apparently aim theory of rational choice or social contract for more equal social justice and subscribe does not aim to be applied to personal or to more welfare assistance and a fair redis- familial interactions, but to the public realm tribution of social resources, their work or contexts of strangers. However, who are results in reinforcing the libertarian sense strangers? of responsibility, which finds the fault of Held finds that the paradox of universal every social problem to be the result of individual rights is safeguarded by the deviant personal behavior. Dworkin and nation-state. We have to decide who we other luck egalitarianism theorists distin- are, prior to deciding which rights are to be guish between the inequality that arises out secured. She notes that in the bloody ethnic of personal choices that are made and that conflicts or civil wars, the problem of citi- based on social and personal circumstances zenship often arouse. “Before hypothetical beyond an individual’s control. Although citizens can agree on the hypothetical terms Dworkin argues that disadvantages based of their self-government, they must agree on circumstances beyond one’s control on whom they seek agreement with” should be compensated in a just welfare (Held, 2006: 128–129). system, Young finds his approach to justice Young also regards the theoretical link “focuses largely on attributes of persons between individualism and the statism of and ignores or rejects a theoretical place liberalism as one reason why liberal the- for bringing social structures into view” ories of justice can be indifferent to the five (Young, 2011: 30). faces of injustice I have discussed earlier. According to Dworkin, a person who is In one of her works, Justice and the Politics born without sight should be compensated of Difference, Young shows tht liberal the- for her unfortunately disadvantageous situ- ories of justice cannot respond to social jus- ation. Young, however, argues that if we tice in different areas because they tend “to merely compensate her for her bad luck, conceive of individuals as social atoms, log- we will never go on to examine why the ically prior to social relations and institu- current system of institutions and social tions” (Young, 1990: 27). For social norms make her blindness socially disad- oppression is not caused by individual vantageous. To attain more justice, Young actions or malice but rather by institution- proposes a social connection model, in alized and structural patterns and social which we are attentive to social injustice, norms to which people ordinarily are accus- especially tto the injustices that derive from tomed and subject. the globalization of market economy. This Following Shklar’s radical criticism of the model involves five characteristic liberal understanding of justice,9 Young approaches to social injustice. proposes a new approach to social injustice, First, it aims to investigate where social which she calls “the social connection injustice occurs and to situate its occur- model.” She analyzes the paradigmatic rence within the social connections and change that took place in recognizing the interactions nested by thousands of our problem of poverty. The view shifted from legal and everyday behaviors. In contrast that of social problems to that of the per- to the normal model of justice, where sonal responsibility of poor people in 1980s assaults are singled out and separated from in the USA. In 1996 Clinton signed the Per- society, the social connection model seeks sonal Responsibility and Work to reform the current patterns of social

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Japanese Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Sociological Society 94 Yayo Okano connection in efforts to respond to victims which isolates the person who is liable for suffering from social injustice. the injury from innocent others. Young Second, if the pattern of social connec- defines this political responsibility as tions that one cannot control is the most follows: pressing concern, the boundaries of nation- states should be much less significant than Those who share responsibility for struc- they are in the normal model of justice. tural injustice may also find ways of making Especially in the age of globalization, we social change, moreover, through collective are interconnected and interdependent not action in civil society independent of or as only economically but also personally. The a supplement to state policies and pro- global connections where human beings grams (Young, 2010: 112). interact offer the circumstances that enable some people to advance their capacities Towards a Global Ethics of Care: The while simultaneously preventing others Case of the “Comfort women” of from realizing their capabilities, thus disad- Japanese Troops vantaging them. This inequality is a result In the section two, I examined the three of the typical structural violence to which interwoven perspectives to personal suffer- the social connection model urges us to ings and social injustice. With these per- respond. spectives, many care ethics feminists begin Third, given that no one can avoid politi- to focus on global issues, such as “care cal responsibility for reforming currently drains” (Tronto, 2005, 2013; Kittay, 2009), unjust social situations, even the victims of “peace building” (Robinson, 2011), and social injustice are considered to bear some “global justice” (Young, 2007, 2011). In the responsibility for them. Those who suffer final section, I examine the issue of comfort from structural injustice often know better women of Japanese troops during the Sec- than others what they really need for com- ond World War with the ethics of care. pensation or reforming their personal cir- Before I explore how the ethics of care cumstances. Young therefore argues that offers us a better approach to the issue of “on some issues those who might be argued the comfort women, of Japanese Troops to be in less advantaged positions within under the Second World War, I summarize structures perhaps should take the lead in the crucial aspects of the issue first. The organizing and proposing remedies for issue of comfort women became widely injustice” (Young, 2010: 113). known in 1991 when the first victim, Kim Fourth, on one hand the normal model Hak-sun came out in public. Since then, of justice focuses on the past actions that feminist scholars and activists in Japan are seen to be the direct cause of the inju- have asked why it took so long for victims ries, on the other hand, the social connec- to speak out? Was it a problem of national- tion model urges us to act together for the ism or sexism? Why does sexual violence future reform of society. As Gilligan’s hurt victims more than other forms of vio- interviewees and the character of Amy in lence? How could we restore justice and Heinz’s dilemma show, as long as the cur- dignity of the victims of the sexual slavery rent social institutions remains unchanged, system called the “comfort station”? the dilemma itself is unchanged and indi- The Women’s International War Crimes vidual decisions often hurt others without Tribunal held in Tokyo, December 2000, any intention of doing so. was organized by the Violence against Therefore, finally, the social connection Women in War Network Japan (VAWW- model entails taking political responsibility Net Japan) and other grassroots Asian while the liberal model is a judicial one women’s organizations such as the Korean

Council for the Women Drafted for Mili- First, an ethics of care makes us aware of tary Sexual Slavery. It was the practical that our gender and identities are con- trial that responded to these questions, structed and connected by the political especially the last about the restoration of power of the state as well as by personal the victims’ justice and dignity. relationships. The state, and especially the The assertion that the Japanese govern- modern state, has politically constituted the ment should take responsibility was charac- gender and sexual hierarchy, the sexual divi- teristic of the claims made by both sion of labor, and the boundary between the VAWW-Net Japan and the Korean Coun- private and the public sphere, at times by cil. Japan as a state should take legal using raw violence. Being a woman, whether responsibility as the first and indispensable biologically or socially, makes a person step to restore justice and dignity of vic- more vulnerable to social and political pres- tims. It was essential for compensating war sures than being a man because she is situ- crimes that had been ignored for a long ated in a socially subordinated position. time because of deep-rooted sexism and The system of comfort women itself was colonialism inherent to the system of created by the political powers of the state. international law. Even though feminists cannot adopt a posi- Despite all demands they take legal tion entirely outside the formations of state responsibility for the issue of comfort power, or biopolitics, they should and can women, the Japanese government has fight against state power by changing its never admitted having legal or political current constellation. Unless the state responsibility for this event: only moral power that created the system of comfort responsibility. It has firmly denied having women is radically challenged, we still live legal responsibility, and the Japanese in the same power vacuum as before and courts have repeated over and over agin cannot change ourselves. their justification of the government’s Second, the ethic of care does not teach denial. The reasons cited are that all inter- us how to heal wounded people effectively national law issues were settled by the San but rather teaches us how difficult it is to do Francisco Peace Treaty, the Agreement on so. To heal the wounded requires an unpre- the Settlement of Problems Concerning dictably long time, for their sufferings are Property and Claims on Economic Cooper- caused not only by direct injuries but also ation between Japan and Republic of by by the structural violence inflicteed on Korea, and other relevant treaties. their historical and political situation. The During the Women’s International War ethics of care requires us to explore why Crimes Tribunal, survivors of sexual and how some women but not others enslavement during the war often made the became victims of sexual slavery by the Jap- claim that they wished to restore justice for anese troops in the Second World War as themselves. Their testimonies were such well as to find out who caused these atroci- moving, courageous, and powerful voices ties. Moreover, it makes us attentive to the for justice that they demanded us to rethink reasons why survivors could not raise their whether any political theory of justice had own voice or why national and international ever engaged with this kind of atrocity. In communities silenced their voices for such a the last part of this article, I show the long time. The efforts to compensate them relevancy of care ethics to the issue of for their sufferings seem to constitute the comfort women according to three impossible task of repairing the irreparable. characteristics discussed in the above sec- We need to engage in long and varied pro- tion, “Three Challenges of the Ethics cesses of caring and listening to the victims’ of Care”. own voices.

