Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Mary Wollstonecraft is best known as the author of A Vindication of the Rights of Women published in 1792. In this text, she is arguing against those who justify the suppression of women on the grounds that women are less rational and more impulsive and emotional than men. Wollstonecraft argues that all human beings, regardless of sex, are born as rational beings, and therefore have equal capabilities for rational thinking and acting. Wollstonecraft is a religious thinker and believes that God has created all humans with reason. To develop and cultivate one’s reason is therefore a duty everyone has to God. Women are not irrational by nature, but if they are denied education and basic political rights, they will become irrational and ignorant. This is precisely what happens in a society where women are oppressed. To keep women in a state of ignorance means to obstruct their opportunity to fulfill their duty to God and thereby achieve salvation. An equal right to education is Wollstonecraft ’s main concern.

Knowledge and education are the keys to women’s liberation. Wollstonecraft was inspired by John Locke ’s model of consciousness as a tabula rasa (a blank blackboard) and argues that, because human consciousness is formed by experience and expectations, gender has to be a social construction (MacKenzie 1993: 39; Gatens 1986: 10). She was also inspired by early modern theories of natural rights . She claims that every individual has some birthrights independent of any government. Locke defines life, liberty, health and property as birthrights; for Wollstonecraft , liberty is the most important birthright. Therefore, she is most often thought of as a pioneer for liberal feminist political theory (Holst 2009). According to Wollstonecraft , equality requires legal reforms, but legal reforms are not enough. She calls for a “revolution in female manners” which requires that women reconsider their identities and self-perceptions. Without a revolution in female manners, women are giving up their birthrights (Wollstonecraft 2003b).

Wollstonecraft was part of a group of intellectuals in London who stressed the importance of the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality. They celebrated reason and fought against prejudice and superstition. They believed that rational thinking and scientific activity would lead to more democratic political and legal reforms (Nagel 1999: 129).

Wollstonecraft was born in London in 1759 as the second child in a family of seven. Because her grandfather left behind a fortune, the family was originally relatively wealthy. However, due to her father’s bad allocations, the family ended up relatively poor. Her father is described as a brutal alcoholic, while her mother is characterized as a downtrodden person, not able to take sufficient care of her children. From a young age, Wollstonecraft had to support herself and take responsibility for her younger siblings. At the age of 25, she established a school together with her sisters and her close friend Fanny Blood .

Because of Fanny’s poor health, and subsequent death, the school was closed down. After this, Wollstonecraft worked as a governess for an aristocratic family in Ireland. Later she went to London where she worked for the publisher Joseph Johnson and established herself as an author. She first published the novel, Mary, A Fiction. In 1791 A Vindication of the Rights of Men, a criticism of Edmund Burke ’s attack on the French Revolution, was published. Her most famous work, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, was published in 1792.

Wollstonecraft supported the French Revolution, at least in its early stage. She also went to Paris to observe and report on the happenings. In Paris, she meet an American, Gilbert Imlay , who became the father of her first daughter. In 1796, she married William Goodwin . She died of puerperal fever 10 days after her second daughter was born. In the years after her death, Wollstonecraft ’s reputation was relatively bad. This is caused both by the biography Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of Women written by her husband, and because of her support for the French Revolution (Janes 1978: 279).

Goodwin used Wollstonecraft ’s life story to promote his own radical ideas. In the biography, he revealed that she had an affair with a married man, had a child out of wedlock and that their sexual relationship started before they were married. He also said that she had tried to commit suicide twice (Taylor 1992: 203). It was known that Wollstonecraft had supported the French Revolution, a revolution that in the end became a reign of terror. Opponents of the revolutionary ideas marginalized her political and philosophical ideas with reference to her support for the revolution and her supposed immoral conduct in life (Janes 1978: 299).

Wollstonecraft did not acquire much formal education, but she still became one of the most important intellectuals in England of her time. She has written philosophy, novels and several letters from her travels (Aasen 2010: 61).

The focus in this paper is Wollstonecraft ’s argument for equal rights for men and women, including the notion of full citizenship for women’s and her claim for a right to education. Wollstonecraft ’s critique of Jean-Jacques Rousseau ’s ideas of education is important to understand the context of her own ideas on education. Wollstonecraft ’s ideas on education and women’s rights are introduced by her attack on the English philosopher Edmund Burke ’s harsh criticism of the French Revolution.

2 Wollstonecraft and the French Revolution

The French Revolution and the fall of the Bastille in 1789 have become symbols of the end of absolute monarchy and the development of democratic conceptions of citizenship. Several British intellectuals embraced the revolution and its promises of equality, freedom and brotherhood , in particular, Richard Price , a leading intellectual at that time and a minister in the church many of whose members were rational dissenters. As a woman, Wollstonecraft could identify with the dissenters. Like women, the dissenters were denied public office under the English crown; they were also denied the right to study at English universities (Taylor 2006: 108). Wollstonecraft became acquainted with Price while she worked for Johnson . Price had developed a political theory based on the idea that individual autonomy is the most basic of human capabilities. The normative consequence of his idea is that every human being has the right to act in accordance with his own rational convictions. From this it follows that states, or nations, also have the right to self-government. Appealing to the freedom of both individuals and nations, he defended the American and French revolutions.

Price ’s concept of freedom is defined in his best read and most influential publication, Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty (1776). In this text, he distinguishes between four kinds of liberty: physical, moral, civic and religious. Physical liberty corresponds to the classic understanding of negative liberty , i.e., freedom from external coercion, or affection. Moral and religious liberty refers to the right to act in accordance with it owns conscience and religious beliefs. As a dissenter, Price ’s main concern was to defend religious tolerance and the freedom of religion. Moral liberty refers to the ability and right to act in accordance with reason, and not to be led by irrational emotions and impulses. Civic liberty is defined as political liberty, both for individual and states. The civic liberty for the society is sovereignty ; the civic liberty of the individual is the freedom to influence the laws they are subjected to (Price 1776).

Like Wollstonecraft , Price claims that individual and political freedom is an unconditional necessity for the individual to be able to develop the capability for rational and critical thinking, and thereby be able to act as a morally responsible actor. The exercise of moral autonomy is a basic human right, and every government is therefore committed to organize society so that people are able to act as morally responsible citizens. He praises democracy, and envisions a society without a king or aristocracy and bishops. Inspired by Rousseau , he argues that the primary task of the government is to promote the will of the people (Thomas 1959: 313). In his publication A Discourse on the Love of Our Country, he argues that far from all in England are considered to be free; it was for this reason he praised the French Revolution, and hoped that the same would happened in England in order to fulfill the promise of the Glorious Revolution (Furniss 2006: 58–59). In line with the contract theoretical tradition, he claims that a condition for political liberty is that the citizens themselves are the authors of the laws that they are supposed to obey (Thomas 1959: 318). The exercise of political power is legitimate by virtue of consensus from the citizens.

Wollstonecraft was excited about the French Revolution, at least in its first phase where absolutism was replaced with the assembly of the people. But, when she went to Paris to write about the situation, she was disappointed by the brutality coupled to the implementation of republicanism.

A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1791) was first published anonymously, but as soon as the second edition was published with her own name on the title page she became instantly famous. The book is primarily a reply to Edmund Burke ’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), but also a defense of the ideas of Price . Burke had no confidence in a democratic republic. He thought that most people did not have knowledge and virtues necessary to rule for the best of the society. He also thought that Price was reducing questions concerning political responsibility to questions of personal development and self-realization (Thomas 1959: 321). However, at that time, Wollstonecraft knew more about Burke ’s writing than the French Revolution (Furniss 2006: 60). Burke is often referred to as the father of modern conservatism. He praises traditions, monarchy, clergy and aristocracy. Monarchy is supposed to be essential because the monarch appears to be in possession of a supernatural and mythical power that forces people to control themselves. Aristocracy and clergy are important to uphold and maintain people’s knowledge and morality (Burke 2007: 93). Burke ’s criticism of the French Revolution is based on the conviction that the Enlightenment’s ideal of liberty will eventually lead to a society characterized by individualism and egoism. According to Burke , freedom without tradition will create people whose actions are primarily motivated by their own egoistic preferences (Engster 2001: 579). The danger with revolution is dissolution of traditional norms, which leads to a situation where people no longer have guidelines for right and wrong, good and evil, proper and not proper (Malnes 2007: 15). The women’s march on Versailles in October 1789 that forced the royal back to Paris is, according to Burke , the day when general moral conceptions of right and wrong disintegrated (Burke 2007: 95).

Burke is also attacking the rationalization project of the Enlightenment. He believes that it is as equally impossible to conceptualize nature in virtue of clearly defined ideals of beauty, as it is impossible to organize political and social institutions in accordance with rational principles (Malnes 2007). He mocked the national assembly in France and its idea of a constitution based on abstract and universal principles of equality and liberty. While Burke is arguing that the English people already enjoy liberty, a liberty they have inherent from their ancestors, Wollstonecraft is referring to another kind of liberty: namely, the liberty given at birth, which is not institutionalized by any government (Furniss 2006: 60–61). According to Wollstonecraft , liberty is a birthright arising from the fact that all individuals are rational beings. Liberty is defined as follows:

The birthright of man … is such a degree of liberty, civic and religious, as is compatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is united in a social compact, and the continued existence of that compact (Wollstonecraft 1996: 16–17).

Wollstonecraft is criticizing arbitrary use of power. Individual liberty can only be restricted in order to protect other people’s liberty. According to her, Burke ’s celebration of English liberty is actually a protection of the property rights of the privileged elite. According to Wollstonecraft , inherited property and honorary titles are hindering social progress (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 117). “The demon of property has ever been at hand to encroach on the sacred rights of men and to fence round with awful pomp laws that war with justice” (Wollstonecraft 1996: 17).

