Expanding the self to include others still denies their distinctness

Evidence

But the strategy of transferring the structures of egoism is both unnecessary and highly problematic, for (as noted in Cheney 1989), the widening of interest is obtained at the expense of failing to recognise unambiguously the difference and independence of the other. Others are recognised morally only to the extent that they are incorporated into the self, and their difference denied. — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 681

Categorization

• XREF: Directly extends the earlier book_so_far claim ‘Defining the other as lack incorporates it into the master’s self, precluding real recognition’ (ch9) — the expanded Self is incorporation by another name. — connects to: Expanding the self is needless once sacrifice gives way to relationship — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 786; Self forms through recognizing an other both alike and different — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 582; Defining the other as lack incorporates it into the master’s self, precluding real recognition — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 215 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• The for-others requires a totality in which selfness and the Other are reciprocal structures #contradicts (0.80)
• Acquaintance reveals only the other’s outward-facing self, not their essence #expands (0.78) — Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, 7794
• The totality of for-itself and in-itself differs from for-others by its absence of reciprocity #complicates (0.75)
• Identity is constructed through opposition to a continuously reinterpreted other #complicates (0.75)