I think what some people have hit about Hamington’s pieces “A Father’s Touch” also resonates with me.  I think he limits the amount of space his article covers, but I (and others) would like him to go farther.  There are issues surrounding the absentee father that remain unavailable, how to get fathers to embrace their role as dual caregivers, and what this overall moral revolution means.

I think Hamington did this to keep his article concise, but it’s akin to opening a happier version of Pandora’s Box where all of these things get released, but not discussed.  There are many issues that become affected by more discussion. I don’t think that Hamington wasted his energy on connecting Gilligan’s work with Merleau-Ponty.  In fact, I think that was crucial and that he did that successfully.  But i think that is only one aspect of his overarching argument.  He takes the notion that men have been socialized to be morally deficient at face value without explaining how that’s been done or it’s effects.

I don’t want to sound too critical on Hamington, because I think what he’s introducing is quite novel.  Like many readings in this class, I had little background in phenomenology but have been fascinated by it.  It is interesting to see how people see connections between our embodied experiences and our cognitive processes or thought patterns.  Hamington kicks off this dicsussion about the intersection of care ethics and male embodiment, so perhaps I am just expect too much too soon and I think there is strength in collaboration and a dialectical process to the development of idea.  Hamington is a great first step, but that first step makes you want to take a second one.

Louis C.K. on fatherhood:

Advertisements