What are the arguments advanced by Mary Wollstonecraft against

Rousseau’s account of the role of women in society?

Rousseau was a progressive thinker who advanced many revolutionary ideas,

but whose relationship with women, both in a personal and ideological
framework, was riddled with instances of self-contradiction and an altogether
non-progressive attitude. Mary Wollstonecraft, in her A Vindication of the Rights
of Women, advances many an argument against the portrayal of women, that is
conveyed within Rousseau’s works. She challenges his claims on many a level
and writes in the context of responding to a French attitude (18 th century) that
proposed to educate girls only till the age of 8, when they would then be lead into
the field of domestic duties and learn how to take care of them adequately. This
strongly relates to the Roussonian idea of women being educated for the sole
purpose of serving the man and actually existing only in relation to man, to
whom they are, by nature ‘to submit to and to endure even injustice at his
hands’(Feminism and Woman’s studies, 2005).

Rousseau held the basic belief of a woman’s role to be solely that of wife and
mother and by consequence that her ‘education must be planned in relation to
man and she will never be free to set her opinion above his’ (Feminism and
Woman’s Studies, 2005). Although one must place Rousseau in the context of his
time it is hard not to brand him as being sexist, in a modern sense, and it would
be safe to say that he believed in the superiority of man over woman and thus
implying women to be subservient. Some would argue against this claim,
particularly due to the fact that Rousseau often exalts the female character, but it
is also within this very way of exalting the female character that he degrades the
sex. In the following essay I will expose the view that Rousseau holds on the role
of women in society, through the bringing out of Mary Wollstonecraft’s
arguments and objections to his points. To do this I will focus particularly on
Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) and Rousseau’s
Emile (1762).

Wollstonecraft advances arguments against Rousseau’s account of women on

differing planes; firstly in regards to the counter-productive analysis of the
nature of the role of women. Secondly on the basis of Rousseau cramming
women into a mould that is not natural and finally by condemning many of his
arguments as lacking in moral integrity. In the following essay I will address
these three areas of critique.

Within the text Emile, Rousseau is forcing Sophy into his ‘mould of women’. For
Rousseau the life of a woman is one of ‘perpetual conflict with herself’
(Wollstonecraft, 181). To which Wollstonecraft answers: ‘And why is the life of a
modest woman a perpetual conflict? I should answer, that this very system of
education makes it so.’ (Wollstonecraft, 181) Wollstonecraft interprets the
perpetual conflict of women, not to be a part of their nature as Rousseau would
suggest, but rather a consequence of the education which is imposed on them by
man. She draws a tempestuous line between the attitudes of women and the
education that has produced them. Rousseau would have it so that women were
kept in a ‘state of most profound ignorance, if it were not necessary in order to
preserve her chastity and justify the man’s choice, in the eyes of the world, to
give her a little knowledge of men.’ (Wollstonecraft, 188). To this point
Wollstonecraft points at the immorality of Rousseau’s argument, for ‘would it not
be a refinement on cruelty only to open her mind to make the darkness and
misery of her fate visible?’ (Wollstonecraft, 188). Wollstonecraft is arguing that
this ‘limited’ amount of knowledge, that Rousseau would have imparted upon
women, would only be an act of cruelty whereby the they could see their
predicament and fate of subservience and could do nothing about it.
Furthermore Rousseau indicates that women should endure the injustices of
men without reaction: ‘she ought to learn betimes even to suffer
injustices.’(Wollstonecraft, 183). To which Wollstonecraft again cries out at the
immorality of this claim, for who is it that ‘can melt when insulted, and instead of
revolting at injustice, kiss the rod?’(Wollstonecraft, 183).

On top of the immorality of it she goes on to point out the lack of practicability,
addressing the issue of women as mothers. ‘Besides, how should a woman be
capable of educating her children?’(Wollstonecraft, 189). This is a continuation
of the objection towards the idea of women as incapable of true reason. For
Rousseau man and women are part of a moral whole, whereby the woman is not
capable of reason and by consequence necessitates the presence of man to be
able to divulge in reason ‘How indeed should she, when her husband is not
always there to lend her his reason?’(Wollstonecraft, 189). Here Wollstonecraft
has tackled Rousseau’s argument by firstly inverting the idea of women’s nature
being in perpetual conflict, and thus needing an education to curb it, with the
idea of the current system of education actually creating this perpetual conflict
within women. She also condemns the cruelty of giving partial knowledge to
women and highlights the impracticability, in terms of bringing up the future
generation, of the way in which Rousseau would envisage the role of women.

The counter-productive arguments presented by Rousseau begin with the

education Rousseau would give women, and how this will not generate the type
of women he wants. To begin with for Rousseau the women must be chaste,
modest and humble, whilst at the same time she must be enticing to man and a
temptress. This is her sole role in society besides that of bearing children. Yet by
his own conjectures Rousseau, who was an avid believer in the transient nature
of love, agrees that the seductive qualities of a woman are not eternal. And what
then? If a woman has been educated for the sole purpose of enticing man and
with not enough reason to raise children on her own, what will this lead to?
Wollstonecraft argues that, quite clearly, this would lead to adultery and that by
consequence the women is being asked to sacrifice her ‘understanding’ for a
transient love. Rousseau advocates that a huge proportion of a woman’s
education should be aimed at creating the creature that he deems appropriate
for the initial phases of marriage, even though this condition is only temporary.

‘Women are kept from the tree of knowledge, the important years of youth, […] all
to be sacrificed to render the woman an object of desire for a short time’
(Wollstonecraft, 192).

Rousseau’s account of the role of women is counterproductive on varying

dimensions. Firstly he produces a woman who does not embody the
characteristics that he would have wanted; she will turn out to be unfaithful and
his ideal of a modest women would not be achieved. Secondly he confines the
role of women to a state which then turns out to be temporary, thus leaving her
void of the capacity to do anything. And finally he creates a woman who is not
capable even of raising children, due to her complacent nature and lack of ability
to reason. Wollstonecraft highlights the counterproductive nature in the
following quote:

As I think may be demonstrated , the purpose of even this life, viewing the whole, be
subverted by practical rules built upon this ignoble base. ( Wollstonecraft, 177).

The subsequent way in which Wollstonecraft combats Rousseau’s account of the

role of women is through the concept of him attempting to ‘naturalise’ the role
that he is envisioning.

“To render [the woman’s mind] weak, and what some may call beautiful, the
understanding is neglected, and girls forced to sit still, play with dolls and listen to
foolish conversations; - the effect of habit is insisted upon as an undoubted
indication of nature” (Wollstonecraft, 179).

Wollstonecraft is arguing that women are subservient because they have been
brought up that way and not because that is their natural predisposition ‘the
effect of habit). Rousseau points to this natural subservience in other regards as
well. For example he would argue that women are not capable of proper self-
restraint and that they are ‘over-indulgent’ (Wollstonecraft, 181) and thus must
be contained. To this Wollstonecraft responds by clearly stating that if women
are rid of their capacity for reason, then it is evident that they will not be able to
moderate their baser desires, and goes on to accentuate this by providing the
example of freed slaves:

Slaves and mobs have always indulged themselves in the same excess, when once
they broke loose from their authority. (Wollstonecraft, 181-2).

At this point it is pertinent to use the term, devised by Wollstonecraft, ‘male

aristocracy’. With this term she points toward the historical nature of man’s
exercise of coercive control over women. Through the appropriation of reason
‘the rights of humanity have been […] confined to the male line from Adam
onwards.’(Wollstonecraft, 188). Through his monopoly of reason man is able to
perpetuate the subservient role of women in society and maintain the ‘male
aristocracy’. She is clearly inverting the cause and causation process of Rousseau
to an effective outcome, whereby the natural subservience of women is not only
called into question, but revealed as mis-leading.

Furthermore there is an immoral vein of Rousseau’s argument that must be

considered.

‘What opinion are we to form of a system of education, when the author says of his
heroin, “that with her, doing things well, is but a secondary concern: her principal
concern is to do them neatly”’ (Wollstonecraft, 188).

The immoral nature of creating a woman who lives for appearances, and thus
what the rest of society think of her, is made apparent. He is obsessed with the
ideal of a woman attaining politeness, which Wollstonecraft sees as being placed
above the goal of virtue. Rousseau validates a woman only if she is appreciated in
other peoples eyes, a concept that is exposed very clearly when he states that:

Worth alone will not suffice, a woman must be thought worthy (Rousseau, 325,
328)

The ‘mild disposition’(Wollstonecraft, 181) that Rousseau attributes to a woman

should be adoperated to suffer injustices at the hands of men. Still further he
points to the role of women as having to focus mainly on ‘what is agreeable’
rather than on issues of ‘what is useful’ (Wollstonecraft, 186) which should be an
area concerning solely men. He goes as far as saying that he would not blame a
man from keeping his wife and daughters completely ignorant, yet believes that
some knowledge must be imparted lest she remain a temptress, and not become
a mother. Here Wollstonecraft points toward the immorality of Rousseau’s
argument once again:

Would it not be a refinement on cruelty only to open her mind and to make the
darkness and misery of her fate visible? (Wollstonecraft, 188).

For Wollstonecraft it is clear that a man who wants a mindless wife has lost his
higher tastes, and whom ‘doesn’t know what it means to be loved by a woman
who understands him’(Wollstonecraft, 191). This leads to my final point, which
has less to do with the argument presented by Rousseau and more to do with the
context of his time and personal relationships. Although I believe this to be of
relative importance I do think that it should be included due to the fact that
Wollstonecraft address both these issues in her criticism of Rousseau’s account
of women, pointing to these two factors as influential in his misguided views.

