Abstract

Sara Ruddick's Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace is both an anomaly and a product of the tradition associating maternal activities with peace. Ruddick argues that maternal work gives mothers distinct motives for rejecting war, unique abilities for nonviolent conflict resolution, and a critical perspective on military thinking. If she is correct, maternal thinking may provide the foundation for a feminist peace politics. My project is a critical account of maternal thinking as Ruddick unfolds it in her book. Ruddick's argument has two central components: The theoretical development of maternal thinking, which she explains in terms of a "practicalist conception of truth" , and The case that maternal thinking can ground a feminist peace politics, based on Nancy Hartsock's version of feminist standpoint theory. ;Ruddick constructs mothering as a genderfree practice under the PCT to distinguish from earlier accounts of mothering. This is problematic for three reasons. First, it portrays mothers as autonomous, ahistorical, and acultural caretakers and ignores how other practices shape and contribute to maternal practice's definition. Second, Ruddick does not say enough about the identity of her mothers. She acknowledges racial and cultural differences, but does not explore the implications of her pluralism. Also, her genderfree account excludes any discussion of masculine and feminine styles of mothering. Third, the cross-practice critical power of MT is restricted by the practicalist view that "there is no truth by which all truths can be judged." I suggest Ruddick can overcome this confusion by distinguishing between internal and external goals of practices. I argue that a holistic view, which places maternal practice within a complex web of related practices, helps to eliminate the remaining problems with mothering under the PCT. ;Ruddick's move from a practicalist to a standpoint version of MT solves a critical problem for her. Feminist standpoint theorists typically argue that distinctions between men's and women's understandings of the world are rooted in the sexual division of labor; they maintain that "thinking from women's lives" makes available a privileged view on male supremacy. Ruddick draws on Hartsock's radical version of a feminist standpoint, which holds that both the sexual division of labor in women's subsistence activities and the intimate involvement of their bodies in "menstruation, coitus, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation" have epistemological consequences. To show the superiority of feminist standpoint, she compares maternal and military "histories of the human flesh." The central role of this comparison in Ruddick's argument makes her position dangerously close to the essentialist arguments she desires to avoid.