Free Love And Feminism: John Humphrey Noyes And The Oneida Community, By Lawrence Foster Summary

700 Words2 Pages

In the article Free Love and Feminism: John Humphrey Noyes and the Oneida Community, Lawrence Foster disputes two commonly held claims regarding John Humphrey Noyes and his values and ideologies about women. Foster’s overarching thesis is that, while John Humphrey Noyes was a proponent for women’s rights in some aspects, and the dynamics of the gender roles within the Onedia community reflected feminist values, John Humphrey Noyes was not, in fact, a feminist. This claim can be seen as Foster writes, “While it was true that Noyes was concerned to improve relations between the sexes, he was certainly no feminist” (167). Initially, Foster presents his thesis by providing two contrasting perceptions about Noyes’s views towards women and their …show more content…

As Foster writes “Restoring right relations between the sexes was an important goal for Noyes, but it was always subsidiary to his broader concerns for achieving religious and social revitalization” (183), he suggests that Noyes’s feminist policies were merely a by-product of an efficient theocracy driven purely by the desire to achieve the highest level of spirituality. According to Foster’s assertion, in such a society, individuals were classed based on their level of spirituality and their commitment to God rather than their gender. This will persuade the students that Noyes did not implement feministic policies because he was a feminist, but rather because he was simply a man of God, seeking for people to achieve absolute religious transcendence without the unnecessary constrictions of traditional marriage and gender …show more content…

Foster’s article suggests that Noyes’s central objective is ultimately the success of the theocracy, and providing an environment in which community members can achieve the highest level of spirituality. Instead of feminist or self-serving motivations like the initial theses suggest in the beginning of the article, Foster’s assertion claims that Noyes implemented gender equality and women’s empowerment policies because, to him, it seemed the most pragmatic course of action to establish a harmonious cooperative. As Foster writes “No one way of organizing relations between sexes was sacrosanct; the underlying spirit rather than any specific external forms was Noyes’s concern” (176) it can be seen that Noyes prioritized religious commitment over whatever social disparities may arise with gender. Foster’s claim suggests that Noyes believed that, without the individualistic societal bounds that differentiate and segregate people, communities can collectively transcend spiritually. This assertion relates to the seminar’s overarching theme of the removal of individualistic societal bounds for the effectiveness of the collective, and whether that method proves successful in creating a functioning utopian

Open Document