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 the- ory, philosophy, and political and legal theory, have been inspired to establish a more inclusive approach to social injustice as well as sexual inequality. The pur- pose 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. © 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 87 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.