Motivation

To what extent is Ruddick’s “maternal approach” to ethics at methodological odds with MacKinnon’s feminist ethics? One difference is clear: whereas Ruddick takes a naturalistic account of mothering as the starting point, Mackinnon claims that “nature, law, the family, and roles” should be seen as “consequences, not foundations” of women’s situation. But does this difference in approach result in, or arise from, radically different theories of the nature of truth claims? While our summary of Ruddick’s theory does not directly address this issue, it seems to me that she is advocating “maternal thinking” as just one way of knowing/relating to others—just as Mackinnon concludes, “Feminism… questions the universality imperative itself. Aperspectivity is revealed as a strategy of male hegemony.”