If scholarship is done right, it is that which is done impartially. The topic of this paper, the perfect woman, written by a man, may give those with prejudgments a ready answer to it; without the due analysis required by it. Reading both authors now, it is easy to bash Rousseau with sexism and stamp Wollstonecraft with feminism. But such was not my task, rather I examined both with an unprejudiced eye to the best of my ability. Thus, I hope the same is reciprocated by my reader, and take my interpretations and criticisms with the same impartial mind. To begin, then, my argument, I assert that although Rousseau and Wollstonecraft effect disparate views on the best education for women, the supposed disagreement of their model of the perfect woman is specious; their concept of the human species and its purpose is truly in contention.
It is imperative to outline such mode of education regarded by each as the best to raise a woman. Since Wollstonecraft critiques much of Rousseau’s, I begin with his model. “Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the author of things; everything degenerates into the hands of man,” is the first line of Book I in Rousseau’s Emile or On Education (161). Emile is not a book for a social system of education, but one specifically for the “tender and foresighted mother, who [is] capable of keeping the nascent shrub away from the highway and securing it from the impact of human opinions”(162). Therefore, the mother is advised to “observe nature and follow the path it maps out to you” in the education of her children, the same nature which Rousseau has taken to educate the imaginary Emile and Sophie: the man and the woman; the future husband and wife. Therefore, in educating the perfect woman, the futu...
... middle of paper ...
...o a role of mother and wife in both), but in their account of humanity.
The charge of sexism on Rousseau and the badge of feminism on Wollstonecraft render their arguments elusive, as if Rousseau wrote because he was a sexist and Wollstonecraft because she was a feminist, which is certainly not true. Their work evinced here by the authors questioned the state of man and woman in relation to their conception of what it should be, what its purpose, and what its true species. With an answer to these questions, one concludes the inhumanity of mankind in society, and the other the inhumanity of mankind in their natural, barbarous state. The one runs from society, to the comforts and direction of nature; the other away from nature, to the reason and virtue of society. The argument presented may be still elusive, and the work in vain, but the point not missed, perhaps.
In this essay I will be assessing the extent to which Rousseau and Wollstonecraft work contributed to the development of social thought and focus on the key ideas both of these researchers encountered, jean- Jacques Rousseau remains an important figure in the history of political philosophy and moral psychology, Rousseau views often very negative seeing philosophers as the past- hoc rationalizers of self interests, as apologist for various forms of tyranny, and as playing a role in the alienation of the modern individual from humanities natural impulse to compassion. The major concern that dominated Rousseau’s work was to find a way to preserve human freedom in a world where humans are increasingly dependent on other for the satisfaction of
In examining how women fit into the "men's world" of the late eighteenth century, I studied Eliza Fenwick's novel Secresy and its treatment of women, particularly in terms of education. What I found to be most striking in the novel is the clash between two very different approaches to the education of women. One of these, the traditional view, is amply expressed by works such as Jean-Jaques Rousseau's Emile, which states that women have a natural tendency toward obedience and therefore education should be geared to enhance these qualities (Rousseau, pp. 370, 382, 366). Dr. John Gregory's A Father's Legacy to His Daughters also belongs to this school of thought, stating that wit is a woman's "most dangerous talent" and is best kept a well-guarded secret so as not to excite the jealousy of others (Gregory, p. 15). This view, which sees women as morally and intellectually inferior, is expressed in the novel in the character of Mr. Valmont, who incarcerates his orphaned niece in a remote part of his castle. He asserts that he has determined her lot in life and that her only duty is to obey him "without reserve or discussion" (Fenwick, p.55). This oppressive view of education served to keep women subservient by keeping them in an ignorant, child-like state. By denying them access to true wisdom and the right to think, women were reduced to the position of "a timid, docile slave, whose thoughts, will, passions, wishes, should have no standard of their own, but rise, or change or die as the will of the master should require" (Fenwick, 156).
Many changes occurred in France during 1789 until 1799. This ten-year span, not only brought major upheaval to the government, but to social aspects within the country as well. Both, Edmund Burke’s, Reflections on the Revolution in France and Mary Wollstonecraft’s, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’, were published during this revolutionary time period. Although Burke and Wollstonecraft possess contradicting views, their works both include opinions about justice, equality and tradition. Burke’s conservative views persuade the reader to understand that the government follows a natural and cyclical path just as nature does. Wollstonecraft directly retorts by insisting that individuals, not nature, control society and therefore the path it takes. She also insisted that these individuals needed to alter their ways in order to revolutionize society for the better.
The objective of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to examine why Wollstonecraft felt this quest into the genre of novel for the politics which she already had discussed at length in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)? The second strand of inquiry will be into the domestic ideas of despotism which arise from gender discrimination perpetuated by the state machinery, with the legal system, in particular. This second strand will envelope the prevalent issues like the legally disadvantageous position of married as well as maternal women and how the revolutionary bodies of these mothers are confined along with infliction of mental harassment by both private and state systems. The issue of the imprisonm...
