L’Imagination au Pouvoir: Comparing John Rawls’s Method of Ideal Theory with Iris Marion Young’s Method of Critical Theory

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter compares the philosophical methods used respectively by John Rawls and Iris Marion Young. Rawls’s theory is ideal in several interrelated methodological respects: he emphasizes principle over practice; he relies on a fictional reasoning process; and his theory is designed for an imagined world that lacks many problematic aspects of the real world. Young’s method, which she characterizes as critical theory, is non-ideal in all the respects that Rawls’s method is ideal. Young emphasizes practice; she respects the reasoning of actual people; and she directly addresses existing injustices. If Young has been able to develop philosophical ideals of justice that are more comprehensive, relevant, and substantively acceptable than Rawls’s, I suggest that one reason may be the non-ideal aspects of her methodology. In the end, however, Young’s philosophical contributions cannot be attributed only to her method; they are also the product of her unique political passion and creative imagination.

Keywords

Non-ideal theory Philosophical method Critical theory Rawls Iris Marion Young 

References

  1. Benhabib, S. 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  2. Jaggar, A.M. 1993. ‘Taking Consent Seriously: Feminist Practical Ethics and Actual Moral Dialogue,’ The Applied Ethics Reader, Eds. E. Winkler and J. Coombs (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  3. Kittay, E. 1999. Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  4. Mills, C. 2004. ‘“Ideal Theory” as Ideology,’ in Moral Psychology: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory, Eds. P. DesAutels and M. Urban Walker (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers).Google Scholar
  5. Okin, S.M. 1989. Justice, Gender and the Family (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
  6. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Walker, M. 1998. Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  8. Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  9. Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, UCB 232University of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations