I Do not propose this to prevent a Rebellion, for Women are not so well united as to form an Insurrection. They are for the most part wise enough to love their Chains, and to discern how very becomingly they fit. They think as humbly of themselves as their Masters can wish, with respect to the other Sex, but in regard to their own, they have a Spice of Masculine Ambition; every one would Lead, and none would Follow. Both Sexes being too apt to Envy, and too backward in Emulating, and take more Delight in detracting from their Neighbour’s Vertue, than in improving their own. And therefore, as to those Women who find themselves born for Slavery, and are so sensible of their own Meanness, as to conclude it impossible to attain to any thing excellent, since they are, or ought to be best acquainted with their own Strength and Genius, She’s a Fool who would attempt their Deliverance or Improvement. No, let them enjoy the great Honour and Felicity of their tame, submissive and depending Temper! Let the Men applaud, and let them glory in this wonderful Humility! Let them receive the Flatteries and Grimaces of the other Sex, live unenvied by their own, and be as much belov’d as one such Woman can afford to love another! Let them enjoy the Glory of treading in the Footsteps of their Predecessors, and of having the Prudence to avoid that audacious Attempt of soaring beyond their Sphere! Let them Huswife or Play, Dress, and be pretty entertaining Company! Or, which is better, relieve the Poor to ease their own Compassions, read pious Books, say their Prayers, and go to Church, because they have been taught and us’d to do so, without being able to give a better Reason for their Faith and Practice! Let them not by any means aspire at being Women of Understanding, because no Man can endure a Woman of Superior Sense, or would treat a reasonable Woman civilly, but that he thinks he stands on higher Ground, and, that she is so wise as to make Exceptions in his Favour, and to take her Measures by his Directions; they may pretend to Sense, indeed, since meer Pretences only render one the more ridiculous! Let them, in short, be what is call’d very Women, for this is most acceptable to all sorts of Men; or let them aim at the Title of good devout Women, since some Men can bear with this; but let them not judge of the Sex by their own Scantling: For the great Author of Nature and Fountain of all Perfection, never design’d that the Mean and Imperfect, but that the most Compleat and Excellent of His Creatures in every Kind, should be the Standard to the rest.--Mary Astell "Appendix" in Some Reflections Upon Marriage [1730; the Appendix was first published as a "Preface" of the 1706 edition.]
Alerted by Jacqueline Broad and Karen Detlefsen (who should be credited with what's original in this post), the passage above jumped out to me. In context, Astell has discussed women's forced subordination to men which she argues goes against both revelation and natural law (which she equates.) The first quoted sentence applies Locke's argument about the right to resist tyranny. In the then present circumstances women would have that right. That they do not do so is because they lack the power, and so are doomed to failure. As she puts it a few pages before, "men are possessed of all Places of Power, Trust and Profit, they make Laws and exercise the Magistracy, not only the sharpest Sword, but even all the Swords and Blunderbusses are theirs, which by the strongest Logick in the World, gives them the best Title to every Thing they please to claim as their Prerogative." (173)
But that women are disunified is itself caused by their oppression. Now, while Astell is undoubtedly partially sarcastic about the fact that women learn to love their chains, she is also describing a very clear social mechanism. Oppressed and uneducated, women's preferences adapt to new circumstances. And they become oriented toward goods that actualize their own subordination. Anticipating (recall) Mandeville in the Fable and Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, she notes how women don't just become agents of their own oppression, but also the mechanism by way other women are oppressed. Because Astell is explicit that this is drawing on natural psychological mechanisms (aptness to Envy, emulation, and delight in detracting the virtue of others, etc.), she is really articulating a more general account of how the oppressed become themselves a source of oppression to other vulnerable individuals and groups.
In fact, the whole train of feminine virtues, even femininity, is explained in terms of socialization and conditioning of natural psychological mechanisms here. Even women's Christian philanthropy is described in terms of such adaptive preferences in the context of patriarchy.
The previous may suggest that Astell is ascribing to subordinated women a false consciousness. And while this cannot be ruled out, I think there is evidence to suggest that she thinks subordinated women are in a better position than men to judge of circumstances. For in summing up her interpretation of the Bible, she quotes Malebranche approvingly as follows:
If the Learned will not admit of this Interpretation, I know not how to contend with them. For Sense is a Portion that God Himself has been pleased to distribute to both Sexes with an impartial Hand, but Learning is what Men have engross’d to themselves, and one can’t but admire their great Improvements! For, after doubting whether there was such a Thing as Truth, and after many hundred Years Disputes about it, in the last Century an extraordinary Genius arose, (whom yet, some are pleased to call a Visionary) enquir’d after it, and laid down the best Method of finding it. Not to the general Liking of the Men of Letters, perhaps, because it was wrote in a vulgar Language, and was so natural and easy as to debase Truth to common Understandings, shewing too plainly, that Learning and true Knowledge are two very different Things. “For it often happens (says that Author) that Women and Children acknowledge the Falsehood of those Prejudices we contend with, because they do not dare to judge without Examination, and they bring all the Attention they are capable of to what they read. Whereas on the contrary, the Learned continue wedded to their own Opinions, because they will not take the Trouble of examining what is contrary to their receiv’d Doctrines.” (156-7)
Here it looks Astell claims that the more (formally) educated (and more gendered male) you become, the more likely it is that you will apply confirmation bias to any evidence. Again this anticipates Mandeville.* I read her as having Malebranche (a rather learned father) say, that men are trained to be confident and so have overconfident fondness in their own opinion; whereas women, who are not trained to be confident also cannot really afford to take authoritative teachings on trust. The costs of mistakes are really too high to the vulnerable and oppressed.+
*I don't think I have ever quoted the following passage on my blog before, so here goes:
That the most Knowing are not the most Religious, will be evident if we make a Trial between People of different Abilities even in this Juncture, where going to Church is not made such an Obligation on the Poor and Illiterate, as it might be. Let us pitch upon a hundred Poor Men, the first we can light on, that are above forty, and were brought up to hard Labour from their Infancy, such as never went to School at all, and always lived remote from Knowledge and great Towns: Let us compare to these an equal number of very good Scholars, that shall all have had University Education; and be, if you will, half of them Divines, well versed in Philology and Polemick Learning; then let us impartially examine into the Lives and Conversations of both, and I dare engage that among the first who can neither Read nor Write, we shall meet with more Union and Neighbourly Love, less Wickedness and Attachment to the World, more Content of Mind, more Innocence, Sincerity, and other good Qualities that conduce to the Publick Peace and real Felicity, than we shall find among the latter, where on the contrary, [354]we may be assured of the height of Pride and Insolence, eternal Quarrels and Dissensions, Irreconcilable Hatreds, Strife, Envy, Calumny and other Vices destructive to mutual Concord, which the illiterate labouring Poor are hardly ever tainted with to any considerable Degree. (“Essay on Charity Schools”)
+I want to thank Katharine Gillespie, Bas van der Vossen, and their wonderful Chapman students for inspiring this post.
Comments