Caring for another’s flourishing need not displace one’s own interest.

Evidence

As I noted earlier, critics of both capitalism and phallocentrism have pointed to an alternative paradigm of selfhood which recognises the denied dependencies and relationships of the master self, treating the self’s desires as capable of overlapping with and as essentially related to the desires, projects and flourishing of others. A relational account of the self points the way towards breaking the false dichotomy of egoism and self-denying altruism, for only on the assumption of hyperseparation of selves and their interests would it be necessary to abandon or displace your own desires or interests in order for it to be possible to desire the welfare of the other and to include their welfare goals among your own. But, as a number of philosophers have remarked (Blum 1980; Plumwood 1980; Naess 1988b:22, 23; Poole 1991:54; Grimshaw 1986:172), where interests are essentially connected and you desire someone else’s flourishing for their sake, what is involved is not abandoning your own interest, because in pursuing the other’s interest you also pursue, nonaccidentally, your own. — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 569

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Characterises the relational self and how it breaks the egoism/altruism false dichotomy.
  • XREF: connects to: Interests are relational and can include other beings without ceasing to be one’s own. — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 558; Nurturance may be empowered caring or servile ego-massaging. — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 260; Individual self-interest can produce collective flourishing without intention — Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom,…, 467 (+3 more)

Broader Connections