Northeastern Political Science Association

The Feminist Challenge to Western Political Thought

The Sexism of Social and Political Theory by Lorenne M. G. Clark; Lynda Lange; Women in
Western Political Thought by Susan Moller Okin; From Rationality to Liberation: The
Evolution of Feminist Ideology by Judith A. Sabrosky; Philosophy and Women by Sharon
Bishop; Marjorie Weinzweig
Review by: Ruby Riemer
Polity, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), pp. 722-729
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3234474 .
Accessed: 25/07/2014 04:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Northeastern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Polity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Feminist
Challenge
to Western Political
Thought
Lorenne M. G. Clark and
Lynda Lange, eds.,
The Sexism of Social and
Political
Theory
(Toronto: University of
Toronto
Press, 1979).
Susan Moller
Okin,
Women in Western Political
Thought
(Princeton:
Princeton
University Press, 1979).
Judith A.
Sabrosky,
From
Rationality
to Liberation: The Evolution of
Feminist
Ideology
(Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood
Press, 1979).
Sharon
Bishop
and
Marjorie Weinzweig, eds.,
Philosophy
and Women
(Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1979).
Ruby
Riemer,
Drew
University
What sort of
challenge
to Western
political thought
does feminist think-
ing
offer? Clark and
Lange,
in The Sexism
of
Social and Political
Theory,
describe the
assumptions
of Western
political thought
not
only
as
"sexist,"
but as "so
deeply
rooted in the Western
political
tradition
as to
neglect-or preclude-the possibility
of
equality
between the
sexes."
Moreover,
"if these
assumptions
are
removed,
very
little is left
of the
theory" (p. i).
While the
charge
of
"neglect" may
no
longer
be
surprising,
the
sweep-
ing
indictment
against philosophical systems
is. Women have wanted to
believe that the value of
equality-proclaimed
in declarations such as
"all men are
equal"
but not
practised
in the
past-is
now
applied
and
will continue to be
applied
in democracies
through
the
largesse
of meri-
tocratic
power
elites
by
a kind of rule of readiness.
And,
surely,
women
as a democratic
constituency, having gone through
a
long
and
patient
quest
for
equality,
do
hope
that the value itself
may
survive the
operation
of
clearing away
the ambivalences in Western liberal
thought
about
gender
differences. But now we are told that little would be left to
any
Western
political theory
itself if the commitment to
gender
differences
that work
against equality
were removed from
philosophical reasoning.
Must there be this no-win situation?
Having
committed ourselves to
equality
for so
long,
must we now conclude either that it cannot be
achieved or that it can be achieved
only by discarding
the entire Western
philosophical
tradition?
We must ask if such a denunciation of the Western tradition will
help
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Articles 723
or hurt women in their
fight
for full
equality?
Can the feminist
challenge
to that
tradition, moreover, really
correct or reconstruct its ideals in
order to insure sex
equality?
The feminist
challenge compels
the
recognition
that
philosophical
beliefs which claim
universality,
but which exclude some
people
from
their
systematic application,
can
hardly
be called
universally
norma-
tive.
Rather, they
should be considered as social
commentary
which,
in the case of
women,
reveals certain
aspects
of Western
political
thought
to be sexist. If we were to
adopt
this
perspective,
Western
thought
would be free of its traditional
obligations,
and women would
not have to insist on its moral
bankruptcy.
Women could make their
own
philosophical claims,
establish their own
priorities
and their own
vision of a
good
world and a
good society. Equality
need not die as a
result. It
may simply
be established in a nonuniversal context. But
then,
is this what feminist thinkers
really
want? And is this the best direction
for
political
theorists to take in
moving
toward an end to sexism?
We can
begin
to see that
equality
is more a tool of
political power
than a sacrosanct belief. And feminists earn some credit for
exposing
the sham in the moral
assumptions
of male-created theories. Their
analysis
of Western
philosophical
values can be viewed as
serving
two
major purposes. First,
it has
brought
down the icons-views about
human nature that are derived from
patriarchal principles
based on
property
and
reproduction.
From Aristotle
onward,
women have been
assigned
an
inferior-passive-nature.
