Justice, Equality and Dependency

A short essay on the essays of R. Tong – 'Love's Labor: Equality, and

Dependency, by E. F. Kittay - A Book Review' & W. Kymlicka – 'Rethinking the Family'.

          ʺI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity,  
           can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige  
           them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to  
           colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread  
           by thread, into the fabric of their lives.ʺ  

L. Tolstoy 

 
        ʺImplicit in the activist conception of government is the assumption that you can take the  
          good things in a complex system for granted, and just improve the things that are not  
          so good. What is lacking in this conception is any sense that a society, an institution, or  
          even a single human being, is an intricate system of fragile inter‐relationships, whose  
          complexities are little understood and easily destabilized.ʺ  

T. Sowell 

Seldom, someone is able to introduce a wonderfully simple yet powerful idea that has an
amazing effect: it has the ability to change the way we view a subject thoroughly. I believe
that this rare quality exists in E. F. Kittay's book - 'Love's Labor: Equality, and Dependency',
of which review, by R. Tong, I chose to be the first of the two essays to be discussed in this
work. My second choice - W. Kymlicka's essay - 'Rethinking the Family' (which reviews
S. M. Okin's book – 'Justice, Gender, and the Family'), was guided by my wish to examine
the former essay's ideas in context with the latter essay's arguments and conclusions. Thus,
allowing the two essays to compliment one another and become a single conceptual
mechanism for this work's propagation.
Generally speaking, both essays can be described as dealing with the concepts of justice,
freedom and equality from a liberal stand. Accordingly, they both offer various perspectives
and construct different theories as to how we should improve the individual's status and well-
being within modern society. Yet, I believe that a distinctive quality can be found in the first
essay's ideas, one that is absent from the second essay. Therefore, my aim in this work will be
to focus exactly on this difference, Namely: to review the main thesis of the first essay, and
then try and analyze some of the arguments presented in the second essay in light of this
thesis.
Let us begin by addressing the main idea which will concern us henceforth - the idea of
'Dependency'. This idea is the main focal-point in E. F. Kittay's book, a book which is
described by R. Tong in the first essay I referred to earlier. Kittay explains that the first thing
we should realize is that although we are inclined to convince ourselves that we are all
independent individuals (viz.: that we are able to look after ourselves and take care of
whatever it is we might need), it is clearly not so. By examining human life, from birth to
death, we inevitably reveal a different picture, one in which all of us, most of the time, are
actually dependent: we need somebody to raise us to adulthood, to teach us how to do
things by and for ourselves, to protect us, to take care of us in sickness and old age and so
forth; the list is obviously very long indeed. We should bear in mind that all that was said
hereto applies to so-called 'normal' people, as we have not yet considered the issue of
individuals which are handicapped, mentally disabled or have many other different kinds of
disabilities which almost automatically categorize them as dependent. Once this illusion of
'general individual independency and freedom' is thus vaporized, we have to face the fact that
most of the time, we are all very much dependent on the people around us, whether we
choose to acknowledge it or not. Accordingly, Tong quotes Kittay as follows: "We would,
suggests Kittay, have very different ideas about equality if we thought of society as an
association of unequals who are dependent on each other throughout life". I hope this rough
sketch shows why the idea of dependency applies to each and every human being in a
significant way.
From this point, I would like to continue and examine a complimenting term to the one of
'dependency', also introduced by Kittay – the 'Caregivers'. Kittay uses this term to describe
the individuals who take care of dependent people, or as she poetically puts it: "a self through
whom the needs of another are discerned, a self that, when it looks to its own needs, it first
sees the needs of another". It is worth mentioning that although Kittay recognizes most
caregivers in society to be women (formally such as social workers and informally such as
mothers to their children), she refrains from regarding the two groups as identical, nor does
she accept the notion that either of them is a monolithic group. Kittay's focus on the
continuous basic human need for (and of) 'caring' converged with her liberal strive for
'equality' clearly urges us to rethink our general conception of 'justice'. In other words, in
order to employ a general concept of justice within the social domain, Kittay claims that we
should heed to the needs of people according to their individual dependency level, and not
falsely assume that they are all independent individuals. Correspondingly, Kittay's aim is thus
described by Tong: "Although Kittay borrows points from the difference, dominance, and
diversity approaches to equality, her "dependency" approach to equality differs from all of
them in its sustained critique of the traditional liberal view of society".

Now that we have established a conceptual framework based on Kittay's ideas, we can use it
to consider some of Okin's and Kymlicka's arguments which can be found in the second
essay. Both Okin and Kymlicka focus on the family domain, one which Okin considers to be

1
'the real bastion of sexual inequality'. According to Kymlicka, Okin feels that women are
rendered vulnerable and dependent within the family sphere by a social system of gender
which is dominated by men. Okin's aim is to create a 'gender-free society', in which men and
women will be treated equally, eliminating the exploitation of women as well as male
dominance. Clearly, those are just and commendable aspirations, but I believe Okin is
missing something here: equality is not achieved by 'treating everybody the same' – as we
have learned from Kittay - it just isn't enough. We must develop a more sensitive approach,
one that recognizes the different levels of need for care required by different individuals
resulting in an ability to address those needs. That is exactly the flaw I find in Okin's view –
she naively assumes that if all were to be treated equally (women as well as men), then
the problem of inequality will be solved. Kittay, on the other hand, offers what I consider to
be a much more realistic approach: she contends that the creation of equality between people
should be actualized by understanding the intricate asymmetric system of dependencies that
is what we call 'society', and she more perceptively calls: 'an association of unequals who are
dependent on each other throughout life'.

Kymlicka offers a different approach then Okin altogether – he suggests that we adopt the
concept of contractual agreements and apply it, in the broadest sense possible, to human
relations and interactions (i.e. the social domain). According to his vision, every person
should be free to enter contractual agreements in order to buy and sell whatever one is
currently able to get through marital agreements and the formation of families. For example:
services and goods with relation to sex, reproduction, child rearing etc.. The result, Kymlicka
argues, will be the creation of an equal society, one in which all are free to negotiate and
agree upon the conditions by which they lead their lives. In spite of the fact that I find this
particular stance to be quite spooky (viz.: a world in which everyone is a lawyer…), if we do
take it seriously, then we are immediately faced with troubling questions such as: what will
happen to all those people who cannot, for a variety of reasons, properly negotiate for
themselves or even enter legal contractual obligations? What will happen to those who cannot
afford to pay for what they desperately need in order to survive? Why should anyone take
care of anyone else rather then look after his or her own interests? It seems that Kymlicka's
ideas, as interesting as they might be on the theoretical level, are simply detached from any
conceivable understanding of the people that actually constitute society as we know it.
Kittay's conceptualization points precisely to this very end and shows us just how much
Kymlicka's views lack true understanding of the human system of dependencies and needs. In
short, Kymlicka does not acknowledge the existence of "a self through whom the needs of
another are discerned" - a self that we are all in need of at some point or another in our lives.
At this point I would like to address matters from another angle, namely: to focus on how
the critique made by Okin and Kittay regarding the views of another philosopher, named
J. Rawls, can be used to reflect the advantages and drawbacks of their own theories. Okin
considers Rawls to be a contemporary liberal thinker who fails to understand why it is

2
imperative that liberal principles of justice will govern the family domain, rather then 'natural
sympathy', in order to achieve sexual equality. According to Okin, the main problem with
Rawls's view is that it falsely assumes the existence of a 'natural law' which justly regulates
the relationships and power distribution within the family unit, making the said principles of
justice redundant in this context. Correspondingly, Kymlicka tells us of Okin's claim that
"The fundamental basis of women's subordination [i.e. 'the family', N.M.] is thereby removed
from the agenda of justice". Okin's answer to this anomaly is indeed to demand the
application of these principles within the family itself, resulting by enabling women to
reduce their level of dependency on their male partners to the minimum extent. What can we
learn from this about Okin's own theory? I think that at least one possible answer is that Okin
fails to recognize the family unit for what it really is – a close relationship of inter-
dependencies. If that is the case, then the question is not merely how to reduce individual
dependencies as much as possible, but rather, as Kittay claims, to also try and accept some of
these dependencies as necessary and create the best structures of justice accordingly. In other
words, one can argue that not all dependencies are essentially 'bad' and therefore should be
rejected as such. Truly enough, I believe Okin is far from being wrong - many forms of
dependency are in fact unjustified and morally flawed, but nevertheless, others are actually
quite necessary for our survival and well-being. Thus, Adopting Kittay's views as to working
towards understanding our dependencies and accommodating our theories to deal with them
might seem as a more sensible solution.
Let us move on to review Kittay's critical assessment of J. Rawls's ideas. To begin with, in
her essay Tong tells us that Kittay vigorously opposes Rawls's presupposition that "all
citizens are fully cooperating members of society". Although obviously idealized, this
presupposition clearly contradicts the very essence of Kittay's beliefs regarding people's
dependency and need for care. Furthermore, Kittay considers the assumption that every
individual in society should be considered as 'one' in terms of benefits (regardless if that
person cares, especially in the formal sense, for other people or not), to be mistaken. This
claim is founded on the grounds that if a person cares for another then she would typically
yield her rights in order to secure benefits for the subject of her care. As a result of these
considerations, Kittay articulates an additional principle to Rawls's two principles of justice
(i.e. the 'liberty' and 'difference' principles), as follows: "To each according to his or her need
for care, from each according to his or her capacity for care, and such support from social
institutions as to make available resources and opportunities to those providing care, so that
all will be adequately attended in relations that are sustaining". I think that this last quote in
particular summarizes Kittay's views perfectly and reflects her deep commitment to the
creation of principles of justice that truly recognize basic human needs, while upholding
liberal and moral ideals.
In conclusion, I only wish to cite Tong one last time in what I believe to be an accurate
characterization of Kittay's work, as follows: "Equality is an ideal of care as well as justice
for Kittay, and it is her insistence on this point that accounts for her book's theoretical
power".

3
Bibliography:

Kymlicka, W. (1991). Rethinking the Family. Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol. 20/1. pp.
77-79.

Tong, R. (2001). Love's Labor: Equality, and Dependency, by E. F. Kittay - A Book Review.
Essays in Philosophy, A Biannual Journal. Vol. 2 No. 2.