Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:46:47.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sexual Politics and Ascriptive Autonomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2010

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Affiliation:
Albion College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I explore the notion of ascriptive autonomy as a conceptual and political tool that can be used to understand and enact potentially liberatory practices that enable marginalized people to have greater individual autonomy. “Ascriptive autonomy” refers to the sense in which autonomy is partly constituted by the conferral of the status of “autonomous individual.” Autonomy is both a capacity to determine one's own ends and a status conferred by virtue of being recognized by others. I focus on the link between these two facets of autonomy insofar as recognition may enable the development of capacity. In certain situations, autonomy may be ascribed even if one lacks some requirements associated with the capacity for autonomy because of either institutional or psychic constraints that follow from oppression. In such instances of “selective, purposeful misrecognition,” ascription may lead to the cultivatation of the capacity for autonomy while opening up a space for politics. To demonstrate this, I recast the feminist debate over sexuality using the terms of ascriptive autonomy. When viewed through the lens of misrecognition, we can better respond to critiques that charge proponents of the “pro-sex”position with focusing on sexual pleasure at the expense of sufficient attention paid to the constraints faced by women.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 573 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Joel, and Honneth, Axel. 2005. “Autonomy, Vulnerability, Recognition, and Justice.” In Autonomy and the Challenges of Liberalism: New Essays, ed. Christman, J. P. and Anderson, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating The Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ben-Ishai, Elizabeth. 2009. “The Autonomy-Fostering State: ‘Coordinated Fragmentation’ and Domestic Violence Services.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (3): 307–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, Paul. 1991. “Autonomy and Oppressive Socialization.” Social Theory and Practice 17 (3): 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1999. Gender Trouble. 2d ed.New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing Gender. Boca Raton: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christman, John. 2005. “Saving Positive Freedom.” Political Theory 33 (1): 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christman, John Philip. 1989. The Inner Citadel: Essays on Individual Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, Barbara. 1999. The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Danish Sexworker Organisation. 2009. Available from http://www.cop15-prostitution.dk/ (Accessed December 12, 2009).Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 1999. “Review: Judith Butler and the Politics of the Performative.” Political Theory 27 (4): 545–59.Google Scholar
Fallon, Richard H. 1994. “Two Senses of Autonomy.” Stanford Law Review 46 (4): 875–905.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Ann. 1997. “Moral Responsibility and Social Change: A New Theory of Self.” Hypatia 12 (3): 116–41.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy, and Gordon, Linda. 2002. “A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State.” In The Subject of Care: Feminist Perspectives on Dependency, ed. Kittay, E. F. and Feder, E. K.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy, and Honneth, Axel. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Friedman, Marilyn. 2003. Autonomy, Gender, Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gedalof, Irene. 2000. “Power, Politics, and Performativity: Some Comments on Elisa Glick's ‘Sex Positive’” Feminist Review 64: 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, Elisa. 2000. “Sex Positive: Feminist, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression.” Feminist Review 64: 19–45.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy J. 2003. The Subject of Liberty: Toward a Feminist Theory of Freedom. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Kershaw, Paul. 2006. “Carefair: Choice, Duty, and the Distribution of Care.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 13 (2): 341–71.Google Scholar
King, Desmond S. 2005. “Making People Work: Democratic Consequences of Workfare.” In Welfare Reform and Political Theory, ed. Mead, L. M. and Beem, C.. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
LaVaque-Manty, Mika. 2006. “Kant's Children.” Social Theory and Practice 32 (3): 365–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Catriona, and Stoljar, Natalie. 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Markell, Patchen. 2003. Bound by Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mead, Lawrence M. 1997. “The Rise of Paternalism.” In The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty, ed. Mead, L. M.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Mead, Lawrence M. 2005. “Welfare Reform and Citizenship.” In Welfare Reform and Political Theory, ed. Mead, L. M. and Beem, C.. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Minow, Martha. 1990. Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer. 1989. “Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities.” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer. 1990. “Law, Boundaries and the Bounded Self.” Representations 30, Special Issue: Law and the Order of Culture (Spring 1990) pp. 162–189.Google Scholar
Overall, Christine. 1992. “What's Wrong with Prostitution? Evaluating Sex Work.” Signs 17 (4): 706.Google Scholar
Renegar, Valerie R., and Sowards, Stacey. 2009. “Contradiction as Agency: Self-determination, Transcendence, and Counter-imagination in Third Wave Feminism.” Hypatia 24 (2): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Gayle. 1993. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” In The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, ed. Abelove, H., Barale, M. A., and Halperin, D. M.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sawicki, Jana. 1991. Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles, and Gutmann, Amy. 1992. Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition: An Essay. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vance, Carole S. 1992. Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. London: Pandora.Google Scholar
Van Deven, Mandy. 2009. “On the Map: This Is Why I Love Prostitutes.” bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture. http://bitchmagazine.org/post/on-the-map-this-iswhy-i-love-prostitutes (Accessed December 12, 2009)Google Scholar
Westlund, Andrea. 2009. “Rethinking Relational Autonomy.” Hypatia 24 (4): 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar