Writing last week about the Republican National Convention in his New York Times op-ed column, David Brooks described what he felt to be missing from the vision of contemporary American conservatives through a reference to Edmund Burke:
But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in Tampa. It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism. There was certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in which individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits and governing institutions.Of course, seeing individuals as "embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits and governing institutions" need not in itself lead to any particular political conclusions, conservative or otherwise; indeed, we'll see other thinkers on our syllabus discover in the historically and culturally situated character of social practices grounds of hope for radical change.
To see what's at stake for Burke in his insistence that human beings have to be understood in their cultural and historical context, read carefully his discussion of what distinguishes the "rights of man" from "the real rights of man" (149) on 147-154. Burke's phrase for the historically and culturally situated individual is "the civil social man" (150). What other kind of person is there? What position is he arguing against here, and why?
We'll see Wollstonecraft write smartly and sometimes scathingly about the relation of Burke's aesthetics (from the Enquiry) and his politics (in the Reflections). Let's try to anticipate her somewhat this Wednesday by thinking about these questions in advance. Pay particular attention to examples in the Enquiry with political implications, and to aesthetic language, including language about gender, in the Reflections.
 |
| The figure on the right of this 1806 image by William Blake is Milton's Death, the "shape that shape had none" used by Burke as an example of the sublime (see p. 103). Like Wollstonecraft, Blake supported the Revolution, and was suspicious of Burke's aesthetics. |
Gender comes into the foreground when Burke describes the capture of the king and queen at Versailles and then proceeds to lament that "the age of chivalry is gone" (170). Burke wasn't alone in seizing on the importance of gender in the events of October 5-6; the crowd that marched on Versailles, initially with the goal of forcing the king to release stockpiled grain so as to ward off famine, was led by Parisian women. Yet Burke harnesses this fact to his own ideological ends: how does this happen in his text?
 |
| An image of the Parisian women marching to Versailles on Oct. 5, 1789 |
Wollstonecraft, no less than Burke, will think about the importance of "customs, traditions, habits and government institutions" for the formation of character, though she'll draw quite different conclusions from what she observes. Whereas Burke laments a change in manners, Wollstonecraft hopes for one; like Burke, she believes in the wide-ranging consequences of such a change: "It is time to effect a revolution in female maners--time to restore to them their lost dignity, and make them, as a part of the human species, labour by reforming themselves to reform the world" (49). How does Wollstonecraft understand the effects of historical practices and traditions on the formation of women's characters? Why does she differ from Burke as to the necessity of appealing to something outside of history (e.g. to reason or to the characteristics of God)?
Wollstonecraft's arguments about gender are accompanied by, and involved in, an argument about social class: she tells us quite plainly in her introduction that she will "pay particular attention to those [women] in the middle class, because they appear to be in the most natural state" (11). An editor's footnote to this sentence tells us that Wollstonecraft understands the "artificiality of leisure-class [i.e. aristocratic] life" to be unnatural and corrupt; this is right, but there's more to see and say about Wollstonecraft's critique of the aristocracy. What grounds does she give for this critique when she elaborates it later in the Vindication of the Rights of Woman? To what other sorts of people does she compare aristocrats? (See her remarks at the end of chapter III, among other places).
We discussed briefly on Wednesday how a particular notion of sexual love, one that sees it necessarily as distinct from admiration and respect, underlies Burke's aesthetics in the Enquiry. How does Wollstonecraft describe and value sexual love in her Vindications? More generally, what prospects does her argument hold out for women's pleasure and, more broadly, their happiness?
Just as we examined how Burke's texts are structured by opposed terms (the sublime vs. the beautiful, etc.) that sometimes refuse to sit still in their places, we should think critically about the binaries that sometimes structure Wollstonecraft's arguments about gender, class, and sexuality. Keep track, obviously, of how she uses "masculine" and "feminine," but take note too of other important oppositions in her argument.
One of these is a sometimes stark opposition between mind and body. Another is an opposition between reason and emotion, for which "sensibility" is a key term. Wollstonecraft will mock Burke at times for his overheated imagination and emotion, yet she does so in writing about issues that she herself is quite passionate about. Look out for tensions between Wollstonecraft's discussion of emotion on the one hand and, on the other, the expression or performance of emotion in her texts; she was an astute reader of Burke's rhetoric and style, and we'll need to be no less astute in listening to the voice of her two Vindications.
In your comments, feel free to take up any of the questions I've raised along the way in what's above, or to raise new questions that I haven't (there are lots!); the only requirement for this week is that I'd like your comment to refer to (and briefly quote) at least one particular passage, which can be from any of the readings by Burke or Wollstonecraft.
Although I was certainly intrigued by Edmund Burke's work, I found it very useful to read the text by Mary Wollstonecraft, because the woman's perspective is much more rarely recognized. I'm not really going after any of the questions asked, but I would like to touch upon a certain passage right at the very beginning of Wollstonecraft's piece. In the introduction, Wollstonecraft states (when speaking of the relationship between men and women): "A degree of physical superiority cannot, therefore, be denied--and it is a noble prerogative! But not content with this natural pre-eminence men endeavour to sink us still lower, merely to render us alluring objects for a moment; and women, intoxicated by adoration which men, under the influence of their senses, pay them, do not seek to obtain a durable interest in their hearts, or to become the friends of the fellow creatures who find amusement in their society."
ReplyDeleteI found this passage particularly interesting because it is so true. Women have come a long way from the times when Burke and Wollstonecraft were writing, but there is still a significant difference between the social standings of men and women. What I found especially truthful about this passage is not what Wollstonecraft says about the differences between men and women (though they are true), but rather what she said about the way that women react to the way that they are treated. It is completely accurate that some (not all) women will succumb to poor treatment by men because they will say "nice" things to them. I'm not sure why I was so drawn to this, I guess I just felt that it was unexpected but incredibly real.
Finding this kind of resonance with present-day behavior in a two-hundred-year-old text _is_ surprising. It raises questions about how we explain such a resemblance or continuity. Since my first response to an observed similarity is to ask about the _differences_ that might nonetheless underlie it, it occurs to me that some of the causes of such behavior that Wollstonecraft is fighting against have disappeared. Women are no longer _formally_ educated to behave in this way, to rely on beauty as a source of self-esteem and to trade that kind of pride for a more substantial sort; no present-day philosopher of Rousseau's stature would argue for such a thing. Yet that only raises a further question about why such behavior persists. What might explain it?
Delete"I cannot comprehend [Milton's] meaning, unless [...] he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind obedience, to gratify the senses of man when he can no longer soar on the wing of contemplation." (Pg. 22)
ReplyDeleteAs Wollstonecraft refers to and critiques Milton's description of "our first frail mother," I was reminded of Burke's own arguments regarding the 'death' of chivalry. Milton's perspective of women coincides with Burke's own views, in that the beauty of women comes from their supposedly inherent fragility and softness. Burke laments the loss of the chivalry which only seems to value women for that same fragility and their devotion to men. Essentially, chivalry appears to be a practice of men, and not a right deserved by women. With the 'age of chivalry' gone, Burke views the Revolution as an untempered cause that can only end in great havoc.
While Burke isn't keen on the change brought on by the Revolution, Wollstonecraft encourages it, although she still values many long-standing traditions of the past. In the above quote, Wollstonecraft ridicules the idea of women being valued in such a way. By remaining within this narrowed expectation, women are limited to the innocence of children which, for adults, is a "civil term for weakness" of both mind and spirit. To reverse this damage on the value of women as beings worthy of equality to men, Wollstonecraft says the following:
"It may be impossible to convince [women] that the illegitimate power, which they obtain, by degrading themselves, is a curse, and that they must return to nature and equality if they wish to secure the placid satisfaction that unsophisticated affections impart. But for this epoch we must wait..." (Pg. 24)
Here, Wollstonecraft calls attention to the false security felt by women. Men's admiration of women, at least in this sense, is not to be desired. Instead, women should return to an equal standing in society with men. However, the power for this change still seems to lie with the men (let "kings and nobles... throw off their gaudy heredity trappings"). This remains an inevitable kink in the chain of female equality and independence. This all highlights the fact that the rights of both men and women cannot be easily determined or achieved, but decided only through ongoing debate, discussion, and deliberation.