Their
reproductive
functions
could
only
be
safeguarded by
retreat into the
private
domain of house-
hold
drudgery
and
political
exile.
Virtually
silenced
by
male fiat between
ancient Greek times and the
eighteenth century, they
had
hardly any
chance to introduce the tactic of moral
reckoning-the
first feminist
tactic-against
the male
establishment,
a tactic
deriving
from
Enlighten-
ment doctrines of freedom and
equality.
Second,
feminist
thinking began
to
renegotiate
some
important
con-
cepts
in Western
thought-not only equality,
but freedom and
autonomy
as well-in a time when social
change
was
clearly
under
way.
It is not accidental that feminism and Western
philosophy joined
forces in the modern
age
of
revolution,
when an
increasing
number of
social, economic,
and
political
dissidents
questioned
received values and
existing
institutions. The
catalysts
for women's moral revolution were
already
standard beliefs in
equality, freedom,
and liberation-as Judith
Sabrosky points
out. These were rooted in social contract
theories,
utopian socialism,
and utilitarianism. Revolution reinforced new con-
cepts
of man which stemmed from such theories and which allowed new
concepts
of women to be
shaped by
some women
ready
and
willing
to
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
724 Review Articles
appropriate
for themselves these
already given
values.
Readiness,
if not
legitimacy,
was
present
even at the
beginning
as
Mary
Wollstonecraft
and Frances
Wright prove.
Moreover,
even
though
Locke relied on the
old Aristotelian
naturalism,
his own treatment of natural
rights
offered
a sounder basis to reestablish a
concept
of human nature that would
benefit women.
Although
Susan Okin blames Locke's "Foundation in Nature"
posi-
tion as the real basis "for the
legal
and
customary subjection
of women
to their husbands" and as
reinstating
"the exclusion of women from
political rights" (p. 200),
nature itself could no
longer
be held-as it
was in Aristotle-to be the
paradigm
for
political authority.
Even Clark
and
Lange
admit that "the
problem
for Locke was... to
distinguish
political authority
from natural
authority" (p. 21).
His
redesignation
of
the basis of
authority
in individual
autonomy,
therefore,
undid the old
Aristotelian
entrapment.
But he did not
go
on to renew for the modern
age
the
very
wise Platonic trifold distinction between
nature, biology,
and convention. Had he done
so,
he would have reasserted that
gender
differences should be considered
along biological
rather than natural
lines so as to allow
equal
virtue for both men and
women,
which is the
only
true basis of nonsexism.
Unfortunately,
it was the Aristotelian
model that carried into the
eighteenth century
even as a new kind of
moral
republic
took
shape.
The
appeal
to nature as the
key
to social and
political hierarchy
and
gain
has not
only
set
up
male culture
against
female nature as a neat
dichotomy
for a
simple-minded
sexism. It has also made
possible
women's
nonpolitical
status and her
productive
limitations. The
ultimate,
damaging
effect in all this has been her exclusion from
theory making.
If we
introduce,
as Clark and
Lange
do,
"sexual
equality"
as "a feature"
of
any political theory,
the
argument
from nature will no
longer
dom-
inate. It will
disappear
from Western
political theory,
and
political
the-
ory
itself will be saved from
disgrace.
But,
more
significant, equality
will not
only
be
possible,
it will make the
greatest improvement
in 2500
years
of both
thought
and culture.
From the
perspective
of Clark and
Lange,
however,
the
challenge
will
be met
only
when two conditions are satisfied:
(1)
"a
comprehensive
and
egalitarian theory
of social
reproduction...
based on the
assump-
tions that
reproductive
labour is as
socially necessary
as
productive
la-
bour and that
reproductive
labour should be
performed
at least as
voluntarily
as
productive
labour" and
(2)
"the
development
of an ade-
quate theory
of the relation between
production
and
reproduction" (p.
xvii). Clearly,
the
entry
of women into the
political
arena
requires
the
entry
of
reproduction
into the labor force.
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Articles 725
The four books considered in this review take
"equality"
as their
theme. Whereas
Sabrosky
is more historical in her
approach,
Clark and
Lange
and Okin are more critical. All three are
analytical.
