Abstracts
Résumé
Cet article porte sur le concept de préférence adaptative tel qu’il est apparu en philosophie féministe politique et anglophone depuis les années 2000. Ce concept désigne les préférences formées conformément à un milieu oppressif et qui vont à l’encontre du bien-être. Dans un premier temps, il sera question des deux théorisations les plus influentes à l’heure actuelle : celles développées par les philosophes Martha Nussbaum et Serene Khader. Ensuite, j’évaluerai ces positions à l’aune des récents travaux des anthropologues féministes Saba Mahmood et Lila Abu-Lughod, dans lesquels elles remettent en question le projet politique de la philosophie féministe sous-jacent aux préférences adaptatives.
Abstract
This article examines the concept of adaptive preference as it has appeared in feminist political philosophy since the 2000’s. This concept refers to preferences shaped in compliance with an oppressive environment and that jeopardizes one’s well-being. In the first part, the two most influential conceptions of adaptive preference will be discussed : the ones provided by the philosophers Martha Nussbaum and Serene Khader. Afterwards, I will assess these conceptions in the light of recent work by feminist anthropologists Saba Mahmood and Lila Abu-Lughod, in which they revaluate the political project of feminist philosophy underlying adaptive preferences.
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Abbey, Ruth. The Return of Feminist Liberalism, Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011.
- Abu-Lughod, Lila. Do Muslim Women Need Saving ?, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2013.
- Abu-Lughod, Lila. « Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving ? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others », American Anthropologist, vol. 104, no3, 2002, p. 783-790.
- Abu-Lughod, Lila. « The Romance of Resistance : Tracing Transformations of Power Through Bedouin Women », American Ethnologist, vol. 17, no1, 1990, p. 41-55.
- Ackerly, Brooke A. Just Responsibility : A Human Rights Theory of Global Justice, New York, Oxford University Press, 2018.
- Ackerly, Brooke A. Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, Cambridge/New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000 (Contemporary political theory).
- Agarwal, Bina. « “Bargaining” and Gender Relations : Within and Beyond the Household », Feminist Economics, vol. 3, no1, janvier 1997, p. 1-51.
- Aragon, Corwin. « Global Gender Justice and Epistemic Oppression : A Response to an Epistemic Dilemma », Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, vol. 5, no2, juillet 2019.
- Baber, Harriet. « Adaptive Preference », Social Theory and Practice, vol. 33, no1, 2007, p. 105-126.
- Bangstad, Sindre. « Saba Mahmood and Anthropological Feminism After Virtue », Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 28, no3, mai 2011, p. 28-54.
- Begon, Jessica. « What are Adaptive Preferences ? Exclusion and Disability in the Capability Approach », Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 32, no3, août 2015, p. 241-257.
- Bell, Duncan (dir.). Empire, Race and Global Justice, Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
- Benhadjoudja, Leïla. « Les théories postcoloniales et leurs enjeux pour une anthropologue racisée : quelques éléments de réflexivité », in Naïma Hamrouni et Chantal Maillé (dir.), Le sujet du féminisme est-il blanc ? Femmes racisées et recherche féministe, Montréal, Éditions du Remue-ménage, 2015.
- Burke, Kelsy C. « Women’s Agency in Gender-Traditional Religions : A Review of Four Approaches : Women’s Agency in Gender-Traditional Religions », Sociology Compass, vol. 6, no2, février 2012, p. 122-133.
- Chambers, Clare. Sex, Culture, and Justice : the Limits of Choice, University Park, Pa, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008.
- Chung, Ryoa. « Domination », in Deen K. Chatterjee (dir.), Encyclopedia of Global Justice, Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, 2011, p. 265-267.
- Cornwall, Andrea et Mamoru Fujita. « Ventriloquising “the Poor” ? Of Voices, Choices and the Politics of “Participatory” Knowledge Production », Third World Quarterly, vol. 33, no9, octobre 2012, p. 1751-1765.
- Cudd, Ann E. « Adaptation to Oppression : Preference, Autonomy, and Resistance », in Marina Oshana (dir.), Personal Autonomy and Social Oppression : Philosophical Perspectives, New York, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015, p. 142-160.
- Deveaux, Monique. Gender and Justice in Multicultural Liberal States, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 2006.
- Elster, Jon. Sour Grapes : Studies in the Subversion of Rationality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983.
- Farris, Sara R. In the Name of Women’s Rights : the Rise of Femonationalism, Durham, Duke University Press, 2017.
- Frye, Marilyn. « Oppression », in The Politics of Reality : Essays in Feminist Theory, Trumansburg, NY, Crossing Press, 1983.
- Giraldo, Isis. « Coloniality at Work : Decolonial Critique and the Postfeminist Regime », Feminist Theory, vol. 17, no2, août 2016, p. 157-173.
- Herr, Ranjoo Seodu. « Islamist Women’s Agency and Relational Autonomy », Hypatia, vol. 33, no2, 2018, p. 195-215.
- Hirschkind, Charles et Saba Mahmood. « Feminism, the Taliban, and Politics of Counter-Insurgency », Anthropological Quarterly, vol. 75, no2, 2002, p. 339-354.
- Ibrahimhakkioglu, Fulden. « Embodied Affective Experience in Saba Mahmood’s Politics of Piety : Reformulating Agency for an Inclusive Transnational Feminism », APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, vol. 12, no 1, Fall 2012, p. 4-19.
- Jaggar, Alison M. « Reasoning About Well-Being : Nussbaum’s Methods of Justifying the Capabilities », Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 14, no3, 2006, p. 301-322.
- Jaggar, Alison M. « “Saving Amina” : Global Justice for Women and Intercultural Dialogue », Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 19, no3, 2005, p. 55-75.
- Kapoor, Ilan. « The Devil’s in the Theory : a Critical Assessment of Robert Chambers’ Work on Participatory Development », Third World Quarterly, vol. 23, no 1, 2002, p. 101-117.
- Khader, Serene J. « Adaptive Preferences », in Jay Drydyk et Lori Keleher (dir.), Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018, p. 93-100.
- Khader, Serene J. Decolonizing Universalism : Toward A Transnational Feminist Ethic, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 2018 (Studies in feminist philosophy).
- Khader, Serene J. « Do Muslim Women Need Freedom ? Traditionalist Feminisms and Transnational Politics », Politics & Gender, vol. 12, no 4, décembre 2016, p. 727-753.
- Khader, Serene J. « Identifying Adaptive Preferences in Practice. Lessons from Postcolonial Feminisms », Journal of Global Ethics, vol. 9, no3, 2013, p. 311-327.
- Khader, Serene J. « Must Theorising about Adaptive Preferences Deny Women’s Agency ? : Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Agency », Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 29, no4, novembre 2012, p. 302-317.
- Khader, Serene J. Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 2011 (Studies in feminist philosophy).
- Kittay, Eva Feder. « The Moral Harm of Migrant Carework : Realizing a Global Right to Care », Philosophical Topics, vol. 37, no2, 2009, p. 53-73.
- Landry, Jean-Michel. « Repenser la norme, réinventer l’agencéité. Entretien avec Saba Mahmood », Anthropologie et Sociétés, vol. 34, no1, 2010, p. 217-231.
- Longair, Holly. « Addressing Barriers to Deliberative Participation in Adaptive Preference Interventions », Ethics and Social Welfare, vol. 11, no2, avril 2017, p. 122-134.
- Mackenzie, Catriona. « Responding to the Agency Dilemma : Autonomy, Adaptive Preferences, and Internalized Oppression », in Marina Oshana (dir.), Personal Autonomy and Social Oppression : Philosophical Perspectives, New York, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015, p. 48-67 (65).
- Mahmood, Saba. Politique de la piété : le féminisme à l’épreuve du renouveau islamique, Paris, La Découverte, 2009.
- Maldonado-Torres, Nelson. « On the Coloniality of Being », Cultural Studies, vol. 21, no 2 et 3, mars 2007, p. 240-270.
- McCammon, Christopher. « Domination », in Edward N. Zalta (dir.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2018.
- Mestiri, Soumaya, « Réponses à mes critiques », Philosophiques, vol. 44, no 1, 2017, p. 155.
- Mitchell, Polly, « Adaptive Preferences, Adapted Preferences », Mind, vol. 127, no 508, octobre 2018, p. 1003-1025.
- Narayan, Uma. « Sisterhood and “Doing Good” : Asymmetries of Western Feminist Location, Access and Orbits of Concern », Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, vol. 5, no2, juillet 2019, p. 1-26.
- Narayan, Uma. « Mind of Their Own : Choices, Autonomy, Cultural Practices and Other Women », in Louise M Antony et Charlotte Witt (dir.), A Mind of One’s Own : Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 2001, p. 418-432 (Feminist theory and politics).
- Nussbaum, Martha C. Capabilités : comment créer les conditions d’un monde plus juste ?, Paris, Climats, 2012.
- Nussbaum, Martha C. Women and Human Development : The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge/New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
- Nussbaum, Martha C. Sex & Social Justice, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.
- Nussbaum, Martha C. « Human Capabilities, Female Human Beings », in Jonathan Glover et Martha C. Nussbaum (dir.), Women, Culture, and Development : a Study of Human Capabilities, Oxford /New York, Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 61-104.
- Nussbaum, Martha C. « Human Functioning and Social Justice : In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism », Political Theory, vol. 20, no2, 1992, p. 202-246.
- Oshana, Marina. Personal Autonomy in Society, Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, VT, Ashgate, 2006.
- Pettit, Philip. Republicanism, Oxford University Press, 1999.
- Rajan, Hamsa. « The Ethics of Transnational Feminist Research and Activism : An Argument for a More Comprehensive View », Signs : Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 43, no2, janvier 2018, p. 269-300.
- Riddle, Karie Cross. « Empowerment : Participatory Development and the Problem of Cooptation », in Jay Drydyk et Lori Keleher (dir.), Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018, p. 171-182.
- Robeyns, Ingrid. Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice : The Capability Approach Re-Examined, Open Book Publishers, 2017.
- Sen, Amartya. Inequality Reexamined, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001.
- Sen, Amartya. « Gender and Cooperative Conflicts. », in Irene Tickner (dir.), Persistent Inequalities : Women and World Development, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 123-149.
- Sen, Amartya. Resources, Values, and Development, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1984.
- Singh, Jakeet. « Religious Agency and the Limits of Intersectionality », Hypatia, vol. 30, no 4, 2015, p. 657-674.
- Stoljar, Natalie. « Autonomy and Adaptive Preference Formation », in Andrea Veltman (dir.), Autonomy, Oppression, and Gender, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 227-252 (Studies in feminist philosophy).
- Terlazzo, Rosa. « The Perfectionism of Nussbaum’s Adaptive Preferences », Journal of Global Ethics, vol. 10, no2, mai 2014, p. 183-198.
- Terman, Rochelle. « Islamophobia, Feminism and the Politics of Critique », Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 33, no2, mars 2016, p. 77-102.
- Walsh, Mary Barbara. « Feminism, Adaptive Preferences, and Social Contract Theory », Hypatia, vol. 30, no4, 2015, p. 829-845.
- Weir, Allison. « Feminism and the Islamic Revival : Freedom as a Practice of Belonging », Hypatia, vol. 28, no2, mai 2013, p. 323-340.
- Westlund, Andrea C. « Rethinking Relational Autonomy », Hypatia, vol. 24, no 4, 2009, p. 26-49.
- Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2011.
10.7202/044205ar