Empathy at the Intersections of Care: Articulating a Critical Approach to the Ethics of International Development Diego de Merich A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. London, January 2015. DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my knowledge, infringe upon the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 74,158 words. 2 | P a g e ABSTRACT With the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set to expire in 2015, focus has turned to a new framework which might replace them. Heavily influenced by the Human Capabilities Approach (HCA), the MDGs reflected a relatively static, liberal understanding of what ‘human development’ is meant to signify (prioritising notions of freedom, individual capability and justice). Not an evaluation of the MDGs per se, this project suggests instead that critical reflection on the ethical underpinnings of any approach is key to articulating a future vision for development. I argue for a contrasting line of ethical thought, the ethics of care (which prioritise notions of context, vulnerability and relationship), suggesting how it could be more fully embodied in development practices. I further suggest that an emphasis on human empathy would serve to strengthen the values of responsibility and responsiveness which care (and development) ethicists champion. To this end, I first describe the ethical context (the HCA) within which the MDGs have operated; I then challenge its rationalistic or agentic biases and highlight the importance of human vulnerability, relationship and trust. I outline key elements of care theory (responsibility to ‘the other’, relational agency and ‘context’) and further argue that empathy should take a more central place in it. I finally describe empathy in practice (i.e. those programmes which foster empathic learning and understanding) and empathy in promise (by combining lessons drawn from the discussions above with deliberative democratic theory). Across these connected arguments, therefore, I describe a collaborative-expressive, praxeological ethics of international development; an ethics based in expressed need over abstract right, in the pluralism of development goals, in empathic deliberation on these needs and goals, and in the fostering of relationships of care and trust; necessary for any meaningful, future vision of human development – of ‘self’ and ‘distant other’ – to take form. 3 | P a g e ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While the old adage that ‘time flies when you’re having fun’ rarely applies to the process of putting together a dissertation – between finding a topic, finding a voice, trusting that voice and questioning it in equal measure, carrying the project through countless drafts and re-writes, presentations and helpful feedback, to that moment when submission is possible, if not inevitable – moments of fun have certainly punctuated my four years at the LSE. Fun with friends or family, fun lost in thought or conversation, fun in the challenge of provoking and in being provoked; it was a constant reminder of how ‘experience’ is only given meaning to through interaction with others. Having carried with me the ideas of the ethics of care throughout my entire academic journey – from the lecture halls of UBC campus to the streets of London (and beyond) – I am constantly aware of the web of relationships which have sustained me over the years (intellectually, academically, emotionally) and for which I am deeply grateful. First and foremost, my thanks to Kimberly Hutchings, a supervisor like no other. I could never have imagined that, sat years ago in my basement flat in Vancouver – reading her work on critical ethics and on a better way to engage with the challenges of the world around us – that I would be so fortunate as to be guided by her throughout this PhD process. While I cannot claim to be any better now at seeing ‘the forest for the trees’, it was Kim (through kind word and constant support) to so often help me out of the academic ‘brambles’. Her fierce intellect, academic rigour, insightful questions and clarity of style have been invaluable to me. They are matched only by her patience, empathy and generosity of spirit. She will continue to be both a source of inspiration to my future work and an example of the sort of academic and teacher I hope one day to be. My sincerest thanks also go to Olena Hankivsky – my first professor of political theory, my mentor and my friend. For introducing me to the ethics of care and intersectionality, for her trust in me on many projects over the years and for her helpful feedback and constant support, I will be forever grateful. From the cobblestoned streets of Kyiv to the bustling markets of East London, our ‘walks and talks’ have been a constant 4 | P a g e source of delight, insight and inspiration to me. I hope for many more to come. Thank you to Barbara Arneil, for her patient supervision during my MA at UBC, for inviting me to APSA in 2009 and for ultimately convincing me to pursue this project and my doctoral studies. For my time here in London, I owe thanks to the IR502 community – for our weekly seminars, fascinating debates and insightful feedback. My thanks also go to the LSE and to the International Relations Department for the funding which made my studies in London and my travels to distant conferences possible. On a personal level, I know I could not have survived the loneliest days of the PhD without the love and support of my friends here in London and at home. Thank you to Elke Schwarz and Myriam Fotou, for our ‘journeys in ethcis [sic!]’ in Japan and beyond; for hours spent in good company and with much laughter; for their kindness, love and care . Thank you to Joe Hoover, Nivi Manchanda, Paul Kirby, Robyn Klingler-Vidra, Michiel Van Ingen, Marta Iñiguez de Heredia, Nick Srnicek, Meera Sabaratnam, Michael Bloomfield, Aggie Hirst and Dennis Visser. While I could thank each of them for their brilliant minds and the intellectual inspiration they so often provided me, it was the kind word, the easy smile, the coffee break or cheeky pint, the Relay .gif or Whatsapp thread and the hours of good, ‘unacademic’ conversation which have most sustained me throughout this journey. My deepest gratitude, however, is reserved for my family. To my parents, Ettore and Paula, for a childhood filled with books and music, language and literature, cultural appreciation in the deepest sense – and for more than the occasional heated political debate at dinner – thank you. Your unwavering support and our weekly Skype appointments from across the world have kept me company on this long journey. To my best friend and sister Debora, thank you for our many conversations on empathy, on children and on finding new ways to engage with the world around us. Your thoughts on Maria Montessori and your fierce dedication to the ‘munchkins’ will continue to be a source of inspiration to me in my future studies, in work and in life. In short, to my mentors and tutors, my family and friends; to my personal community of care: grazie di cuore. 5 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS I 1) Locating Legacies, Emphasising Ethics: Prospects for International Development after the Millennium Development Goals …..………………………………………………………….…….8 1.1) Ethical Call and Critical Response: Situating the MDGs ………….….8 1.2) Locating Legacies: Critical Voices …………………………………………….17 1.3) Emphasising Ethics: Aim and Structure of the Argument …………29 2) Capabilities Codified (or ‘The Acronyms of Impartiality’): The MDGs and the RTD – Development Outcomes or Development Ethics? ...................................................................37 2.1) Development’s Eudaimonic Turn: Amartya Sen and the ‘ethical spaces’ of Development and Justice.………………………..…39 2.2) Development’s ‘Ten Commandments’: Martha Nussbaum’s Central Capabilities ……………………………………………..55 2.3) Human Rights, Public Reason and the Right to Development (RTD) …………………………………………………...57 3) From the ethics of better Development to the development of better ethics: Dignity in Justice or the Intersectionality of Human Vulnerability? …………………………………….……………………..65 3.1) The Ethics of Better Development: The Human Development Approach or ‘Justice through Dignity’ ……………………………………...69 3.2) The Development of Better Ethics: Recognising Vulnerability, establishing Trust ……………………….…………….……….75 3.3) Ethics through an Intersectional Lens …………………………….……….80 4) ‘Agency’, ‘Being’ and ‘Context’: The Relational self and The ABC’s of a Feminist Ethics of Care ………………………………………..84 4.1) The Development of an Ethic of Care: From Private to Public, Abstract to Embedded, Rights to Responsibilities…………87 4.2) On Agency and Relational Autonomy …….………………………………..95 4.3) Care in Context and Place …………………..……………………………………97 4.4) Vulnerability, Agency and Care…………………………………………………99 6 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS II 5) A Caring Consciousness, From MRIs to Hermeneutics: