Abstract
Feminist economics, in its contemporary incarnation, began to bloom with the 1993 publication of Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics (Ferber and Nelson). Since then, many strains of feminist thinking have developed around issues of the definition, methodology, philosophy, and policy application of economics. One key insight has been the recognition of the mythical nature of the rational, autonomous “economic man” who was said to inhabit and operate the free market automaton. The crumbling of this image challenges theories of business and markets that see business as no more than rule-bound (i.e., bound to a supposed legal requirement to maximize profits, or to the “dictates of the market”)—and opens the way for serious new thinking about business ethics, responsibility, and care. In this essay, I will review these literatures, describing developments on topics including: how, historically, the images of “economic man” and machine-like market behavior came to gain credence; the role of masculinist intellectual biases in the continuing acceptance of the idea that economies are run by physics-like economic “laws;” alternative views of human nature emphasizing the many dimensions of relationality, including individuality, connection, interdependence, “power over”, “power to”, care, and responsibility; the treatment of paid and unpaid “caring labor,” historically mostly done by women, within economics and feminist economics; alternative images of commerce as being within “the social,” and including all aspects of human functioning, including ethical and caring behavior; and, the role of continued dualistic or non-relational thinking in shaping some aspects of contemporary debates about the ethics of care and the role of business in society. Literatures to be drawn on include the feminist philosophy of science, the history of economic thought, theological views on human relations and care, feminist ethics of care, feminist economics, moral theory, psychological research on moral attitudes and behavior, research on the economics of “caring labor” (e.g. nursing), business ethics, and my own previous works on these issues.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As I write, the Wikipedia entry on “care ethics” is disseminating this view, and it has even infiltrated at least one textbook on business ethics (see citation in Borgerson 2007). Care ethics is sometimes even referred to as “the feminist” approach. In fact, the question of what is—and is not—feminist about care ethics is a topic of lively debate (Borgerson 2007; Tong and Williams 2009).
- 2.
Recent feminist literature has become more complicated as scholars deal with intersexuality, transsexuality, and the like. But the sex/gender distinction provides a rough typology that is useful when examining cultural stereotypes.
- 3.
It is also possible to enter this topic of biased or schematic thinking through linguistics and philosophy, by examining the role of metaphor in shaping how we think (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). See Nelson (1992) and for applications to up-down thinking about gender, Nelson (2006) for an application to the “economy is a machine” metaphor, and Hamington (2009) for an application to the “business is a game” metaphor.
- 4.
In the words of feminist philosopher Karen Warren, “The ability to care (and emotional intelligence generally) is necessary (psychologically, physically, and causally) for moral reasoning … So … One should care because one cannot reason morally, be motivated to act morally, choose to act morally, or value certain practices as moral … unless one cares” (2000, 112, emphasis in original).
- 5.
From a feminist perspective, however, it is shocking to see the lack of credit given to feminist theorists who have pointed out the gender biases in traditional Western liberal philosophy (as in Table 2.1 above), and to Gilligan. While psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s much-cited article on an interpersonal and social approach to moral judgments (Haidt 2001) critiques Kohlberg and others for their overly rationalist, individualist, and disembodied approach, he neglects Gilligan and the Kohlberg-Gilligan controversy entirely, citing male authors as the originators of the social and interpersonal approach. While there may be issues internal to the psychology profession that explain the omission of any mention of Gilligan, this looks distressing like yet another case of a point being noticed only when a man makes it.
- 6.
See (Nelson 2003) for a discussion of the role of images of “separative” and “soluble” firms in contemporary economic thought.
- 7.
- 8.
See discussions in Nelson (2006, forthcoming)
- 9.
This is true also about an asset often thought to be cold and impartial: money. For discussion, see Nelson (2006)
References
Adams, Edward S., and John. H. Matheson. 2000. A statutory model for corporate constituency concerns. Emory Law Journal 49: 1085–1135.
Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. 1981. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review 88 (4): 354–364.
Borgerson, Janet. L. 2007. On the harmony of feminist ethics and business ethics. Business and Society Review 112 (4): 477–509.
Collins, James C., and Jerry I. Porras. 1994. Built to last. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Easlea, Brian. 1980. Witch hunting, magic and the new philosophy: An introduction to debates of the scientific revolution, 1450–1750. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
England, Paula. 2003. Separative and soluble selves: dichotomous thinking in economics. In Feminist economics today: Beyond economic man, ed. M.A. Ferber, and J.A. Nelson, 33–59. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ferber, Marianne A., and Julie A. Nelson (Eds.). 1993. Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Folbre, Nancy, and Julie A. Nelson. 2000. For love or money – or both? Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (4): 123–140.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a difference voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greene, Joshua D., R. Brian Sommerville et al. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293 (September 14): 2105–2108.
Greene, Joshua D., and J. Haidt. 2002. How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (12): 517–523.
Haidt, Jonathan 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108 (4): 814–834.
Hamington, Maurice 2009. Business is not a game: The metaphoric fallacy. Journal of Business Ethics 86: 473–484.
Harding, Sandra 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Herzberg, Frederick. 1987. One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review (September–October): 109–120.
Hyde, Janet Shibley. 2005. The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60 (6): 581–592.
Jaffee, Sara, and Janet Shibley Hyde. 2000. Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 126 (5): 703–726.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kirkland, Rik. 2006. The real CEO pay problem. Fortune.
Knutson, Kristine M., L. Mah et al. 2007. Neural correlates of automatic beliefs about gender and race. Human Brain Mapping 28: 915–930.
Kusnet, David 2008. Love the work, hate the job: Why America’s best workers are more unhappy than ever. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mill, John Stuart. 1836. On the definition of political economy; and on the method of philosophical investigation in that science. London and Westminster Review : 1–29.
Nelson, Julie A 1992. Gender, metaphor, and the definition of economics. Economics and Philosophy 8: 103–125.
Nelson, Julie A. 1996. Feminism, objectivity and economics. London: Routledge.
Nelson, Julie A. 2003. Separative and soluble Firms: Androcentric bias in business ethics. In Feminist economics today: Beyond economic man, ed. M.A. Ferber, and J.A. Nelson. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nelson, Julie A. 2006. Can we talk? feminist economists in dialogue with social theorists. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 31 (4): 1052–1074.
Nelson, Julie A. 2006. Economics for humans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nelson, Julie A. Forthcoming. Does profit-seeking rule out love? Evidence (or not) from economics and law. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 35.
Nosek, Brian, Mahzarin Banaji et al. 2007. Gender-science IAT. http://https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/.
Paine, Lynn Sharp. 2002. Value Shift. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ryan, R.M., and E.L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67.
Sen, Amartya. 1983. The profit motive. Lloyds Bank Review (147): 1–20.
Smith, Adam. 1776[2001]. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York, NY: P.F. Collier & Son.
Smith, D. Gordon. 1998. The shareholder primacy norm. The Journal of Corporate Law 23: 277–323.
Tong, Rosemarie, and Nancy Williams. 2009. Feminist ethics. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/feminism-ethics/
Warren, Karen J. 2000. Ecofeminist Philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nelson, J.A. (2011). Care Ethics and Markets: A View from Feminist Economics. In: Hamington, M., Sander-Staudt, M. (eds) Applying Care Ethics to Business. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9307-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9307-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9306-6
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9307-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)