One of my favorite parts of Wollstonecraft was on page 32 when speaking about why women need to be more than beautiful objects for men. She says "Weakness may excite tenderness, and gratify the arrogant pride of man; but lordly caresses of a protector will not gratify a noble mind that pants for, and deserves to be respected. Fondness if a poor substitute for friendship". I found this whole section very powerful and inspiring. It is a great motivation for women to want to be more than looks and objects for men. Women should strive to be anything they want. This relates to concept of women's happiness. She discusses how women can spend so much time imagining their lives if they were happy. She also mentioned at one point something along the lines that unhappy wives make excellent mothers. One statement I found interesting that I didn't really understand was her idea that women are generally too familiar with each other.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Wollstonecraft's views on social class, this passage struck out at me:
ReplyDelete"It is, Sir, possible to render the poor happier in this world, without depriving them of the consolation which you gratuitously grant them in the next. They have a right to more comfort than they at present enjoy; and more comfort might be afforded them, without encroaching on the pleasures of the rich: not now awaiting to enquire whether the rich have any right to exclusive pleasures."
This just really made me think of the current political debates and how often I've heard about and read about similar arguments and viewpoints--not only during this recent election, but over the course of my life, in school, from my parents, on TV, and especially last year with all the emphasis on Occupy Wall Street. I guess it just struck me how little this issue, at it's core, seems to have changed over time and how relevant some of these issues still are today. This is also clearly an issue Wollstonecraft feels strongly about, as it is one of the parts where she conveys strong emotion through her writing.
In the beginning of her argument in Vindications of the Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft does not hesitate to correct Burke of several blunders in his argument. The first and foremost, of course, is his term “rights of men.” She calls it an “invidious phrase” and changes the term into her own phrase: rights of humanity. Wollstonecraft goes on to explain that the “birthright of man…is such a degree of liberty, civil and religious, as is compatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is united in a social compact, and the continues existence of that compact.” So even though Burke chose to completely exclude women in his turn of phrase, she claims that natural rights of men would include liberty of those surrounding them—which includes women—and united with them—meaning that they are of equal status and importance.
ReplyDeleteAnother point she makes is I think the most interesting; fore she accuses Burke of being carried away with his sensibilities and romantic ideas. She states that “there appears to be such a mixture of real sensibility and fondly cherished romance in your composition.” Wollstonecraft even goes on to claim that Burke has “passions that cloud your reason” and that “imagination would have taken fire.” She, a WOMAN, who is supposed to naturally have these characteristics of being too romantic, emotional, and sentiment, is claiming that Burke, a MAN, has shown all of the above characteristics in his writing. I found it to be quite shocking that she was able to turn the traditionally female gender onto Burke himself. In a way, this would also mean she is taking on a masculine identity in her writing. This leads me to question if she felt that only men would be able to properly articulate an idea.
I'd actually like to take up your last point here, about Wollstonecraft's rhetoric of manliness, briefly at the start of class next Wednesday - we ran out of time for it today. In her Vindication of the Rights of Men, she promises to give a "manly definition" of the "rights of men" (259). In a similar passage near the beginning of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman that Kristen was curious about, Wollstonecraft hopes that women will imitate "manly virtues" and "grow more and more masculine" (11). Another extraordinary passage along these lines can be found on page 38.
DeleteYour questions about this are perfect places to start: Does she indeed think that only men can properly articulate an idea? _Why_ would she take on a masculine identity in her writing? (That "why" is a question about Wollstonecraft's motive, but also about the social and historical situation that leads her ambition (e.g. the ambition to make a rational, persuasive argument) to find itself in these particular terms.)
I found Wollstonecraft's comparison of military men who "only live to please" to the weak, senseless class of women very interesting, not only for the seeming polarity of her subjects but also for the language that she employs. Military men, though inherently superior to women in general, display servile and inadequate dispositions, a characteristic necessitated by their position that Wollstonecraft derides mockingly while deploring this same characteristic seen in women. On page 27, Wollstonecraft paints women into the battlefields; “This is only keeping [women] in rank and file, and it is true….but, as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right when they endeavor to keep women in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing.” This passage wrongfully parallels the military man lacking in robustness and resoluteness to the woman oppressed by the “gallantry and despotism” of society to the slave who is legitimately subjugated, comparisons that Wollstonecraft contradicts herself with on two points expressed in A Vindication of the Rights of Women. She asserts that women, who are treated as mindless children, should “enjoy legitimate rights” and use “sense and modesty to secure [them] the friendship of [their] husband[s]. In order to achieve this, must not women band together, possibly under Wollstonecraft’s manifesto, and become their own sort of military? Or does this not count as mindless following because it is not tyranny in the typical sense? The second disputable point in drawing these parallels is that women are said to be just as cruel as men, formulating ways in which to torture slaves. I don’t think that it is possible to interchange the three groups, as they are all fixed in and tormentors to those below them in society’s hierarchy.
ReplyDelete