Firstly in terms of the social context of the historical period in which he wrote
the following observations must be made. Firstly the French attitude towards
education was very much one in which ‘boys and girls, particularly the latter, are
only educated to please, to manage their persons, and regulate the exterior
behaviour’ (Wollstonecraft, 180). This is reflective of many of the conjectures
made by Rousseau, who would confine this type of education particularly to
girls;

Girls ought to be active and diligent; nor is that all they should also be early
subjected to restraint. (Wollstonecraft, 180).

Rousseau is merely applying the French attitude toward education in a more

concentrated form toward women. Furthermore Wollstonecraft points to his
personal relationships with women as indicative of why his attitude is as it is. In
particular she refers to his relationship with Theresa:

He could not raise her to the common level of her sex; and therefore he laboured to
bring women down to hers. (Feminism and Woman’s Studies, 2005).

Here we see how Wollstonecraft points to the nature of his companion in

explaining why Rousseau exposes his views on the role of women as he does. The
fact that Theresa was a simple woman, of humble origins and little intellectual
prowess is taken by Wollstonecraft to be important. She goes on to elaborate
that it was merely the fancies of a poetic writer and ‘reflecting on the sensations
to which fancy gave force’ (Wollstonecraft, 192) that he drew up conjectures on
the role of women in society. The fact that his ideas were widely accepted is
connectable to the idea that ‘interesting the heart and inflaming the imagination
of his readers, in proportion to the strength of their fancy, they imagine that their
understanding is convinced when they only sympathize with a poetic writer,
who skilfully exhibits the objects of sense […] and thus making us feel whilst
dreaming that we reason.’(Wollstonecraft, 192)
Although the social context is pertinent in understanding his attitude toward the
role of women it is also important to note that some many writers of the 18 th
century were far more progressive, in terms of the emancipation of women, than
he. For example Condorcet, whom in his Memoirs of Public Instruction (1790),
advocated better education for women. As well as him there are also Olympe de
Gouges (1793-1798), who strongly vouched for the emancipation of women.
Another women of the times, who actually influenced Wollstonecraft to a
significant degree, was Catherine Macaulay with her, Letters on Education for the
Analytical (1790), where she denies fundamental differences betwixt the sexes
and attributes the weakness of women to the deficient education that they
receive. This in turn places stronger emphasis on Rousseau’s own personal
lacking and how he related to women as an individual, for it is because of this
that he was unable to exit the paradigm of his time and produce a more
progressive view on the role of women in society.

Wollstonecraft herself published her work some thirty years after Rousseau,
hence she can be considered almost a contemporary, whose views were far more
progressive and thus minimizing the social context as a consequence of
Rousseau’s views. She concludes her critique of Rousseau by producing her own
version, of the role of women in society, that in itself stands as the strongest
argument against Rousseau.

Let us not confine all our thoughts to the petty occurrences of the day, or our
knowledge to the acquaintance of our husbands’ hearts, but let the practice of
every duty be subordinate to the grand one of improving our minds, and preparing
our affections for a more exalted cause. (Wollstonecraft, 193).

The belief that Rousseau is degrading women by ‘making them a slave to love’
(Wollstonecraft, 193) is conveyed and supported with the idea that many women
have strengthened their minds due to ‘men’s follies’ (Wollstonecraft, 194). Thus
demonstrating women not to be the inept creatures that he portrays them as,
and highlighting Rousseau’s exaltation of women as a confining element. These
stand as two of the central arguments posed by Wollstonecraft, in objection to
Rousseau’s account of the role of women in society, and highlight the ideas of
him producing a counter-productive, wrongly naturalising and lacking in moral
fibre account of the role of women in society.

Bibliography

Websites:

Feminism and Woman’s Studies, 2005, Woman’s education according to Rousseau

and Wollstonecraft, [Online] (Updated 01/03/2005) Available at:
http://feminism.eserver.org/theory/papers/womens-education.txt [Accessed
December 2010]

Books:

Rousseau, Emile Book V. Available through:

https://www.elearning.qmul.ac.uk/webct/urw/lc4130001.tp0/cobaltMainFram
e.dowebct [Accessed December 2010]

Wollstonecraft Mary, Vindication of the Rights of Women. Available through:

https://www.elearning.qmul.ac.uk/webct/urw/lc4130001.tp0/cobaltMainFram
e.dowebct [Accessed December 2010]

Journals:

Feld Scott, Grofman Bernard, 1988. ‘Rousseau’s General Will: A Concordian

Perspective.’ In: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, page 567-576.