Both Mary Wollstonecraft and Sor Juana de la Cruz are writers of the Enlightenment period, but they each approach women’s rights in a different way. While De la Druz was a Catholic nun from Mexico ad preferred to study and be alone, Wollstonecraft asserted women’s rights for all through publications directed at the masses. During the Enlightenment, people began to question old authoritative models like the Church. Our texts states, “thinkers believed inreason as a dependable guide. Both sides insisted that one should not take any assertion of truth on faith, blindly following the authority of others; instead, one should think skeptically about causes and effects, subjecting all truth-claims to logic andrational inquiry” (Puchner 92). Indeed,
A change in feminism is shown between Wollstonecraft’s essay and Young’s essay. As women first demanded rights, they were coming out of complete dependence on men. Wollstonecraft and other activists fought for the basic right of education for women. As women gained liberty, they began to oppress themselves in the Third Wave of feminism. Wollstonecraft focused on the basic rights of women in her paper, saying “They must be permitted to turn to the fountain of light, and not forced to shape their course by the twinkling of a mere satellite” (Wollstonecraft 5). Here Wollstonecraft is saying that women need to be given the opportunity to get a good education, not just be taught by what their husbands tell them, so they could be their better selves.
This essay will compare Marx’s understanding of the relationship between laborers and capitalists and Wollstonecraft’s understanding of the relationship between women and men. Both Marx and Wollstonecraft’s conception of these groups of people show a large gap between their treatment and status in society. Marx argues that capitalism is not created by nature and the unequal relationship between laborers and capitalists is not humane. In other words, it is actually the cause of social and economic problems during that time period. On a similar note, Wollstonecraft believes that the oppressive relationship between men and women is also unnatural. The standards for men and women are placed by society, not by biological facts. Society and how people
Rousseau argues that “women ought to be weak and passive, because she has less bodily strength than man; and hence infers, that she was formed to please and to be subject to him; and that it is her duty to render herself agreeable to her master” (Wollstonecraft 79). Thus affirming that women were in more of a slave-like condition than an equal. Wollstonecraft views marriage as a bond of friendship and love rather than the man holding all of the power in the relationship and the woman just being there to please her husband. Women are not viewed as equals, but more so an outlet for quick pleasure and nothing more. Wollstonecraft states that, “Most of the evils of life arise from a desire of present enjoyment that outruns itself. The obedience required of women in the marriage state comes under this description; the mind, naturally weakened by depending on authority, never exerts its own powers, and the obedient
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexis de Tocqueville share a deep preoccupation of the relationship between equality and liberty. The two thinkers build up a keen explanation of two self-centered feelings rather different in their respective origins, but which both have a negative consequence on civil societies. Alexis de Tocqueville defines individualism as « a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself » (p176, Democracy in America, A.Tocqueville). On the other hand, Rousseau explains that the first signs of « amour
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
Rousseau believes that the strength of women is in her charm and thus, women bring men into their manhood. According to this concept, women’s power is rooted in their ability to control men through sex. Therefore, Persram reads this portion of the text as Rousseau’s way of granting women a position of power. However, this is a limiting position of power because women’s power is still dependent on men. Rousseau’s account of women reaffirms the idea that women are required to be submissive to
...r than its basic needs. In addition, modern man is characterized by self-love or amour-propre. This love for his self and personal property turns man into an individual who thinks of himself in comparison with others. Arguably, therefore, modern man essentially forgot who he is as a human being. Further, humans have moved from aidez-moi, where we begin to look for man's help or subsistence, to aimez-moi, take me or help. Rousseau explores how because natural man has no moral relationships or obligations or social inequality, natural man's situation is better not only for him but society as compared to modern man. For that reason, we can return to the natural, more content state by simply lowering the bar of society in terms of expectations and morality.
Mary Wollstonecraft was a self-educated, radical philosopher who wrote about liberation, and empowering women. She had a powerful voice on her views of the rights of women to get good education and career opportunities. She pioneered the debate for women’s rights inspiring many of the 19th and the 20th century’s writers and philosophers to fight for women’s rights, as well. She did not only criticize men for not giving women their rights, she also put a blame on women for being voiceless and subservient. Her life and, the surrounding events of her time, accompanied by the strong will of her, had surely affected the way she chose to live her life, and to form her own philosophies.
Men and Citizens: A study of Rousseau's social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warburton, N. (2004).
Rousseau’s Confessions are a recounting of past events in his life, and throughout, Rousseau attempts to resent his “unique” personality. In this attempt, he includes numerous descriptions of people and things that he has an affection for. It is through the vivid descriptions of his affections, Rousseau reveals his affections are the driving force in the creation of his identity. Discerning one’s loves as the driver of personality allows Rousseau to paint a clearer picture of his true self; as, this system based on affections allows him to replace vague concrete language and descriptors with actions of a person that readers are able to draw broader conclusions from.