Bleached Foundations 129differentiation. For Okin, Rawls’ theory of justice can potentially encompass women.
The autonomous individual—beloved of liberal theory—actually does develop and
mature within the family. Children morally learn a great deal in the family. If relations
are implicitly just in the family, this will be internalized within the growing adult. The
family, in this sense, is an area that can be seen as intrinsically political. The autonomy
of women and children should be subject to the same form of impartiality as in the
public sphere. For Okin, if liberalism claims to address itself to all human beings, it
has to take on board the feminist claim that the ‘the personal is the political’. Thus,
the nurture of children, domestic work, and the like, must therefore be included in
any discussion of justice.
Okin admits though that this proposed change would require a deep cultural shift
in the way the family, child care provision, and work in general are viewed. Okin
argues therefore that Rawlsian rational contractors would address gender in the veil
of ignorance. Any contractor (not knowing their gender) would want to address
issues of the domestic division of labour and sexual roles (Okin 1987: 67–8). There
is nothing forced, for Okin, in this extension of the argument. A genuine modern
humanist liberalism has to address itself to the realm of private attachments (see Okin
1989: ch. 8). Therefore, the task facing feminists is to adapt liberal theory—which was
initially premised on the separation of the public and private realms—into a theory
usable for all women both in their private and public capacities. The state should be
used to expand basic justice to gender issues and the institution of the family. For
Okin, liberal justice theory, in future, will see the family as a basic political institution.
It will also see the necessity of extending justice to processes within the family.
In summary, the primary objective of liberal feminists is to bring women into the
full rights of democratic citizenship. They envisage a future where legal, political,
social, and economic rights will have been achieved for all women. They will be on
an equal footing with men in all spheres. This will be achieved by reason, persuasion,
and constitutional reform. The reformed family will still remain, but men will have
an equal role in the domestic duties, and womens’ careers and lives will in no way be
hampered artificially by the rearing of children. The institution of the family is thus
seen to have a continuing and important role, but it will be supported financially and
socially in order to prevent inequalities occurring. Liberal feminism thus anticipates
a future of sexual justice.
There are three unresolved problems with the liberal feminist position to mention
in passing. First, there are clearly different schools of liberalism, and it is important to
note that there have been significant variations within the liberal feminist argument.
The most important variation is between a classical and social expression of liberalism.
It is possible to make a case for a classical liberal feminism. For example, if one
focuses on the idea of a free market economy, it is clear, on one reading, thatall
(regardless of gender) should have equal access to compete in the market. Markets,
so the argument goes, are impersonal and gender neutral. Monopolies, whether
private, public, or gendered, are intrinsically suspect. Unjustified male monopoly,
like any economic cartel, is implicitly frowned upon by the logic of market theory.
Free markets therefore imply free individuals, including women, who can compete