Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:28:58.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revolution, Domesticity and Feminism: Women in France after 1789

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Dorinda Outram
Dorinda Outram
Affiliation:
University College, Cork
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 971 - 979
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.)

References

1 Furet, François, Penser la révolution française (Paris, 1978)Google Scholar, translated by Forster, Elborg as Interpreting the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1981). All references here are to this versionGoogle Scholar.

2 Ibid. pp. 48–50.

3 I have developed this critique of Furet at much greater length in my ‘Le langage mâle de la vertu: women and the discourse of the French Revolution’, in Burke, Peter and Porter, Roy (eds.), The social history of language (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 120–35Google Scholar; and in Outram, D., The body and the French revolution: sex, class and political culture (London and New Haven, 1989), pp. 27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See also ibid. pp. 83–7.

5 For a review, see Devance, L., ‘La féminisme pendant la révolution française’, Annales historiques de la révolution fiançaise, XL (1977), 341–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 For example the comments in Hufton, O., ‘Women in revolution, 1789–1796’, Johnson, Douglas (ed.), in French society and the revolution, (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 148–64Google Scholar, on the ferocity and religiosity of revolutionary women.

7 For an attempt to situate Mme Roland, see Outram, , The body and the French revolution, pp. 124–52Google Scholar.

8 See Feher, Ferenc, ‘Freedom and the “social question”: Hannah Arendt's theory of the French revolution’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, XII (1987), 21Google Scholar.

9 Agulhon, Maurice, Marianne into battle: republican imagery and symbolism in France, 1789–1880 (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar

10 See Outram, D., ‘Reason must rule: science, the French revolution, and category shift in the making of the bourgeois public realm’, forthcoming in Science in Context (1989)Google Scholar; Bahr, E., ‘In defence of enlightenment: Foucault and Habermas’, German Studies Review, XVI (1988), 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Scott, Joan W., ‘Gender: A useful category of historical analysis’, American Historical Review, XCI (1986), 1053–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 This is also an important point to make because of the failure of other theories of the middle-class, such as Bourdeiu's, PierreDistinction (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)Google Scholar, to confront the divisive issue of gender in the definition of the supposedly universal bourgeois public realm.

13 For the beginning of a comparative approach see Popofsky, L. S. and Sheldon, M. B., ‘French and American women in the age of democratic revolution, 1770–1815: a comparative perspective’, History of European Ideas, VIII (1987), 597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Cambridge, Mass., 1988.