The collec-
tion of
Bishop
and
Weinzweig-the
fourth
book-provides
an assort-
ment of
readings
that
supply
excellent
arguments
on
equality, autonomy,
and liberation-the three most
important
feminist values to date.
I.
In the course of Western
political thought,
it is true that women have
had few
philosophical
friends. Plato in The
Republic,
Book
V, Engels/
Marx,
and J. S. Mill are about the
only major
thinkers who at times
have
responded positively
to the woman
question.
So it is not
surprising
to read women
philosophers damning
the makers of the
discipline,
even
to the extent of
criticizing
their friends
along
with their enemies.
Clark and
Lange appear
to excuse Mill
by
not
dealing
with him at all.
But
they
have written and
employed
others to write articles in their
book on Plato and
Marx,
as well as
Locke, Rousseau, Hume,
Hegel,
and
Nietzsche. On these thinkers
they
have left no
suspicious
stone unturned.
"Plato
appears
to be inconsistent in his treatment of women"
(p.
3).
"His theoretical concerns are
ultimately
not those of feminism"
(p. 5).
In
Lange's
assessment,
Plato is blamed for "his
apparent
about-face in
The Laws"
(p. 3).
I do not think she is
wrong.
But her
argument ig-
nores the
larger
fact that Plato is
simply
not
egalitarian. Looking
for a
feminist in a culture that flourished
2,400 years ago
seems
frustrating,
especially
when that culture was resolved in its Hellenic
phase
of
patriarchy.
The miracle in Plato lies in his
seeing
both sexes as
equal
in virtuous
capacity-if only
in a moment of
enlightened
realization as to what the
woman
problem implies
for a
good society.
Such a
society
would have
to enforce a distinction between
biological
function and virtuous
nature,
which Plato wanted to do.
Clark is
similarly
critical of Locke. She faults him for
assuming
"a
'natural'
inequality
of the sexes and a 'natural'
superiority
of the male"
(p. 16).
And
Rousseau, Lange
claims,
was even more sexist. While he
sought
to
justify equality among
men,
he
sought
to
justify inequality
of
men and women. Her
critique
of Rousseau adds its own
spark
to a
body
of
existing
anti-Rousseau feminist
criticism-starting
with
Mary
Woll-
stonecraft.
Other authors in the book move on
(1)
to
speculate
on Hume's "in-
tellectual sexism" as
opposed
to
ordinary "vulgar
sexism"
(p.
70),
that
is,
his
emphasis
on
chastity
as a female
virtue,
which in fact
morally
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
726 Review Articles
discriminates
against women; (2)
to call attention to
Hegel's entrapment
of women in the
family-"the
first nature." "She never leaves the fam-
ily" (p. 82). Hence,
hers is a situation of total domination
by
men:
"woman never achieves the level of an
equal
Other"
(pp. 94-95); (3)
to
recognize
that
despite
Marx's
"significant impact
on feminism"
(p.
99),
there is
"increasing
evidence that the
promise
of a feminist Marx-
ism has become
problematic" (p. 100);
and
(4) finally
to denounce
Nietzsche's
love/hatred
for women: his
refusing
to women
any
real
humanity,
while at the same time
idealizing
women's
strengths
as basic
for the creation of the Ubermensch.
All
essays
in this book address the theme of women's
deprivation
in
the
political
domain.
Witnessing
the failure of
political philosophy
to
resolve the woman
question,
the authors
hope
to
inspire
"us to
remedy
... traditional
political theory"
which
they
find at this
point
to be "ut-
terly bankrupt" (p. xvii).
II.
Susan Moller Okin also
approaches
the
problem
of sexism
by
unmask-
ing assumptions
still at work even in the liberal tradition. She
opposes
first of all what she calls "the functionalist
perception" (p. 303)
of the
female sex-the
perception
that
equates
the female sex with the function
of
reproduction
and the
reproductive
function with social role. But
whereas Clark and
Lange
omit Aristotle
entirely,
Okin sees him to be
the real
culprit
of functionalism in sex-and
rightly
so. Unlike Plato
who
attempted
"to set out from a rational . . base to examine and criti-
cize
prevailing
modes of
behavior, opinions
and
standards,"
Aristotle
sought
to
justify existing
beliefs
(p. 73). Hence,
it is to Aristotle's func-
tionalist
principles,
which
permitted only
males-and few of them at
that-to
"participate fully
in
citizenship" (p. 276),
that the Western
tradition succumbed.
According
to
Okin,
no
political philosopher except
Mill found the
key
to transform "women into
equals" (p. 277).
Not
Rousseau, certainly,
whose
egalitarianism
was
"firmly
founded on the exclusion of women"
(p. 279).
In Mill's more elitist
democracy, however,
the
very competent
woman could
perhaps
achieve full
citizenship-if
not total freedom from
her functional
responsibilities
in the home.
Political theorists as a class
(though
Mill is an
interesting partial
exception)
have made a number of
assumptions concerning
the
family
and its relation to
society
that are not consistent with the
recognition
of women as individuals
equal
to men.
(p. 281)
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Articles 727
No
theorist,
not even
Mill,
escapes
the relation set
up
between
patriarchy
and
political representation; although
Mill did
argue
that "women as
individuals should have
independent political
and
legal rights" (p. 282).
Okin resents the
length
of time it is
taking
for women to
gain
full
equality-not merely
"formal
citizenship" (p. 4).
She
urges
us to
recog-
nize
assumptions
and conclusions in our
political
and
philosophical
heritage
which "are
inherently
connected
witlh the idea that the sexes
are,
and should
be,
fundamentally unequal" (p. 4).
Her
challenge, therefore,
is one of
vigilance
and is far more measured
than that of Clark and
Lange.
Her
proposal
to break
through
the bar-
riers
against
full
equality
also considers feminist solutions themselves.
She
opts
less for a reconsideration of the status of the
reproductive
func-
tion than for a reconsideration of
improvements
in
society
that will
lighten
the tasks of women.
Finally,
she rests her case on the individual
woman's freedom to choose for herself whether or not she will
repro-
duce,
rather than on a radical
politics
of
reproduction.
We have reached a
point
in
technological
and economic
develop-
ment at which it should be
possible
to do
away
with sex roles en-
tirely, except
for the isolated case of woman's
freely
chosen exer-
cise of her
procreative capacity. (p. 303)
Mainly,
it is the
subject
of women and
production,
not women and
reproduction,
that claims Okin's attention. These are not
necessarily
the
same for her as
they
are for Clark and
Lange.
Her theoretical demands
are fewer. It is clear that her
scholarly
criticism is based on a much
greater respect
for the tradition of Western
political thought.
Her fem-
inist
challenge
is more familiar to those who have been
listening
to
feminist criticism since the earliest
days
of feminism.
III.
Judith
Sabrosky's attempt
to
challenge
Western
political thought
reaches
back
only
to the
Enlightenment.
But her
approach
differs in that she
examines the
feminist
thinkers
primarily.
Feminist
thinking,
she
says,
is
rooted in the
Enlightenment
tradition. In the
"Enlightenment
ideals of
reason... and human
perfectibility"
women found their
way
into the
new
rationality
in order to
bring
about their own
particular
liberation
(p. 4).
These
ideals,
and their moral
significance
for
women,
instructed
and
inspired
the
precursors
of feminist
ideology,
such as Wollstonecraft
and
Wright.
Having
moved from
utopian
socialism into the
nineteenth-century
struggle
for
emancipation,
American women of the feminist
persuasion
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
728 Review Articles
grew
in
philosophical
understanding
and
political experience sufficiently
to be able to assert their own definitions of the woman
problem.
Sarah
Grimke and
Margaret
Fuller
approached
it
by viewing slavery
as a meta-
phor
for the female
condition;
by making pleas
for
legal
redress,
edu-
cation,
and the
franchise;
and
by urging
an
understanding
of
"femality."
Their concerns
strengthened
the
strategy
of moral
reckoning-a strategy
which women used to claim their own
birthright
and to force men to
confront the universal claim
explicit
in the value of
equality
which men
themselves had devised.
As
contemporary
feminism
developed, moreover,
so did feminist
ideologies.
Feminists realized the
necessity
to
analyze,
to
"recognize
the
importance
of
defining
values first"
(p. 143). Hence,
in order "to de-
velop
a feminist
ideology," Sabrosky contends,
"the
contemporary
fem-
inists must
continually analyze why
woman should be
equal
and how
she
may
become
equal
in addition to how she is
unequal. Only through
a
continuing analysis
of woman's
right
and need for
equality
will a fem-
inist
ideology
evolve from the
contemporary
woman's movement" be-
yond
the work of Simone de
Beauvoir,
who has
produced
"the
only
feminist
ideology
of the
post-World
War II
period" (p. 143).
In all three
books,
it is clear that women still fall short of full
equal-
ity-a goal
that continues to
provide
feminists with their most
important
challenge
to Western
political thought.
In
Sabrosky,
however,
as in Mar-
garet
Fuller,
the onus to achieve full
equality
is on women themselves.
"It would be a shame and a crime
against
all women in
history
to lose
... momentum and to
ignore
the wisdom and
warnings
of the women
who went before"
(p. 162).
And further: "woman's
equality
is... a
human cause. This has been the
message
of feminist
ideology
since the
era of
Mary
Wollstonecraft. It is also a
message
that
many
feminist
activists
today
seem to have
forgotten" (p. 162).
IV.
Finally,
a
reading
of the
essays
edited
by
Sharon
Bishop
and
Marjorie
Weinzweig
in
Philosophy
and Women adds
immeasurably
to the extraor-
dinary
adventure of
thinking
about the woman
question
involved in the
feminist
challenge
to Western
political thought.
The book
provides
not
only
diverse
samples
of
extremely
well-chosen
articles on such
important
issues as
abortion, pornography,
and
prefer-
ential treatment. It also
helps
to frame
concepts
on
sexism,
female na-
ture, love,
and
marriage
and the
family-all
in a cohesive
way.
The
articles relate to each other and to the
larger
theme of the book: the
moral dimension of women's liberation. One sees the whole theoretical
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Articles 729
picture
of women's liberation after
exploring
the
selections, topic by
topic.
It is
certainly
one of the best
anthologies
on feminist issues avail-
able,
and without
advertising
itself as a feminist
challenge
to Western
political thought,
it
qualifies
as one.
V. Conclusion
There are feminist models
competing
with that of
equality,
but it is clear
that the
equality
model has both a
political
and historical
advantage
for
women. It
is, moreover,
grounded
in a
philosophical
tradition
that,
while
resistant to their
progress,
has benefited women more than
any
other
model.
Women,
for at least two
centuries,
have been
challenging
Western
thought precisely through
this model.
They
have
forged
their own
way
into the ethical world of the
Enlightenment
and at last claimed their own
moral
birthright.
But
they
have
fought
the
large struggles
of the nine-
teenth and twentieth centuries-abolitionism and civil
rights-only
to
remain
deprived
of their own moral
victory
on women's
rights.
Theirs has been a
peculiar challenge.
Women dare not create
culture,
they
have been told since
postarchaic
times. Women dare not be full
moral
participants
in the
body politic. Moreover,
they
dare not
fight
on
their own terms for their own needs
alone;
they
have
always
had to be
allied to some
other,
seemingly
more
compelling,
cause:
slavery,
civil
rights, peace.
The battle of the
culturally
and
morally deprived-of
the least free
where women are concerned-is often said to be carried out in the midst
of
privilege
and
advantage.
Hence,
women's wounds remain invisible to
the
average,
naked male
eye.
But the bond a woman lives out with her
oppressor-to
use de Beauvoir's
words-proves
that woman's
struggle
is
necessarily
more conservative than radical. Until the feminist chal-
lenge completes
its dream of
equality,
more men are needed to believe
in the
plight
of women. And Western
thought
can no
longer
move
along
generation
after
generation, past
the
stumbling
blocks of feminist crit-
icism,
without
noticing
that women have entered the domain of ideas-
to
observe,
to
lear,
to
analyze,
to
debate,
to
question,
and to correct.
Clark and
Lange, Okin, Sabrosky,
and
Bishop
and
Weinzweig
have
made a
powerful
literature out of the feminist
challenge
to Western
political thought.
One can
only hope
that such contributions to that
challenge
will continue with
many
more
insights
as
profound
and as
plausible
as theirs.
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:07:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions