Dr. Kittay and the Anthropological Question

Again, thanks Lisa for an enriching conference.  The following account of Dr. Kittay's talk is taken from what I heard and remember.  Since both my hearing (and listening) and memory are notably fallible, it is possible that I have misunderstood or mischaracterized Dr. Kittay's positions and statements.  If so, I look forward to correction.  In her presentation, Dr. Eva Feder Kittay criticized Susan Stabile and Marie Failinger for suggesting that Christian feminism provided a richer account of woman than its secular counterpart.  She thought this statement divisive and suggested that sisters in a common cause should look to what unites, not what divides.  Substantively, Dr. Kittay argued that all dependent human beings (at least all born human beings - she didn't address abortion) were due care under a reciprocity theory of justice because all human beings are dependent at some point in their lives, particularly when they are young and old.  During the question and answer period, I asked Dr. Kittay upon what foundation was she building her argument that human beings have a dignity worthy of respect by others.  Specifically, I asked on what grounds is a perpetually dependent human being (a severely retarded individual, for example) due care as a matter of justice.  She answered by saying that the standard philosophical foundation for concluding that human beings are owed justice is the capacity to reason.  As I understood her, she rejects this as too narrow, concluding that it is our dependency (not our rationality) that binds us and creates certain obligations.  The perpetually dependent human is owed care because even though he or she may not be able to reciprocate, he or she is part of a great cycle of reciprocal care giving and care receiving by human beings generation after generation. 

Four comments.  First, I agree with Dr. Kittay that when we are working toward a specific goal (working for family leave legislation for instance), we should build as broad a coalition as possible, setting aside our differences.  Second, except for the narrow case just described, a much richer pluralism is born, IMHO, of each participant in the discussion bringing their whole self into the discussion.  Third, it seems to me that the anthropological question (and our responses to it) is vital to the conversation.  A key question is why?  Why is slavery wrong?  Why is abortion wrong?  Why was Hitler's project wrong?Why is it wrong to discard the perpetually dependent?  Some anthropoligical foundations from which these questions can be answered are sturdier than others.  Finally, it seems to me that Marie and Susan's Christian anthropology (I look forward to Marie and Susan teasing out the differences between a Lutheran and a Catholic anthropology) provides a richer and sturdier foundation for feminism than Dr. Kittay's secular dependency care theory.  No matter how reasonable it might seem, Dr. Kittay is building her dependency care feminist project from her own preference for how the world ought to be ordered.  She is not making a Truth claim about human persons and the world in which they live.  There is no grand "sez who" to use Leff's words, judging that her view of the perpetually dependent individuals is Right and that a position that perpetually dependent individuals, by reason of their lack of reasoning capacity, are not subjects of justice (see Ackerman, Social Justice in a Liberal State) is Wrong.  Susan and Marie, on the other hand, are making Truth claims about the human person.  These claims, which can be known to some extent through reason without the mediation of revelation, may or may not be true.  But, if they are true, they do, it seems to me, provide a richer account of dependency care theory.  In the end, I don't think it is a question of whether Susan and Marie have a richer account but whether they have a true account.  Because if it is true, then it is richer, isn't it? 

I hope Dr. Kittay will respond. And, to all of you, readers and contributors, am I correct that the exploration of the anthropological foundations here (as in other areas) is vitally important, especially in this time when our public anthropology is unstable and much contested?