Finally, we can interpret the civil move- importance of material compensation for ments of supporters and survivors them- their wrongs, “the more fundamental issue selves through the social connection model in reparations … is the moral vulnerability of justice. Survivors as well as their suppor- of victims of serious wrongs” (Walker, ters seek justice to reform the current con- 2010: 15). She argues that releasing “the stellation of gender politics. We have many victims from ignominy and contempt is at examples of women’s issues such as domes- the very heart of what is due in reparative tic violence and sexual harassment, justice” (Walker, 2010: 16). Survivors once demanding the reinterpretation and reima- denied their dignity need to appeal to jus- gining of misfortunes as injustice by chal- tice in order to ascertain that the world is lenging established positive laws and the changed to one in which their dignity as a rigid division between the public and the free person can be respected. private realm. As for violence against Judith Harman underlines the signifi- women during warfare, especially sexual cance of experience of being listened to by violence against women, it used to be said others without fear of disgrace in order to that this could not be prevented and that be at home in the world: sexual violence against women was a by- product of war. Becoming the victims of For individual victims, the path to recovery sexual aggression were considered as a mis- begins with the ability to name the problem fortune to women and as both natural and and disclose it to others. As in the case of inescapable. the so-called “comfort women,” victims As Young tried to approach the issue of who speak out often risk public disgrace as responsibility across borders and historic well as retaliation by the perpetrator. That injustices (Young, 2011), the social connec- is why the organizing strategy of the femi- tion model reveals that traditional justice nist movement begins with the creation of and the current legal system are bounded confidential relationships in small groups of by the power dynamics of nation-states and women, where secrets can be shared with- their history. When survivors bring an issue out shame. The mutual support of the to the trial, they are not only under the cur- group is a powerful antidote to the fear and rent legal system but also enter the public isolation imposed by the perpetrator. Once sphere where their dignity may be been victims feel some sense of belonging, they infringed. As many studies about the social may find the courage to expose the vio- situation of women in the Korean penin- lence and to challenge its legitimacy. sula under Japanese colonization show, (Herman, 2002: 192). those who were forced to be comfort woman were socially deprived and were As the title of Harman’s essay, “Peace much more powerless than those who on Earth Begins at Home” explicitly forced them. asserts, women’s voices could encourage us The ethics of care presupposes that a to change the current power structure society is a connected network of variously bound by traditional notion of justice, the situated people. Some have prerogatives rigid dichotomy between the private and and powers and others are stigmatized and the public, national borders and the bound- disadvantaged. Thus, some are more vul- aries between citizens and foreigners. Since nerable to than others. The victims of war, Gilligan called into a question the general especially, were situated as an extremely attitudes of scholars who devalued powerless group in front of the massive and women’s voice, scholars of the ethics of institutionalized violence of the state. Mar- care have searched for more inclusive and garet Walker argues that, despite the responsive theories to the issues of those

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Japanese Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Sociological Society Ethics of Care as a Global Issue 97 who have suffered for being silenced and alternative way of building a less violent marginalized in a male-centered world. world for those who are most vulnerable and at risk.

