Symposium: Maternal thinking for international relations? Papers in honor of Sara Ruddick
| Author | Fiona Robinson,Catia C Confortini |
| Published date | 01 February 2014 |
| Date | 01 February 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088213507183 |
Journal of International Political Theory
10(1) 38 –45
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088213507183
ipt.sagepub.com
Symposium: Maternal
thinking for international
relations? Papers in honor
of Sara Ruddick
Fiona Robinson
Carleton University, Canada
Catia C Confortini
Wellesley College, USA
Sara Ruddick’s (1980) first work on “maternal thinking” was published in 1980. It is
important to realize just how strange her ideas seemed to many people—including many
feminists—at that time. Not only did she dare to suggest that the practices of mothering
may give rise to a certain kind of moral thinking, she sought to turn that thinking to
political use. In suggesting that mothers might contribute in distinctive ways to imagin-
ing or creating peace (Ruddick, 1995: xix), Ruddick was dismissed by philosophers,
criticized by feminists and ignored by theorists of international politics. But she also set
in motion waves of feminist research which would be inspired by her groundbreaking
ideas on ethics, mothering, and peace.
In honoring Sara Ruddick with a Distinguished Woman Philosopher Award from the
Society of Women in Philosophy in 2002, Hilde Lindemann Nelson (2003) so described
Ruddick’s contribution to philosophy: “Like a medieval sage in possession of the phi-
losopher’s stone, Sally has taken the dishonored dross of the work of mothering and
turned it into intellectual gold” (p. 85). The idea for this special symposium, and the
International Studies Association conference panel from which it developed, emerged
out of a shared conviction that Ruddick’s work represents “intellectual gold” for the
practice and theory of international relations (IR) as well. While at first sight, and to the
uncritical eye, a philosophy of “mothering” might seem antithetical to the “high politics”
of IR, we argue that this simplistic assumption is mistaken. Contrary to widespread per-
ception, Ruddick’s insights on mothering, violence, and peace are intensely political, and
her arguments about the nature of morality and moral judgment represent an important
alternative to dominant, rationalist approaches in the discipline. While we are pleased to
Corresponding author:
Fiona Robinson, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr, Ottawa, ON,
K1S 5B6, Canada.
Email: Fiona.Robinson@carleton.ca
507183IPT10110.1177/1755088213507183Journal of International Political TheoryRobinson and Confortini
research-article2013
Editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial