Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:42:50.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Liberal Roots of Feminism: John Locke and the Attack on Patriarchy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Melissa A. Butler
Melissa A. Butler*
Affiliation:
Wabash College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The seventeenth-century conflict between patriarchal and liberal political thought grew out of a shift in views on the nature of man and society. Sir Robert Filmer insisted that the king ruled absolutely, the divinely ordained father of his people. Sidney, Tyrrell, and Locke grounded political power in an act of consent on the part of free-born individuals.

To what extent did these changing beliefs about human nature also bring about new perspectives on the nature, role and status of women? While this aspect of political theory has usually remained unexplored, it was an important critical weapon in the battle between patriarchal and liberal thought. Patriarchal theorists, relying on the Book of Genesis, could assign women to an appropriately subordinate place in family and society. Consent theories, though, as Filmer noted, depended for consistency on the inclusion of women (as well as children) in the formation of civil society. Early liberal writers including Tyrrell and Sidney were unwilling, then, to abandon patriarchal theory in all its forms and insisted that the consent of the “promiscuous multitude” of women and children was unnecessary. John Locke never specifically dealt with the role of women in the formation of society. Thus, he seemed to have escaped some of the difficulties of finding a place for women consistent with both traditional views of female status and newer views of human nature. Where Locke did speak directly about women, he often departed from traditional views in favor of an individualist approach. Examples of this may be found in his comments on marriage, education and in his discussion of female preaching.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 135 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to express my gratitude to John Langton and Enid Bloch for their helpful comments and suggestions and to Mark Moore and Karen Berry for valuable technical assistance.

References

1 On patriarchalism as a world view, see Schochet, Gordon J., Patriarchalism and Political Thought (New York: Basic Books, 1975)Google Scholar; also, Greenleaf, W. H., Order, Empiricism, and Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1964)Google Scholar, Chs. 1–5; Laslett, Peter, “Introduction,” Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1949), p. 26Google Scholar; and Robbins, John W., “The Political Thought of Sir Robert Filmer” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 1973)Google Scholar.

2 Patriarchal strains may be found in the literature of the sixteenth century including Knox, John, First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (Geneva, 1558)Google Scholar. Knox argued that women were incapable of ruling a kingdom. The tract was inspired less by Knox's fear of female rule than his fear of Catholic female rule. Counterarguments were introduced by Aylmer, John in An Harborowe for Faithfull and Trewe Subjects against the Late Blown Blast (Strasborowe, 1559)Google Scholar. Patriarchal political theory also influenced James I in The Trew Law of Free Monarchies (1598)Google Scholar; he noted that “Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens Patriae, the politique father of his people.” Field, Richard insisted in Of the Church (1606)Google Scholar that the political power of Adam as monarch could be derived from his power as father to the whole human race. Patriarchal theorists among Filmer's contemporaries included Maxwell, John who wrote Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas or the Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings (Oxford, 1644)Google Scholar; and Ussher, James, The Power Communicated by God to the Prince, and the Obedience Required of the Subject (written ca. 1644, first published 1661, 2nd ed., London, 1683)Google Scholar; and Robert Sanderson, in his preface to Ussher's work.

3 Laslett, Peter, The World We Have Lost (New York: Scribner's, 1965)Google Scholar, passim; Greenleaf, pp. 80–94; Zagorin, Peter, A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution (New York: Humanities Press, 1966), pp. 198–99Google Scholar.

4 On the use of scripture in historical argument see Pocock, J. G. A., The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), pp. 188–89Google Scholar.

5 See especially Greenleaf, p. 89; also O'Faolain, Julia and Martines, Laura, eds. Not in God's Image (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1973), pp. 179–207Google Scholar; and Schochet, p. 16.

6 Laslett, “Introduction,” and Laslett, , “Sir Robert Filmer: The Man Versus the Whig Myth,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 5 (1948), 523–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Sir Filmer, Robert, Patriarcha and Other Political Writings of Sir Robert Filmer, ed. Laslett, Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1949)Google Scholar. This volume will be cited in the text as “F.W.”

