Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBerges, S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T09:54:16Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T09:54:16Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.issn9538208en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/22010
dc.description.abstractIn a recent article,1 Amartya Sen writes that one important influence on his theory of adaptive preferences is Wollstonecraft's account of how some women, though clearly oppressed, are apparently satisfied with their lot. Wollstonecraft's arguments have received little attention so far from contemporary political philosophers, and one might be tempted to dismiss Sen's acknowledgment as a form of gallantry.2 That would be wrong. Wollstonecraft does have a lot of interest to say on the topic of why her contemporaries appeared to choose what struck her as oppression, and her views can still help us reflect on contemporary problems such as the ones identified and discussed by Amartya Sen. In this article I will argue that a close look at Wollstonecraft's arguments may lead us to rethink some aspects of Sen's discussion of the phenomenon of adaptive preferences. © Cambridge University Press 2011.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleUtilitasen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820810000452en_US
dc.titleWhy women hug their chains: Wollstonecraft and adaptive preferencesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.citation.spage72en_US
dc.citation.epage87en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber23en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0953820810000452en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Work in Progress 1225
    Check/configure data processing but have no pending metadata

Show simple item record