"As long as wealth, and not virtue, makes a man respectable, the riches of virtue will be sought first; and as long as the bodies of women whose silly, childish smiles betray the absence of intellect are fondled, the mind will remain uncultivated." ---- This quote is taken from A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, a title that has been translated into Italian in several editions as "On the Rights of Women." I believe, however, that it is crucial to emphasize this very vindication: we are faced with a work that is not merely an aseptic treatise "on women's rights," but a true vindication. To vindicate means first of all to recognize, then to reaffirm and reappropriate something-first and foremost, rights. From the Enlightenment perspective, they should belong to everyone; from Wollstonecraft's proto-feminist and "meta-Enlightenment" perspective, they belong to everyone: only when they do, will we discover-hear the provocation-whether women will be "man's companion or his slave"; until that moment, every lack is a subtraction, a theft, a limitation on the individual's expression and formation, preventing the discovery of the infinite possibilities open to women and, today we would add, all the "second sexes."
Wollstonecraft had in mind, first and foremost, the right to education: the lack of an adequate and orderly education is the primary factor that "enslaves women, atrophying their intellect and exciting their senses." The education reserved for her contemporaries was defined as a disordered one, whose precariousness prevents the development of the capacity for generalization and abstraction, chaining women to the slavery of habit. I'm reminded of the fate of Russell and Popper's naive inductive turkey-a turkey that, fed every day at the same time and relying on inductive reasoning by enumeration, lulls itself into the certainty of nourishment, only to be killed on the eve of a feast at which it will be the main course.
Women are thus maintained in a state of "ignorance disguised as innocence"-a deception that the astute Wollstonecraft repeatedly emphasizes. As summarized in the opening quote, as long as female naivety and meekness are well-regarded, these attitudes-passed off as "natural"-not only will not be questioned, but will continue to be acceptable or even desirable, even to women themselves.
Female ignorance naturally serves to maintain women in a position of submission and dependence on men. If Kant in 1784 could answer the question "What is enlightenment?" Writing that it is "man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity," the 1792 Vindication forcefully asserts that women's continued immaturity is attributable to an entire society that has every interest in preventing them from emancipating themselves-a society that sees, among others, women forced to become cunning by using survival strategies that, even if not humiliating, nevertheless reinforce the status quo. Wollstonecraft thinks, for example, of sexuality in the service of hierarchy, of bewitching beauty as an illusory and ephemeral power, of frivolity as a full-time or near-full-time occupation (for bourgeois women, though!). Whether you agree or not, her arguments are admirable for their logical rigor and the modernity of their content. Naomi Wolf also told us this in 1990: "Even before the feminist movement's incursions into the labor market, both men and women had become accustomed to beauty being valued as wealth[in the marriage market]. They were both prepared for the dramatic evolution that would follow: while women demanded access to power, the power structure materially used the myth of beauty to undermine women's advancement." The Myth of Beauty, as theorized by Wolf, strengthened and displayed all its violence after the Second World War, but if it was so effective as an instrument of (bio)power, it is above all because it was already well-rooted: its microphysics involves not only our bodies but also our intimacy, self-esteem, and interiority. An interiority constructed over centuries of continuous attempts at forced inferiority that-even in its use of the trap of beauty-has affected women as a gender and as individuals. In a passage that would be interesting to place in dialogue with the studies of Elena Gianini Belotti and Maria Montessori, the author of A Vindication observes that "From childhood[girls]are taught that beauty is the scepter of woman; their minds are modeled on the body and, dangling in the gilded cage, they seek only to venerate their own prison."
But, returning to the opening quote, upon closer inspection it also touches on another theme: the relationship between wealth and virtue. This isn't a forced argument. To delve deeper and better understand Wollstonecraft's position, I suggest reading another, longer passage.
"From the respect paid to property flow, as from a poisoned fountain, most of the evils and vices which make this world a gloomy scene for contemplative minds.[...]One class of society presses upon another, because all aim at obtaining respect on the basis of property, and property, once obtained, commands that respect which is due only to talents and virtues. Men neglect their duties and yet are treated as demigods.[...]There must be more equality in society, or morality will never gain ground, and virtuous morality will never have firmness even if planted on rock; so long as one half of humanity remains chained to its foundation, virtue will always be threatened by ignorance and pride. It is vain to expect virtue from women until they are, in some measure, independent of men; it is vain to expect that strength of natural affection which would make them good wives and mothers. So long as they are absolutely dependent on their husbands, they will be cunning, petty, and selfish.[...]The respect paid to wealth and personal charm is[...]a true polar storm that withers the tender flowers of affection and virtue."
Beyond the severity of her judgment on her fellow women: what is to be done, then? Redistribute private property, seek emancipation from men? Or abolish private property and seek to free ourselves together? Perhaps these questions go beyond Wollstonecraft's theorizing, which nevertheless closely links women's emancipation to independence from men and (male?) property: her writings reveal the idea that as long as hereditary property exists, social, cultural, and economic constraints will persist that can never make women truly free. Nor will they allow men to do so.
Wollstonecraft, in fact, does not forget the class stratification that pervades and shapes the entire society, and speaking on the issue of political representation, she states: "I truly believe that women ought to have representatives, instead of being governed arbitrarily without any say in the deliberations of government. But since the whole system of representation in this country is but a convenient occasion for despotism, women ought not to complain that they are represented to the same extent as the numerous working class, the hard-working ones who pay for the maintenance of the members of the royal family when they can barely feed their children with bread. How are those represented whose very sweat serves to maintain the splendid stable of a direct heir, or adorns the chariot of some favourite who casts contemptuous glances at poverty?"
In short, do we really want to be free? Then let us all be free!
Mary Wollstonecraft was born in London in 1759 and died on September 10, 1797, when her daughter Mary, the future celebrated Mary Godwin Shelley, author of Frankenstein, was only ten days old. In 1790, she published A Vindication of the Rights of Men, and in 1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. In 1797, she was writing Mary, or the Wrongs of Woman. Despite its reflections on property, A Vindication is considered the manifesto of liberal American and English feminism. The work was harshly criticized by conservatives, who themselves likely belonged to that group of "men who, eager to make women seductive lovers rather than faithful wives and rational mothers, have regarded them as females and not as human beings."
Today, we go further and want to be-even before lovers, wives, or mothers-simply ourselves. Free and together.
Serena Arrighi
Germinal Carrara Group
https://umanitanova.org/mary-wollstonecraft-rivendicazione-dei-diritti-della-donna/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #2-26 - Mary Wollstonecraft. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten