CHAPTER 8 Feminist Ethics Sarah Clark Miller Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Pennsylvania State University, State College Imagine a world in which women are forbidden from holding property or jobs and even from reading. In this world, women are taught that the order of things entails their utter subservience to men. It is a world in which women’s freedom is so circumscribed that they are forced to bear children against their will. This is the world that Margaret Atwood (1939–) portrays in The Handmaid’s Tale (1985), a novel set in the Republic of Gilead, a repressive theocracy that takes hold in the United States after a governmental coup. This is a world in which women’s oppression—and their reduction to nothing more than their reproductive function—is complete. In Gilead, rich, White, able-bodied men determine the meaning and shape of all women’s lives. They do so in large part by controlling the A promotion for the Hulu series based on Margaret Atwood’s novel The Handmaid’s Tale. The novel’s narrator says the bonnets the handmaids wear “are to keep us from seeing, but also from being seen.” REUTERS/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO. 189 COPYRIGHT 2017 Macmillan Reference USA, a part of Gale, a Cengage Company WCN 02-200-210 Chapter 8: Feminist Ethics ethical codes that govern the lives over which they rule. In its depiction of patriarchy unchecked and misogyny unbounded, The Handmaid’sTaleserves as a potent reminder of why we need ethical theories and practices with the elimination of oppression against women at their core. It also shows us why we need ethical systems that value women in all their diversity, as well as systems that promote women’s right to determine for themselves the meaning of their own lives. Although The Handmaid’s Tale is a work of fiction, it bears a striking resemblance to reality. Atwood has noted that there is “nothing in the book that didn’t happen, somewhere” (Heching 2017). Thus, it is not that it could happen but rather that, piecemeal, all elements of it already have. This is all the more reason why attention to varieties of ethics with the power not only to identify errors of the past but to prevent horrors of the future is vital. Feminist ethics is one such form of ethics. Gilead is the world to which feminist ethics is the antidote and against which it guards. In short, The Handmaid’s Tale shows us why we need feminist ethics. This chapter begins by discussing what feminist ethics is and does through examination of a specific example of the spheres into which our lives are separated: the public and the private. After demonstrating how feminist ethicists critique, complicate, and expand the content and experiences of such categories, I characterize the overarching aims of feminist ethics as (1) critical and (2) creative. I then turn to major themes in feminist ethics, exploring four of them in depth: oppression, vulnerability and dependency, relationality, and the nonideal. Having provided an overview of the ethical themes that matter to feminists, I also depict three different varieties of feminist ethics—liberal, care, and transnational—before concluding. WHAT IS FEMINIST ETHICS? Feminist ethics invites us to imagine an ethical life beyond the rigid confines erected by ethicists throughout the history of ethics. Ethics has been an enterprise written nearly exclusively by men, for men, and about men. Even when purporting to be universal in scope, much of Western ethics has been falsely so. Though ethicists wrote of humanity, only the middle part of that word—man—was their real focus. Western ethics has believed that, as James Brown put it in a 1966 song, “this is a man’s, man’s, man’s world.” Feminist ethics arrives on the scene to complete this lyric: “But it wouldn’t be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl” (though feminists might intend this lyric in a more empowering way than the Godfather of Soul likely meant it). The content, feel, and focus of ethical life shifts under feminist critique and revision as feminists push the boundaries of the “proper” subject matter of ethics. They explore issues and themes not previously taken to be part of moral philosophy, such as child rearing, domestic violence, and sex work. Feminist ethicists have expanded not only the content of ethics but also how it might be done. Instead of seeing ethics as a process of consulting imagined, ideal situations to determine which principles work in such perfect contexts, feminist ethicists point to the importance of beginning ethical inquiry from real life, in all its imperfection and messiness. And finally, a point that is perhaps not acknowledged often enough: feminist ethicists have challenged the very notion of who gets to be an ethicist in the first place. Although the profession was for centuries forbidden to the fairer sex and reserved nearly exclusively for their less fair counterparts, philosophy in general and philosophical ethics in particular are now, finally, open to women. 190 MACMILLAN INTERDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOKS COPYRIGHT 2017 Macmillan Reference USA, a part of Gale, a Cengage Company WCN 02-200-210 Chapter 8: Feminist Ethics WHAT FEMINIST ETHICS IS AND WHAT IT DOES: AN OPENING EXAMPLE Consider an example that is handy for the way in which it demonstrates all three foregoing, interwoven points about the forms of expansion feminist ethics initiates (i.e., expansion of the content of ethics, how ethics is done, and those who are deemed appropriate to be ethicists): the public/private split. This is the split thought to exist between the public sphere of commerce and politics and the private sphere of family and home. Historically, the private sphere was the place of women, while the public sphere was the rightful place of men. Social evidence of this split exists throughout US history. Challenging the Public/Private Divide. Take, for example, the White, suburban culture of the late 1950s and early 1960s, as exemplified in the popular television series Leave It to Beaver (1957–1963), where June Cleaver, a wife and mother, tended to the home and the raising of two sons, while her husband, Ward Cleaver, worked outside the home in an unspecified white-collar office job (though his questionable past as a philosophy major must also be noted). Traditionally speaking, what happened in the private sphere was just that— private, and therefore often beyond the reach of public ethical judgment. How men treated “their” women was a personal matter not open to public critique or restriction. With a few exceptions, the realm of the family generally existed beyond the reach of justice. The public/private split has been a focus of feminist criticism in multiple significant ways. Carole Pateman (1940–) asserted that “the dichotomy between the private and the public is central to almost two centuries of feminist writing and political struggle; it is, ultimately, what the feminist movement is about” (1983, 281). Pateman felt feminists should be suspicious of the public/private split for multiple reasons. First, the split between the public and the private is itself a mechanism of patriarchy. The private becomes a space in which men’s actions toward women exist beyond public reproach. Private family matters are to be addressed behind closed doors, out of the public eye. Second, Pateman argues that rather than existing as two separate spheres operating independently of one another, there is a necessary reliance of the public sphere on the private sphere. More specifically, the continuation of the public sphere is dependent on the free labor that primarily women perform in the private sphere as they tend to domestic life with all of the physical and emotional labor that it takes to keep a household running. Think of the scene from the 2016 animated film Sing, in which the mother pig, Rosita, attempts to automate her duties at home so she can attend a rehearsal for a singing competition. As viewers watch her Rube Goldberg housework contraption go hilariously awry, with piglets being washed as dishes, the sheer volume and intensity of the labor Rosita performs becomes shockingly apparent. Third, public work is culturally and socially overvalued at the expense of or to the exclusion of private work. One need think no further than the still widespread view that paid labor performed in the workforce is more valuable and important than the unpaid labor of raising children in the home. In general, feminist ethicists hold that family matters are, in fact, not private matters situated beyond the reach of ethics; rather, they are sometimes matters of ethics, and more specifically, justice. Feminists have thereby rejected traditional ethics’ inherent sequestering of private matters away from matters thought to be properly ethical, that is, a domain proper for ethical inquiry and investigation. For example, relations between members of a family— how husbands treat their wives—for centuries have been considered by many to be beyond the reach of ethical principles and judgment. But women battered by their husbands or children molested by relatives experience gross forms of injustice that are not simply PHILOSOPHY: FEMINISM 191 COPYRIGHT 2017 Macmillan Reference USA, a part of Gale, a Cengage Company WCN 02-200-210 Chapter 8: Feminist Ethics unfortunate private matters that constitute the skeletons in any family’s closet or the dirty laundry never to be aired in public. Beyond examples of sexual violence and assault, feminists argue that the division of labor within the home is not only an ethical matter but also a political one. Much of this movement in seeing private matters as matters of justice intersects with the feminist rallying call from the Second Wave of feminism: “the personal is political.” (This saying indicates another example of a boundary that feminist ethicists have challenged, that is, the boundary between the ethical and the political.) This discussion of the feminist critique of the private/public split demonstrates a shift in ethical content through the inclusion of new issues previously deemed to be outside the scope of ethics, as well as a shift in methodology.