8 Pocock, pp. 189–90.

9 See, for example, Gee, Edward, The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate from God (London, 1658)Google Scholar; [Tyrrell, James], Patriarcha Non Monarcha (London: Richard Janeway, 1681)Google Scholar; and Sidney, Algernon, Discourses Concerning Government (London, 1698)Google Scholar.

10 Greenleaf, p. 89.

11 Arguments had to be structured to persuade the widest possible audience. For an exploration of this general problem, see Gavre, Mark, “Hobbes and His Audience,” American Political Science Review, 68 (December 1974), 1542–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Laslett concluded that “neither Locke nor Sidney nor any of a host of others who attacked Patriarcha ever attempted to meet the force of [Filmer's] criticisms [about political obligation], and that none of them ever realized what he meant by his naturalism.” Introduction, p. 21.

13 Sidney, pp. 2–4, 34–35.

14 Tyrrell, p. 83.

15 Schochet,p. 233.

16 Tyrrell, p. 74.

17 MacPherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (London: Oxford University Press, 1962)Google Scholar, Ch. 5; and MacPherson, , “The Social Bearing of Locke's Political Theory,” Western Political Quarterly, 7 (March 1954), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Tyrrell, p. 78.

19 Sidney, p. 4.

20 Laslett, Peter, “Introduction,” to Two Treatises of Government, written by Locke, John, ed. Laslett, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), p. 69Google Scholar. References to Locke's Treatises will be made to “T.T.” with the treatise and section numbers indicated.

21 Laslett, , ed., Two Treatises, p. 210 nGoogle Scholar.

22 See especially Hinton, R. W. K., “Husbands, Fathers, and Conquerors,” Political Studies, 16 (February 1968), 55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parry, Geraint, “Individuality, Politics and the Critique of Paternalism in John Locke,” Political Studies, 12 (June 1964), 163–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and MacPherson, Possessive Individualism.

23 Laslett, , ed., Two Treatises, p. 364, nGoogle Scholar.

24 See MacPherson, Possessive Individualism, Ch. 5. MacPherson argues that Locke assumed a class differential in the distribution of these qualities. Full membership in political society would be limited to those who fully demonstrated them. The question under consideration here is the extent to which this class differential might also be a sex differential.

25 John Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 6; also, see Locke to Mrs. Clarke, Jan. 7, 1683/4, in The Correspondence of John Locke and Edward Clarke, ed. Rand, Benjamin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927)Google Scholar.

26 Locke to Mrs. Clarke, Jan. 7, 1683/4, in Rand, p. 121.

27 Locke to Clarke, Jan. 1, 1685, in Rand, p. 121.

28 Locke to Mrs. Clarke, in Rand, p. 103.

29 Locke to Mrs. Clarke in Rand, pp. 102–03; while Locke admitted no difference between the sexes in their ability to grasp truth, he did realize that women had less practice in using that ability. He asked a friend to help him revise a Latin text of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke wanted assistance in “paring off superfluous repetitions … left in for the sake of illiterate Men and the softer Sex, not used to abstract Notions and Reasonings.” Locke to William Molyneux, Apr. 26, 1695, in Bettesworth, A. and Hitch, C., Some Familiar Letters between Mr. Locke and Several of His Friends, 3rd ed. (London, 1837), p. 88Google Scholar.

30 Laslett, Peter, “Masham of Otes: The Rise and Fall of an English Family,” History Today, 3 (August, 1953), 535–43, at 536Google Scholar. See also Cranston, Maurice, John Locke: A Biography (London: Longmans, Green, 1957)Google Scholar.

31 Locke to Limborch, Mar. 13, 1690/91, reprinted in Bourne, H. R. Fox, The Life of John Locke, Vol. 2 (New York: Harper, 1876), pp. 212–13Google Scholar.

32 [Masham, Damaris Cudworth], Occasional Thoughts in Reference to a Virtuous or Christian Life, in Ballard, George, Memoirs of British Ladies (London: T. Evans, 1775), pp. 262–69, at p. 267Google Scholar.

33 Locke to Rebecca Collier, Nov. 21, 1696, reprinted in Fox Bourne, p. 453.

34 McAdam, E. L. and Milne, George, eds., A Johnson Reader (New York: Pantheon Books, 1964), p. 464Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.