Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:49:38.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No More Like Pallas Athena: Displacing Patrilineal Accounts of Modern Feminist Political Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Jim Jose
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The history of modern feminist political theories is often framed in terms of the already existing theories of a number of radical nineteenth-century men philosophers such as James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Charles Fourier, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels. My argument takes issue with this way of framing feminist political theory by demonstrating that it rests on a derivation that remains squarely within the logic of malestream political theory. Each of these philosophers made use of a particular discursive trope that linked the idea of women's emancipation with the idea of social progress. I argue that this trope reproduced the masculinist signification and symbolism inherent in their particular political philosophies. I argue for a more positive, less masculinist, account of the history of feminist political thought.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , Fall 2004 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Abercrombie, Nicholas, Hill, Stephen, and Turner, Bryan S., 1994. The Penguin dictionary of sociology. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Allen, Judith. 1994. Rose Scott: Vision and revision in feminism. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Altman, Elizabeth C. 1976. The philosophical bases of feminism: The feminist doctrine of the Saint‐Simonians and Charles Fourier. The Philosophical Forum 7: 277–93.Google Scholar
Annas, Julia. 1977. Mill and the subjection of women. Philosophy 52: 179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1980a. Bentham no feminist: A reply to Boralevi. The Bentham Newsletter. 4(May): 47–48.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1980b. Utilitarianism, feminism, and the franchise: James Mill and his critics. History of Political Thought 1(1): 91–115.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1980c. Was Bentham a feminist? The Bentham Newsletter 4(May): 25–32.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1984. The feminist and his father: A true detective story. In The research process in political science, ed. Phillips Shively, W.Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock Publishers.Google Scholar
Barrett, Michele. 1987. Marxist‐feminism and the work of Karl Marx. In Feminism and Equality, ed. Phillips, Anne. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Beauvoir, Simone. 1988. The second sex. Trans, and ed. Parshley, H. M.London, U.K.: Picador Classics.Google Scholar
Beecher, Jonathan. 1985. Parody and liberation in The new amorous world of Charles Fourier. History Workshop Journal 20(autumn): 125–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Daniel. 19681969. Charles Fourier: Prophet of eupsychia. American Scholar 38(1): 41–58.Google Scholar
Boals, K. 1975. Review essay: Political science. Signs 1(2): 161–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boralevi, Lea Campos. 1980. In defence of a myth. The Bentham Newsletter 4(May): 33–46.Google Scholar
Boralevi, Lea Campos. 1984. Bentham and the oppressed. New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boralevi, Lea Campos. 1987. Utilitarianism and feminism. In Women in western political philosophy: Kant to Nietzsche, ed Kennedy, Ellen and Mendus, Susan. Brighton, U.K.: Wheat‐sheaf Books.Google Scholar
Brown, Wendy. 1988. Manhood and politics. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bryson, Valerie. 1993. Feminist political theory: An introduction. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1969. Reflections on the revolution in France, ed. Cruise O'Brien, Conor. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Pelican Classics.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan, and Zerilli, Linda. 1993. Feminist challenges to political science. In Political science: The state of the discipline II, ed. Finifter, Ada W.Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Coole, Diane. 1988. Women in political theory: From ancient misogyny to contemporary feminism. London, U.K.: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Di Stefano, Christine. 1991. Configurations of masculinity: A feminist perspective on modern political theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dooley, Dolores. 1996. Equality and community: Sexual equality in the writings of William Thompson and Anna Doyle Wheeler. Ireland: Cork University Press.Google Scholar
Duerst‐Lahti, Georgia. 1999. Masculinism as governing ideology: Epistemologi‐cal consequences. http://www.beloit.edu/~polisci/GDL/georgiamasculinism.html (accessed February 26, 2002).Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, Barbara, Hess, Elizabeth, and Jacobs, Gloria. 1987. Re‐making love: The feminization of sex. London: Fontana/Collins.Google Scholar
Engels, Friedrich. 1973. The origin of the family, private property and the state. In Karl Marx & Frederick Engels: Selected works in one volume. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
Engels, Friedrich. 1975. Anti'Duhring: Herr Eugen Duhring's revolution in science. Trans.Burns, Emile. Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Fourier, Charles. 1996. Charles Fourier: The theory of the four movements, ed Stedman Jones, Gareth and Patterson, Ian. Trans.Patterson, Ian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Jo. 1995. From seed to harvest: Transformations of feminist organizations and scholarship. In Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women's movement, ed Marx Ferree, Myra and Yancey Martin, Patricia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Gatens, Moira. 1991. Feminism and philosophy: Perspectives on difference. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Leslie F. 1982. Early feminist themes in French Utopian socialism: The St. Simonians and Fourier. Journal of the History of Ideas 43(1): 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, Alison. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jose, Jim. 1995. Ontological commitment and the concepts of “embodiment” and “embodied person”: Some problems for feminist theory. Women & Politics 15(1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jose, Jim. 2000. Contesting patrilineal descent in political theory: James Mill and nineteenth‐ century feminism. Hypatia 15(1): 151–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, John. 1996. Tom Paine: A political life. London, U.K.: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Ellen, and Mendus, Susan, eds. 1987. Women in western political philosophy: Kant to Nietzsche. Brighton, U.K.: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 1998. Gendering research in political science. Annual Review of Political Science 1: 333–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1987. Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1989. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Malthus, Thomas. 1958. An essay on the principle of population. Intro. Michael P. Fogarty. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1975. Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844. In Karl Marx: Early writings. Intro. Lucio Colletti. Trans.Livingstone, Rodney and Benton, Gregor. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1977. Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. 1. Trans.Moore, Samuel and Aveling, Edward. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1978. Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. 3. Trans.Engels, Friedrich. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. 1975. The holy family, or critique of critical criticism against Bruno Bauer and company. Trans.Dixon, Richard and Dutt, Clemens. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. 1976. The German ideology: Critique of modern German philosophy according to its representatives Feuerbach, B. Bauer and Stirner and of German Socialism according to its various prophets. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Mason, E. S. 1928. Fourier and anarchism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 42: 228–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, James. 1817. A history of British India. London: Baldwin, Craddock, and Joy. Mill, John Stuart. 1958. Autobiography. Appendix and introduction by Harold Laski. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, James. 1970. Principles of political economy, with some of their applications to social philosophy, ed Donald Winch. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Mill, James. 1976. On liberty. In Utilitarianism, on liberty, and considerations on representative government. London: Everyman Edition.Google Scholar
Mill, James. 1983. The subjection of women. In The subjection of women (John Stuart Mill) and Enfranchisement of women (Harriet Taylor), ed. Soper, Kate. London: Virago Press.Google Scholar
Millar, John. 1771. Observations concerning the distinction of ranks in society. London: W. & J. Richardson for John Murray.Google Scholar
Morales, Maria. 1996. Perfect equality: John Stuart Mill on well‐constituted communities. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Moses, Clair. 1984. French feminism in the 19th century. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Juliet. 1971. Woman's estate. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Nelson, Barbara. 1989. Women and knowledge in political science: Texts, histories, and epistemologies. Women & Politics 9 (2): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Andrea. 1988. Feminist theory and the philosophies of man. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Mary. 1981. The politics of reproduction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Offen, Karen M. 2000. European feminisms 1700‐‐1950: A political history. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1979. Women in western political thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Paine, Thomas. 1971. Rights of man, ed. and intro. Collins, Henry. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole, and Gross, Elizabeth, eds. 1986. Feminist challenges and social theory. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Robertson, William. 1788. The history of America. 5th ed. London: A. Strahan.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Alice. 1970. Sentiment and intellect: The story of John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor. In Essays on sex equality, ed. Rossi, Alice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rowbotham, Sheila. 1974. Women, resistance and revolution. Bungay, U.K.: Pelican Books.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1997. Feminist studies and political science‐‐‐and vice versa. In Feminisms and the academy, ed. Stanton, Domna C. and Stewart, Abigail J.Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Saxonhouse, Arlene. 1985. Women in the history of political thought: Aristotle to Machiavelli. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Scott, Joan Wallach. 1989. French feminists and the rights of “man”: Olympe de Gourge's declarations. History Workshop Journal 28: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon, and Pateman, Carole, eds. 1991. Feminist interpretations and political theory. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
Soper, Kate. 1979. Marxism, materialism, and biology. In Issues in Marxist philosophy, Volume 2: Materialism, ed. Mepham, John & Ruben, David‐Hillel. Brighton, U.K.: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Sprague, Rosamond Kent. 1972. The older sophists: A complete translation by several hands of the fragments in die fragmente der Vorsokratiker edited by Diels'Kranz. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Thiele, Beverly. 1986. Vanishing acts in social and political thought: Tricks of the trade. In Feminist challenges and social theory, ed. Pateman, Carole and Gross, Elizabeth. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Thompson, William. 1970. Appeal of one half the human race, women, against the pretensions of the other half, men, to retain them in political, and thence in civil and domestic, slavery in reply to a paragraph of Mr. Mill's celebrated. “Article on Government.” New York: Burt Franklin.Google Scholar
Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Tulloch, Gail. 1989. Mill and sexual equality. Hertfordshire, U.K.: Harvester Wheat‐sheaf.Google Scholar
Waters, Kristin, ed. 2000. Women and men political theorists: Enlightened conversations. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Whelehan, Imelda. 1995. Modern feminist thought: From the second wave to ‘post' feminism.’ Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Williford, Miriam. 1975. Bentham on the rights of women. Journal of the History of Ideas 36(1): 167–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Bronwyn. 2000. Who counts (or doesn't count) what as feminist theory: An exercise in dictionary use. Feminist Theory 1(1): 105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon. 1960. Politics and vision: Continuity and innovation in western political thought. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Wollstonecraft, Mary. 1975. A vindication of the rights of men. Intro. Nicholes, B. L.New York: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints.Google Scholar
Wollstonecraft, Mary. 1978. A vindication of the rights of woman, ed. Kramnick, . Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Zerilli, Linda. 1991. Machiavelli's sisters: Women and the “conversations” of political theory. Political Theory 19(2): 252–76.Google Scholar
Zerilli, Linda. 1994. Signifying woman: Culture and chaos in Rousseau, Burke, and Mill. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar