Chapter Nine: Contemporary Political Thought

 John Rawls’ Theory of Justice

 Rawls’ Conception of Justice
John Rawls, an American philosopher, who lived from 1921-2002, was arguably the most important
political philosopher of the 20th century. He wrote a series of highly influential articles in the 1950s
and 60s that helped refocus Anglo-American moral and political philosophy on substantive problems
about what we ought to do. His first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract
tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political
Liberalism (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively
permanent reasonable pluralism of religious, philosophical and other comprehensive doctrines or
worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public
justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that
pluralism.
Rawls takes the basic structure of society as his subject matter and utilitarianism as his principal
opponent. The first part of the Theory of Justice designs a social-contract-type thought experiment,
the Original Position, and argues that parties in the Original Position will prefer Justice as Fairness to
utilitarianism and various other views. In order to understand the argument from the Original
Position, one must pay special attention to the motivation of the parties to the Original Position,
which is philosophically stipulated and provided with a Kantian interpretation.
The second part of the Theory of Justice checks the fit between the principles of Justice as Fairness
and our more concrete considered views about just institutions, thereby helping us move towards a
reflective equilibrium that supports those principles. The third part of the Theory of Justice addresses
the stability of a society organized around Justice as Fairness, arguing that there will be an important
congruence in such a society between people’s views about justice and what they value.
By the time he wrote, Political Liberalism, however, Rawls had decided that an inconsistency in
Theory of Justice called for recasting the argument for stability. In other words, the argument of
Theory of Justice rested on important simplifications, which had the effect of setting aside questions
about international justice, disability, and familial justice.
Rawls argues that justice is the first virtue of social institutions. In his view, no matter how laws and
institutions are efficient and well-arranged, society must abolish them if they are unjust. Thus, justice
denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. He states
that people refer to many kinds of things as just and unjust including laws, institutions, social
systems, decisions, judgments, attitudes and dispositions of persons. But his theory refers to social
1
justice, whose major subject is the basic structure of society, i.e. the way in which major social
institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from
social cooperation.
Rawls conception of justices generalizes the social contract theory of Lock and Rousseau.
Accordingly, he expects us not to think of the original contract as a situation where people enter into
to form society or government. Rather, his idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure
of society are the objects of the original agreement. They are principles that free and rational persons
would accept to further their own interests in an initial position of equality. These principles
determine all further agreements and they specify the kinds of social cooperation that people can
enter into and the type of government that people should form. It is this way of regarding the
principles of justice that Rawls calls Justice as Fairness. Justice as Fairness is thus offered to people
who are neither saintly altruists nor greedy egoists. We are, as Rawls puts it, both rational and
reasonable. We have ends that we want to achieve, but we are happy to achieve them together if we
can, in accord with mutually acceptable regulative principles.
 Principles of Justice
Rawls bases this “justice as fairness” on two principles of justice:
1. That each individual has the right to the most extensive liberty (of speech, religion,
property, movement) compatible with the equal liberty of everyone else, and
2. That any social and economic inequalities of wealth and position are arranged so that the
result is a greater benefit to the least advantaged and that all high positions are democratic
and open to all people through equal opportunity.
The first principle holds that society must assure each citizen an equal claim to a fully adequate
scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all.
The second principle addresses instead those aspects of the basic structure that shape the distribution
of opportunities, offices, income, wealth, and in general social advantages.
The first part of the second principle holds that the social structures that shape this distribution must
satisfy the requirements of fair equality of opportunity. The second part of the second principle is the
Difference Principle. It holds that social and economic inequalities are to be to the greatest benefit of
the least advantaged members of society. Each of these three centrally addresses a different set of
primary goods: the First Principle concerns rights and liberties; the principle of Fair Equality of
Opportunity concerns opportunities; and the Difference Principle primarily concerns income and
wealth.

2
In his view, a good example is that the government tax and economic regulation should ensure that
great wealth is earned by legitimate means (inventing truly useful products, establishing more
productive systems, etc. not financial manipulation or dishonest and fraudulent business practices).
And the fruits of those unequal benefits can be justly taxed to provide help to the poor and weak in
society (through funding public education, public housing, health care, unemployment compensation,
etc.).
One side benefit of this social-welfare system for Rawls is that the wealthy can truly enjoy their
riches (or high positions) without guilt because they have both “earned” them and have helped their
weaker fellows. For Rawls the first principle is more important than the second because he believes
that equal basic liberties cannot be sacrificed for greater economic and social benefits. In other words,
Rawls values liberties such as freedom of speech and expression more than economic opportunities.
The reason that the least well-off member gets benefited is that it is assumed that under the veil of
ignorance, under the Original Position, people will be risk averse. This implies that everyone is afraid
of being part of the poor members of society; so the social contract is constructed to help the least
well-off members of society.
Rawls held that these principles of justice apply to the “basic structure” of fundamental social
institutions (courts, markets, the constitution, etc), a qualification that has been the source of some
controversy and constructive debate. Rawls further argues that these principles were to be lexically
ordered, thus giving priority to basic liberties over the more equality-oriented demands of the second
principle. This has also been a topic of much useful debate among moral and political philosophers.
Rawls begins his work with a British liberal (John Locke) social-contract approach to the formation
of government. He posits an “Original Position” (like the state of nature) in which a rational
individual finds himself or herself choosing the best form of state. An important feature of this
theoretical position is the “veil of ignorance” over the individual, which prevents him or her from
knowing where in the future society he or she will be placed (rich or poor; famous or obscure; secure
or insecure etc). This lack of knowledge of what social advantages one might have in society makes a
rational person choose a society where the least advantaged are better off than the least advantaged in
any other society. In other words, if you should find yourself poor, sick, lowly, and without help, you
would want a social system that takes care of such miserable people better than any other society.
The society that best takes care of the least advantaged (Rawls’ “maximin strategy”, i.e. maximizing
the minimum) is a mixed economy: free-enterprise capitalism with extensive government regulation
for the common good and with social-welfare liberalism. This is what constitutes justice for Rawls.
The free-market economy creates prosperity, rewards innovation, and provides material incentives to

3
work, while the state welfare programs provide equal opportunity to succeed; aid to the poor, sick,
and disabled; and overall social harmony.
Rawls argues that we would affirm a principle of equal basic liberties, thus protecting the familiar
liberal freedoms of conscience, association, expression, and the like (notably absent are liberties
associated with property ownership and contractual exchange). But, we would also want to ensure
that, whatever our position in society, liberties represent meaningful options for us. For example,
formal guarantees of political voice and freedom of assembly are of little real worth to the desperately
poor and the marginalized in society. Demanding that everyone has exactly the same effective
opportunities in life is a nonstarter: achieving this would almost certainly offend the very liberties that
are supposedly being equalized. Nonetheless, we would want to ensure at least the “fair worth” of
our liberties: wherever I end up in society, I want my life to be worth living, with enough effective
freedom to pursue my plans. Thus, we would be moved to affirm a second principle requiring fair
equality of opportunity, paired with the famous (and controversial) difference principle. This second
principle ensures that those with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances,
and those inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged. Rawls takes his approach
as applying in the first instance to what he called a “well-ordered society… designed to advance the
good of its members and effectively regulated by a public conception of justice.”

 The Original Position and Just Institutions

 The Basic Structure of Society
The subject matter of Rawls’s theory is societal practices and institutions. Some social institutions
can provoke envy and resentment. Others can foster alienation and exploitation. Is there a way of
organizing society that can keep these problems within limits? Can society be organized around fair
principles of cooperation in a way the people would accept?
Rawls’s original thought is that equality, or a fair distribution of advantages, is to be addressed as a
background matter by constitutional and legal provisions that structure social institutions. While fair
institutions will influence the life chances of everyone in society, they will leave individuals free to
exercise their basic liberties as they see fit within this fair set of rules. To carry out this central idea,
Rawls takes as the subject matter of Theory of Justice “the basic structure of society” which he
defined as “the way in which the major social institutions fit together into one system, and how they
assign fundamental rights and duties and shape the division of advantages that arises through social
cooperation.” Rawls’s suggestion is, in effect, that we should put all our efforts together so that the
rules of the game are fair. Once society has been organized around a set of fair rules, people can set
about freely playing the game, without interference.
4
  The Original Position
The Original Position is a hypothetical situation developed by American philosopher John Rawls as a
thought experiment to replace the imagery of a savage state of nature of prior political philosophers
such as Thomas Hobbes, John Lock and Jean Jacques Rousseau. In social contract theory, persons in
the state of nature agree to the provisions of a contract that defines the basic rights and duties of
citizens in a civil society. In Rawls’s theory of Justice as Fairness, the Original Position plays the role
that the state of nature does in the classical social contract tradition. The Original Position figures
prominently in his book, A Theory of Justice, and it is one of the most influential ideas in 20 th century
philosophy. It has influenced a variety of thinkers from a broad spectrum of philosophical
orientations.
As a thought experiment, the Original Position is hypothetically designed to accurately reflect what
principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between
citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity. In the state of nature, it might be
argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and
disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of
nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the
state of nature. In the Original Position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a “veil
of ignorance”, depriving the representatives of information about the characteristics of the citizens
they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity
and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the
information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are
attempting to agree to. The veil of ignorance assures that each party to the choice is equally placed
with no one enjoying greater advantage over the other.
Rawls specifies that the parties in the Original Position are concerned only with citizens’ share of
what he calls primary social goods, which include basic rights and liberties, economic and social
advantages or opportunities such as wealth. It is on the basis of these goods that the parties in the
Original Position choose. Rawls also argues that the representatives in the Original Position would
adopt the maximin rule as their principle for evaluating the choices before them. Borrowed from
game theory, maximin stands for making the choice that produces the highest payoff for the least
advantaged position. Thus, maximin in the Original Position represents a formulation of social
equality. The parties normally prefer more primary goods than less goods and this is the only
motivation which his theory ascribes to the parties.

5
In the social contract, citizens in a state of nature contract with each other to establish a state of civil
society. For example, in the Lockean state of nature, the parties agree to establish a civil society in
which the government has limited powers and the duty to protect the persons and property of citizens.
In the Original Position, the representative parties select principles of justice that are to govern the
basic structure of society. Rawls argues that the representative parties in the Original Position would
select two principles of justice.
 [Link] Institutions
The Theory of Justice aims to show that Justice as Fairness fits our considered judgments on a whole
range of more concrete topics in moral and political philosophy such as the idea of the rule of law, the
problem of justice between generations, and the justification of civil disobedience. In addition to
serving its main purpose of facilitating reflective equilibrium on Justice as Fairness, he also offers an
influential and insightful discussion of these and other topics in political philosophy. There is hardly
space here even to summarize all the worthwhile points that Rawls makes about these topics. A
summary of his controversial and influential discussion of the idea of getting what one deserves,
however, will illustrate how he proceeds. As we have seen, Rawls was deeply aware of the moral
arbitrariness of fortune. He held that no one deserves the social position into which he or she is born
or the physical characteristics with which he or she is endowed from birth. He also held that no one
deserves the character traits he or she is born with, such as his or her capacity for hard work. As he
wrote, “The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into
society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way
that institutions deal with these facts.”
In part two of his book, Rawls sets out to square this stance on the moral arbitrariness of fortune with
our considered judgments about getting what one deserves, which holds that it is relevant to
distributive claims. For instance, we tend to think that people who work harder deserve to be
rewarded for their efforts. We may also think that the talented deserve to be rewarded for the use of
their talents, whether or not they deserved those talents in the first place. With these common-sense
precepts of justice, Rawls does not disagree, but he clarifies them by responding to them dialectically.
He questions whether these common-sense claims are meant to stand independently of any
assumptions about whether or not the basic institutions of society- especially those institutions of
property, law, contract law, and taxation that, in effect, define the property claims and transfer rules
that make up the marketplace- are just.
It is unreasonable, Rawls argues, to say that getting what one deserves is a direct basis for
distributional claims even if the socio-economic system is unfair. He suggests that it is much more

6
reasonable to hold that whether one deserves the compensation one can command in the job
marketplace, for instance, depends on whether the basic social institutions are fair. Are they set up so
as to assure, among other things, an appropriate relationship between effort and reward? It is this
justice of the basic structure that is Rawls’s topic.
Rawls’s alternative proposal is that the common-sense precepts about getting what one deserves
generally presuppose that the basic structure of society is itself fair. When they are qualified in line
with this presupposition, Rawls supports them. To prevent the unqualified and the qualified claims
from being confused with each other, however, he uses the term “legitimate expectations” to express
the claims of getting what one deserves appropriately so qualified. A crucial idea of Justice as
Fairness is that fundamental principles of justice must be respected for the rules of social cooperation
to be fair, and that when they are; we should allow the free operation of the market largely to
determine people’s legitimate expectations.
 Mohandas Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience Theory: The Origins and Essence of Civil
Disobedience
 The Origin of Civil Disobedience Theory
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1868-1948), is an Indian philosopher, who was born in Western
Indies. He studied law in England and practices in India and South Africa, where he was an opponent
of racial discrimination and worked as a lawyer for Indians working there. Back in India at the hey-
day of the First World War, he became an active figure in his country’s nationalism, where he was a
determined opponent of the pass low and other kind of racial discrimination. In Indian in 1914, he
became a leading figure in the cause of Indian nationalism. Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu
extremist in 1948 immediately after India’s independence. Before his death, he saw the partitioning of
India into two states; namely, India and Pakistan, following a civil war that arose following its formal
independence in 1947.
Gandhism cannot be identified with any school of western political philosophy like liberalism,
socialism, communism and anarchism. In fact some of the features of these theories recur in his social
and political philosophy. Gandhi’s place in the world of political theory is unique. The value of his
social, political and economic ideas provides moral goals for people who aspire to realize changes.
The philosophy of civil disobedience goes back to classical and biblical sources. The philosophical
origin of disobedience to state laws dates back to the medieval philosophers who advocated the
principle of loyalty to the Higher Law (God’s law) even by violating civil laws. But, its modern
origin dates back to an American writer; namely, Henry David Thoreau. He is the first to coin the
term civil disobedience in his essay entitled On Duty of Civil Disobedience in 1849. Thoreau stated

7
that he protested government law by refusing to pay tax due to his opposition against the institution of
slavery in the south. He argues that any failure to protest unjust laws was effectively contributing to
that injustice. He claims that the individuals, who grant the state its power in the first place, must
follow the dictates of conscience in opposing its unjust laws.
Thoreau characterized a law unjust based on the following elements:
 When a law is degrading to human beings. The law that permits slavery and allows torture
of prisoners of war is degrading to humans
 When it is discriminatory. Laws that apply to one group bu not to another are unjust. The
laws of Apartheid in South Africa until the 1990s and the caste system in India are
discriminatory
 When it is enacted by an authority that is not fully representative.
 When it is unjustly applied. Home searches that government carryout in order to protect
citizens from dangerous things may be applied unjustly to harass opponents.
Thoreau’s work had an enormous impact on Gandhi and the techniques that he employed first to
struggle for the protection of Indian rights in Apartheid South Africa and later on to win
independence for India from British colonialism.
 The Essence of Civil Disobedience
Gandhi’s belief was mainly in satya, which he calls Truth, Spirit or God. He maintains that satya is a
principle of the universe that is applicable to humans and non-humans. This finds its root in the
Hindu belief that a supreme intelligence or truth rules the universe. Gandhi assumed that as human
beings are part of a whole through satya, all differences of race, culture, class, religion and geography
are irrelevant. He argued that the only justified and proper relationship between human beings is that
of love (compassion), i.e. unconditional concern for the welfare and happiness of others. It is this love
that implies his principle of non-violent action in fighting against socio-economic and political
injustices. The achievement of moral and political goals through love is what he called satyagraha,
i.e. non-violent action. The use of civil disobedience proved that armed and violent revolution was
not necessary to change society. The civil rights movement of the United States in the 1960s used it
as a model.
Gandhi believed that mankind could eliminate all moral weaknesses. In an attempt to avoid moral
weaknesses, he used to sleep with many women naked to test his capability of resisting sexual
impulses. His beliefs rest on the assumption that all bodily desires are moral degradations and
submission to material wants. He argued all desires beyond sustenance of life are bad. For him,
goodness implies the avoidance of sensual and worldly sphere. Gandhi also disregarded Western

8
civilization as based on unlimited material desires. He believed that western civilization resulted in
alcoholism, prostitution, drug use, accumulated wealth and unnecessary pride. As a result, he avoided
even wearing factory-made clothes, preferring local hand-made goods. Gandhi always wanted India
to grow by using its traditions and rural and indigenous agricultural system, rather than applying the
Western model of growth.
By definition, civil disobedience is the refusal of an individual or a group to obey a law or follow a
policy, which is unjust, for moral, religious or other reasons. Practitioners of civil disobedience
usually employ the non-violent technique of passive resistance. Risking punishment or imprisonment,
they attempt to bring about changes in the law. The major techniques of civil disobedience are:
demonstrations, marches, hunger strikes, the occupying of buildings, blockades, sit-ins and strikes
and other forms of economic resistance. His theory became highly successful in India’s independence
struggle.
Non-violence implies the positive quality of doing good to others rather than simply refraining
from doing bad. Its aim is to love the opponent and win his/her heart. In his view, non-violence is
superior to violence because it is an expression of love that accepts punishment upon itself rather
than imposing it on the enemy. Non-violence is the instrument of the strong, not the weak. Yet
Gandhi does not totally reject violence. He argues that there would be situations in which
committing violence would mean observing non-violence in such cases as saving and preserving
one’s life and country.
Example: Killing a person who kills everyone on his way is is an act of non-violence.
Similarly, killing an animal, which does not have the possibility of cure, is like giving it
relief from agony, is an act of non-violence.
According to Gandhi, non-violence does not imply passiveness. Rather, the principle demands action,
courage and determination for a positive end. The practitioner of civil disobedience must be ready to
accept whatever consequences hi/her actions may bring. Gandhi’s civil disobedience theory
contributed to the Civil Rights Movement of Jr. Martin Luther King of the US in the 1960s.
 The Nature and Role of the State
On Gandhi’s account of the true essence or nature of man kind, the state, as we usually encounter it,
is the antithesis of how human beings should be organized. The state, through the use of its
machinery, institutionalizes violence. Gandhi argues that the state encourages dependence and
undermines self-reliance of individuals. He says, I look up on an increase in the power of the state
with greatest fear, because while although apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does
the greatest harm to mankind by destroying the individuality which lies at the root of all progress.

9
The state with In other words, the state dehumanizes human beings. However, at the same time, he
recognized that mankind could not live without government.
How then should society organize government so as not to be inimical to the real nature of man?
Gandhi’s answer is that the state should be a minimal in its organization, which is non-coercive and
gives its citizens maximum freedom to develop their potentials and talents with self-respect. This
kind of state, he believed, commits itself to the development or improvement of all human beings
rather than a ruling class or the favored few. The state should be organized in such a way that there
are self-governing communities ruled by custom at local level. These small villages elect their
representatives for districts, which in turn elect their own representatives provincial representatives.
This kind of state would consist of small and self-governing villages, which can be effective in
realizing the goal of common moral values without coercion. There would be decentralization of
authority. Based on this, the state operates through persuasion and understanding.
Interestingly, Gandhi suggested that no mistake should be considered as a crime. He held the view
that what government call ‘crimes’ are simply ‘social illness’, which society can cure. He even
argued that the state should not punish individuals for committing ‘crimes’. He stated that punishment
is not the right solution because the only corrective mechanism to such kind of illness is enlightening
those who commit the mistakes and giving them help.
Although he favored majority decision, Gandhi feared about majority tyranny. He, however,
suggested two remedial measures:
 The proper representation of minorities, and;
 The inalienable right of individuals to civil disobedience in cases when governments force
them to act contrary to their conscience. Denying such rights to individuals violates the
moral nature of humanity at all, he supposed.
He was also critical of parliamentary democracy and rejects parliament as an institution comprising of
self-interest seekers serving as a ‘talking shop’. He rather preferred a new social and political order
that ensures complete justice and equality. In his view, the state continues to exist as an institution but
not as an organized institution of coercion. State institutions such as the army, the police,
bureaucracy, courts, and industry would continue for the sake of common welfare.
Gandhi’s theory may be criticized. His emphasis on the goodness of man is refutable because he has
considered one side of human nature only. Besides, his characterization of the state as an instrument
of exploitation and oppression is reflects part of the reality because the state also provides citizens
protection and welfare. Gandhi disapproved private property in as far as it involves exploitation and
inequality, which accords primacy to material desires. But, he concedes that since private property is

10
an established fact everywhere, it would not be feasible to abolish it. Instead, Gandhi suggests that the
rich should hold their property in trust for community, taking from it what they need and distributing
the surplus to the poor. Later on, however, Gandhi was realistic enough to realize that his initial
expectation might not work reality unless the state distributes wealth to the poor through taxation,
restriction on the rights of inheritance and nationalization of land.
 Feminism: The Meaning of Feminism
 Definition and Essence of Feminism
Feminism is a social ideology associated with the women’s movement in the Western world during
the 19th and 20th centuries. Although a diverse movement, feminists generally agree on three
propositions:
 Men and women are fundamentally equal in rationality and ability;
 Society has historically denied women’s equality with men prevented women from fulfilling
their human capacities and has prevented them from fulfilling their human capacities; and
 Women should engage in political activities to secure legal, political and economic equality
with men.
This feminist theory began during the modern liberal enlightenment (a doctrine that emerged in the
17th and 18th centuries), which attacked the traditional medieval and patriarchal view of the woman as
man’s instrument and helper primarily devoted to duties such as bearing children and undertaking
other household activities. It seeks to analyze the conditions which shape women’s lives and to
explore cultural understandings of what it means to be a woman. They challenge much of what has
counted as ‘knowledge’. Because we have historically lived under male-dominated societies, women
have been objects of knowledge than producers of knowledge. As a result, much of objective human
knowledge has been produced by men and framed by their particular place in society. Feminist mode
of theorizing rejects this andocentric (male-dominated) ways of knowing and contest the gendered
hierarchy of society and culture.
Women are located in different global and local social contexts. There are also distinctions of
nationality, race, ethnicity, education, language, family, class, employment and ability/disability.
These differences are often hierarchical. As a result, feminist theory has never been a static
phenomenon. Individual feminists have also changed their views over time.
Feminist theory also argues that the current system fails to promote the interests and roles of women
in the world community. By ignoring women`s contribution and issues, the history and present
system of as well as the approach to international politics is considered as one-sided, masculinity and
not fully representative.

11
  Strands of Feminism
 Liberal Feminists
The historical origin of this liberal strand of feminism dates back to the 18 th century enlightenment
period of Western Europe. One of the most important tenets of liberal philosophy was individualism
by which it was meant that the individual possesses the freedom to do what he wishes without
interference from others.
The early liberal feminists included Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote the book entitled Vindication of
the Rights of Woman in 1792 and Betty Freidan, who wrote the Feminine Mystique in 1963. This
strand of feminism has been concerned with equal rights for women which include achieving equal
economic opportunity in education, employment and professional advancement; equal pay for equal
work and getting equal access to traditional male-dominated professions such as law, medicine, and
clergy, military and executive and administrative positions. Therefore they never tried to transform
society. But, they seek to establish equality with men within the existing social order. Legislation is
the main means of achieving their objectives.
They have tended to understand female subordination in terms of unequal distribution of rights and
opportunities in society. Wollstonecraft believed that women were first and foremost human beings
not sexual beings and are capable of governing themselves by reason. Hence, she argued, if society
denies women natural rights, it has to prove that they are not rational creatures. This ‘equal-right
feminism’ is essentially reformist. It is concerned more with the reform of the public sphere, i.e., with
enhancement of legal and political status of women and improving their educational and career
prospects. In the West, most feminism has involved
During the 19th century in Europe and Britain, the feminist movement focused primarily on suffrage,
or the right of women to vote. John strut Mill, one of the earliest liberal feminists, in his book, The
Subjection of Women (1869), argued that for purposes of political participation one’s sex made no
more difference than having red hair. During this period, feminism was largely a middle-class
movement. While there were certainly important feminist thinkers in the 20 th century such as Virginia
Wolf, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedman, the rise of Second Wave
feminism theory has derived from that period but has developed and diversified through a constant
process of debate, critique and reflection. As a result, different strands of theory and new objects of
inquiry have emerged at different times in this process.
The concern for equal status of women has led to the adoption of various social policies in the West
such as:
 Divorce laws

12
  Birth control policies
 Abortion rights, and
 Lesbian rights
This strand has been criticized for its individualist and liberal position that seeks to achieve
correctional adjustments to the gendered status quo in order that women may participate on an equal
footing with men. It is criticized because it ignores the powerful effects of ‘unconscious gender that is
heterosexism, and places the responsibility of challenging oppression firmly on the shoulders of the
oppressed individual’s themselves.
 Radical Feminists
Radical feminists have critics the liberal notion of legislative reform. They engage in direct action and
political opposition aiming at challenging the existing socio-political order such as capitalism, private
property, religion and patriarchy.
In feminist sense, it refers to male domination in general. Radicals believe that patriarchy is not
specific to capitalism. But, they argue it is a universal phenomenon of human society. They give
particular attention to love, sex, and reproduction, which were seen as closely linked to male
domination and violence toward women. This radical stand of feminism is referred to as the
“difference” feminism that considers women to be different from men and superior to them. At the
heart of radical feminism is the belief that men are responsible for and benefit from the exploitation
of women. The analysis of patriarchy, the systematic domination of females by male, is of central
concern to this branch of feminism. Patriarchy is viewed as universal phenomena that have existed
across time and cultures.
They often concentrate on the family as one of the primary sources of women’s oppression in society.
They argue that men exploit women by relying on the free domestic labor that women provide at
home. The radical feminism’s main contention is that the roots of subordination lie in the biological
family, the hierarchical sexual division of society and sex roles themselves, factors which must be
fundamentally recognized if true gender equality has to be established. The biological differences
result in the male domination of power over women.
Radical feminists, however, differ in their interpretations of the basis of patriarchy. But, most agree
that it involves the appropriation of women’s bodies and sexuality in some form. Some of the early
radical feminists argue that men control women’s role in reproduction and child-rearing. Because
women are biologically able to give birth to children, they become dependent materially on men for
protection and livelihood. This biological inequality is socially organized in the nuclear family.

13
Therefore, they argue that women can be emancipated only through the abolition of the family and
the power relations that characterize it.
Radical feminists such as Andrea Dworkin argue for the overthrow of patriarchy through active
refusal to collaborate with the structures, institutions and practices which uphold masculine power
and its abuse. This can involve decisions no to engage
in sexual relationship with men,
 to reclaim power over sexual reproduction (for example through the use of technology such as
artificial insemination),
 to provide and organize in women-only organizations.
As a consequence, many radical feminists have chosen to be lesbian though some have gone further
to suggest that lesbianism is women’s natural state. Some other radical feminists argue for the
feminization of language (for example, ‘her-story’ as opposed to ‘his-story’ (history). The radical
approach highlights the oppression of lesbians by heterosexual women as well as men, and introduces
sexual orientation as an additional theoretical axis for consideration alongside gender. Radical
feminism’s links with the gay rights movement and women-only organizations have helped to ensure
its political edge. However, the refusal of radical feminists to compromise on the issues of separatism
and heterosexism has led to conflict between themselves and potential allies from elsewhere across
the feminist spectrum.
The use of patriarchy as a concept for explaining gender inequality has been popular with many other
feminist theorists too. In a famous work, entitled Theorizing Patriarchy (1990), Sylvia Wall defines
patriarchy as “a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit
women.” She identified six different structures through which patriarchy operates. They are:
 Production relations in the household: It is characterized by women’s unpaid domestic labor, i.e.
such as housework and child care are expropriated by her husband. Marxists believe that the
subordination of women in household benefits the capitalist system by providing free domestic
labor. Her unpaid labor is essential to the capitalist economy both because it meets the home
needs of the ‘breadwinner; and ‘wage earner’ husband enabling him to work long hours.
 Paid work: Women in the labor market are excluded from certain types of work. Receive lower
pay and are segregated in less skilled jobs.
 The patriarchal state: In its policies and priorities the state has a systematic bias towards
patriarchal interests.
 Male violence: Although male violence is often seen as composed of individualistic act, it is
patterned and systematic. Women routinely experience this violence and are affected by it

14
 standard ways. The state effectively condones the violence with its refusal to intervene, except
in exceptional circumstances.
 Patriarchal relations in sexuality: This is manifested in compulsory heterosexually and in the
sexual double standard between men and women (in which different ‘rules’ for sexual behavior
apply).
 Patriarchal cultural institutions: A variety of institutions and practices including media, religion
and education produce representations of women. These representations influence women’s
identities and prescribe acceptable standards of behavior and action.
After the victory of the campaign for vote in the 1920s, feminist movement entered into a relative
decline until the emergence of the second-wave feminism of women Liberation Movement in the
1960s. When it revived, especially, Beauvoire, in her book, Second Sex, emphatically argued most
modern societies objectified women as Object or ‘Other’ and man as Subject or ‘Self’. She insisted
that most societies defined humanity as male and the human condition as masculine, in which society
defines women only in relations to man. In this sense, she argues, only man has the real freedom to
choose (the freedom to choose the most desirable human condition, she believed) and is essential and
Subject. But, the woman becomes inessential and Object.
Beauvoire rejected biological determinism and argued that it was civilization, not biology, which
constructed femininity. She stipulated that there was no eternal femininity and masculinity. Hence,
she called for a ‘new woman’ with accompanying infrastructure of moral, social, cultural and
economic opportunities and attitudinal changes. Beauvoire favored perfect equality between men and
women.
Radical feminists believe that gender divisions are most fundamental and politically significant
cleavages in society. In their view, all societies, historically and contemporarily, are characterized by
patriarchy. Prominent feminists in the 1960s argued that half of the population, which is male
controls another half of the population i.e. women. Radical feminists, therefore, proclaim the need for
sexual revolution i.e. a revolution that will in particular, restructure personal, domestic and family
life. The extreme form of radical feminism sees men as enemies of women.
A similar strand is that of Marxist feminists who argue that the roots of gender oppression can
be traced to capitalism as a means of production, and the power structures reproduced by class in
capitalist societies. They argue that freedom from the constraints of gender stereotyped roles and
patriarchal power structures can best be achieved in a Marxist economy.
Unlike liberalism, which assumes we have already attained our evolutionary peak by conceptualizing
transcendent reason, Marxism projects two more stages. It sees in capitalist class structure the setting
15
for a final synthesis of the contradiction in capitalism. To satisfy human needs, technology has
reached a high point, but most benefits accrue to the few who own the means of production, through
their exploitation of the workers who actually produce goods. This approach addresses the concerns
about individualism expressed by critics of liberal feminism but can be criticized for placing gender
as a second-order priority, dwarfed by the central concern, class. Conflicts such as those in gender,
race and caste relations are regarded as byproducts of class. They reside, in Marxist terms, in
society’s superstructure, not its economic base. Presupposing a unitary class of workers, it is
anticipated that by overthrowing capitalism all other conflicts would resolved. In other words,
Marxist feminism envisions second-stage liberation of women; it comes after the abolishing of
capitalism.
Contemporary feminist (post-feminist) theory varies widely from claming total equality of
the sexes to a unique distinctiveness (and superiority) of women, to rejection of all gander
identifications) (as in homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual movements). Other variants include
developing world feminism (which insists that neocolonial women are more oppressed than northern
hemisphere, Eurocentric women) and eco-feminism (which combines women’s rights with
environmentalism). All these forms of feminism are premised on giving women more power.

16