Conclusion Notes The comfort women in Japan show us a human reality where human vulnerability is 1 For example, Kohlberg, whose study of the dif- a feature of gender, historical, and political ferences in moral development between boys situations, and one’s own moral status. The and girls was criticized by Gilligan, argued that ’ insights of care ethics reveal that such an Gilligan s discussion resulted in reinforcing the traditional moral dichotomy between imper- unequal situation itself is a violent one. The ’ sonal and personal ethics (Kohlberg, 1982: Tokyo Women s Tribunal asked the Japa- 517–519). nese government to make reparations for 2 Unfortunately, because discussions about care the prolonged suffering of survivors as well ethics are usually framed in a debate between as for harm done during their sexual the theory of justice and the ethics of care in enslavement, and to educate future genera- the academic fields of legal or political philoso- tions. These requests were made as the Tri- phy, and ethics in Japan, it often fails to recog- bunal respected the dignity of female nize the importance of the historical background of American feminist theories. survivors and listened to their voices with a ’ “ ” respect rooted in an ethics of care. The 3 MacKinnon s dominance approach to gender ’ equality is the approach by which subordination Tokyo Women s Tribunal showed a differ- and domination, not equality and difference, ent way for the Japanese government to are examined to empower women. For exam- take responsibility other than restoring jus- ple, MacKinnon argued that if “the first prob- tice by simply punishing the offenders. lem of inequality is the problem of the When we take seriously the question subordination of women and not the inaccurate about how we can restore justice and dig- differentiation between people on the basis of nity to victims of sexual slavery in Imperial sex, it is inappropriate to discuss the reality or proposition of treating women as sub-human as Japan, an ethics of care provides us with a matter of good versus evil. Appropriate, many useful insights. An ethics of care is instead, is an argument and a discussion about responsive to various dimensions of vulner- empowerment, about power” (MacKinnon et ability as a normative theory and al., 1985: 27–28). approaches justice differently from existing 4 Elshtain’s aim was to answer the question why theories of justice. The ethics of care has “women were silenced in part because that now become an indispensable normative which defines them and to which they are ines- — idea in approaching restorative justice or capably linked sexuality, natality, the human body (images of uncleanness and taboo, visions transformative justice. In this way, the eth- of dependency, helpless, vulnerability)—was ics of care provides us with a new approach omitted from political speech” (Elshtain, 1981: to the issues of structural violence across 15). By answering this, she affirmed the values borders, such as the issue of the migration practiced in the private and familial sphere, of caregivers. As Herman asserts, the ethics especially by women. of care asks us not only to listen carefully 5 According to her definition, an important dis- to voices of those who are morally deva- tinction between the first and second genera- lued but also to question critically the glob- tion of care ethics consists in the difference between “care theorists who have linked an ally structured relation of the powerful and ethics of care … to gender and those who pro- the powerless. Hence, the ethics of care is a pose that care is central to all human life” normative theory. It shows us an (Hankivsky, 2004: 11).

6 Heinz’ dilemma, which is one of Kohlberg’s Collins, Patricia H. 1995. “Black Women and standard dilemmas, was used to assess moral Motherhood.” Pp. 117–135 in Justice and Care: maturity of children. In the story, Heinz has a Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics, edited wife who needs expensive drugs that he cannot by Virginia Held. Boulder, CO: Westview afford to buy. The interviewer asks intervie- Press. wees whether Heinz should steal the drug or Dietz, Mary G. 1998. “Citizenship with a Feminist not. According to the answer, Kohlberg distin- Face: The Problem with n Maternal Thinking.” guishes three stages of moral development, Pp. 45–64 in Feminism: the Public & the Pri- “preconventional,”“conventional,” and “post- vate, edited by Joan B. Landes. Oxford: conventional.” Gilligan criticizes the male- Oxford University Press. centered scale of moral maturity where girls’ Elshtain, Bethke J. 1981. Public Man, Private moral development generally measured scored Woman: Women in Social and Political lower than boys. See for example Gilligan Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University (1993: 72–72). Press. 7 It should be noted that Gilligan’s work was in Gilligan, Carol. 1993. In a Different Voice: the same vein as that of Nancy Chodolow, The Psychological Theory and Women’s Develop- Reproduction of Mothering, in which Chodolow ment, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University called into a question of deep-rooted idea of Press. the naturalization of mother’s love and ana- Hankivsky, Olena. 2004. Social Policy and the Eth- lyzed why girls tend to take the role of mother- ics of Care. Vancouver: UBC Press. ing and how mothering is reproduced through Held, Virginia (ed). 1995. Justice and Care: Essen- generations. tial Readings in Feminist Ethics. Boulder, CO: 8 The current interest in the ethics of Westview Press. care in Japan fails to see its political implica- Held, Virginia. 2006. The Ethics of Care: Personal, tions because it focuses on the framework Political, and Global. Oxford: Oxford Univer- that situates the ethics of care, in contrasted sity Press. to the theory of justice. Chapter three of Held, Virginia. 2008. How Terrorism is Wrong: In a Different Voice is the most important Morality and Political Violence. Oxford: of her contributions, even though Japanese Oxford University Press. “ male philosophers and theorists hardly focus Herman, Judith L. 2002. Peace on Earth Begins at fl ’ on it. Home: Re ections from the Women s Libera- tion Movement.” Pp. 188–199 in Breaking the 9 Shklar criticizes a traditional understanding of Cycles of Hatred: Memory, Law, Repair, edited justice for regarding “injustice” as “a break- by Martha Minow. Princeton, NJ: Princeton down of justice, as if injustice were a surprising University Press. abnormality.” (Shklar, 1990: 17). She finds that Kittay, Eva F. 2001. “A Feminist Public Ethics of the normal model of justice limits our intellec- Care Meets the New Communitarian Family tual sensitivities to injustice. Policy.” Ethics 111: 523–547. Kittay, Eva F. 2009. “The Moral Harm of Migrant Carework: Realizing a Global Right to Care.” Philosophical Topics 37: 53–73. References Kittay, Eva F. and Diana T. Meyers eds. 1987. “Introduction.” Pp. 3–16 in Women and Moral Arendt, Hannah. 1973. The Origins of Totalitarian- Theory, edited by Eva F. Kittay, and Diana ism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. T. Meyers. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield. Baier, Annette C. 1994. Moral Prejudices: Essays Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1982. “A Reply to Owen on Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Flanagan and Some Comments on the University Press. Puka-Goodpaster Exchange.” Ethics, 92/3: Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of 513–528. Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1987. Feminism Unmo- of Gender. Berkeley, CA: University of dified: Discourse on Life and Law. Cambridge, California Press. MA: Harvard University Press. Clement, Grace. 1996. Care, Autonomy, and Jus- MacKinnon, Catharine A., Isabel Marcus, Paul J. tice: Feminism and the Ethics of Care. Boulder, Spiegelman, Ellen C. Dubois, Marcy C. CO: Westview Press.

Dunlap, Carol J. Gilligan, and Carrie J. Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Menkel-Meadow. 1985. “Feminist Discourse, Politics of Peace. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Moral Values, and the Law—A Shklar, Judith. 1990. The Faces of Injustice. New Conversation.” Buffalo Law Review 34: 11–87. Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mayeroff, Milton. 1971. On Caring. New York: Tronto, Joan. 1996. “The Political Concept of Harper Perennial. Care.” Pp. 139–156 in Revisioning the Political: Nedelsky, Jennifer. 2011. Law’s Relations: A Rela- Feminist Reconstructions of Traditional Con- tional Approach of Self, Autonomy, and Law. cepts in Western Political Theory, edited by Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nancy Hirschman and Christine Di Stefano. Nicholson, Linda J. 1993. “Women, Morality, and Boulder, CO: Westview Press. History.” Pp. 87–101 in An Ethics of Care: Tronto, Joan. 2005. “Care as the Work of Citizens: Feminist and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edi- A Modest Proposal.” Pp. 130–145 in Women ted by Mary J. Larrabee. New York: and Citizenship, edited by M. Friedman. Routledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pateman, Carole. 1992. “Equality, Difference, Sub- Tronto, Joan. 2013. Caring Democracy: Markets, ordination: The Politics of Motherhood and Equality, and Justice. New York: New York Women’s Citizenship.” Pp. 14–27 in Beyond University Press. Equality & Difference: Citizenship, Feminist Walker, Margaret U. 2010. What is Reparative Jus- Politics, Feminist Subjectivity, edited by tice?. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Gisela Bock and Susan James. Abingdon: Press. Routledge. Young, Iris M. 1990. Justice and Politics of Differ- Robinson, Fiona. 1999. Globalizing Care: Ethics, ence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Feminist Theory, and International Relations. Young, Iris M. 2007. Global Challenges: War, Self- Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Determination and Responsibility for Justice. Robinson, Fiona. 2011. The Ethics of Care: A Femi- Cambridge: Polity Press. nist Approach to Human Security. Philadel- Young, Iris M. 2011. Responsibility for Justice. phia, PA: Temple University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

YAYO OKANO

Graduate School of Global Studies, Doshisha University, Karasuma-higashi-iru, Imadegawa- dori, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto-shi, 602-8580, Japan. Email: [email protected] Received 15 September 2015; accepted 20 November 2015