Wollstonecraft dreams about a society which is upheld by friendship and equality. She claims that “true happiness arose from the friendship and intimacy which can only be enjoyed by equals; and that charity is not a condescending distribution of alms, but an intercourse of good offices and mutual benefits, founded on respect for justice and humanity” (Wollstonecraft 1996: 19). The French Revolution was, for Wollstonecraft , the event where radical ideas of liberty and equality could be applied in practice. But, when she actually went to Paris she was disappointed. She was not prepared for the terror and carnage. She was threatened because foreigners were persecuted in the continuous search for enemies of the republic. But her relationship to the revolution is ambivalent. In An Historical and Moral View of the Origin and Progress of the French revolution and the Effect it has Produced in Europe (1794) she condemned the terror, but at the same time she indicates that violence might be necessary to create an egalitarian society (Furniss 2006).

3 A Vindication of the Rights of Women

A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) places the question of gender equality on the philosophical agenda. The early face of the French Revolution resulted in the French declaration of human rights (1798). But, despite such slogans as liberty and equality, civic and political rights were reserved for men. According to Wollstonecraft , this was a betrayal of what she describes as “the glorious principles” that had inspired the revolution. It has been claimed that A Vindication of the Rights of Women was written as an attempt to lead the development in France in a more feminist direction (Furniss 2006; Taylor 1992). But, even if Wollstonecraft was inspired by the ideas of liberty, equality and brotherhood , the book is not about the French Revolution. It is an analysis of how being without rights affects the legal and political situation of women. She is also concerned about women’s family situation and women’s self-esteem and self-perception. One of her main points is that lack of education and lack of opportunities when in comes to political and economic participation prevent women from developing as responsible citizens. In other words, women do not have the opportunity to develop the virtues necessary to exercise their citizenship in a socially responsible way.

However, Wollstonecraft was not the only one who argued for justice for women. Her visions were shared by, for instance, Thomas Paine (1737–1809) and William Goodwin (Taylor 1992: 2). In the well-known Rights of Men (1791–1792), Paine argues that men and women should have equal rights and that all citizens should be equal in order to be able to elect the government. This text was published about the same time as the Vindication of the Rights of Men. Both Wollstonecraft and Paine argued from the premises that liberty is a human birthright. Different from other revolutionaries at that time, Paine was not an intellectual. He was raised by Quakers, and grew up in a family where people had no, or little, education (Kuklick 1989). He wrote for ordinary people, not to the intellectual elite. Rights of Men is, however, considered to be one of the most crucial texts for the development of democratic thought. Paine lived in England, France and America. He experienced both the French and the American revolutions, and he inspired thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson . He criticized monarchy, aristocracy and all kinds of inherited power for reducing the possibility for democracy and the development of a civilized society (Merriam 1899; Walker 2000). He was also cosmopolitan thinker. According to Paine , the two revolutions are necessary tools for a global process of democratization, which in turn leads to less war and more peace on a global level. Democratic societies are more economically effective, and will pave the way for international trade and increased communication and understanding across national borders (Walker 2000: 52, 59).

Wollstonecraft is criticizing both class differences and traditional conceptions of gender roles. She defines both social classes and gender as artificial arrangements that prevent people from achieving moral virtues and that hinder the development of a democratic civilized society. Like Paine and Price , she attacks aristocracy and its inherited conceptions of honor (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 214–217). However, Wollstonecraft claims that inherent fortune and rank create more restrictions for women than for men. Men can at least climb the social ladder by being soldiers or civil servants (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 215). Men without inborn privileges can acquire education that gives them access to professions associated with social status.

Mary Hays , Wollstonecraft ’s friend and a member of a group of intellectuals associated with Goodwin , published several essays and novels that also argued for women’s rights. In Appeal to the Men of Great Britain on Behalf of Women (1798), she claims that without education, women are condemned to a life of oppression and dependence. She describes the women’s condition as “perpetual babyish” (Mellor 2006: 144). Hays was also an advocate for prostitutes, and states that prostitution was not caused by women’s vice, but by men’s inclination to seduce naive women (Mellor 2006: 145). The discourse about education was, so to speak, well-established by her time. The debate was initiated by authors Mary Astel , Judith Drake and “Sophia” in the sixteenth century (Rønning Hansen : 1994).

In A Vindication of the Rights of Women, much of the space is used to criticize how other authors write about women. Her contemporaries often believed that women were more emotional and less rational than men. Women were therefore, by nature, subordinate to men. Wollstonecraft in particular criticizes Jean-Jacques Rousseau ’s ideas of gender-divided education. However, she agrees that women appear more emotional, immature and ignorant than men. But this is caused by culture, not nature. If women and men were given equal rights and opportunities, both sexes would contribute to social and political development. Women would appear as rational and responsible citizens, not only as subjects of men’s sexual desires (Rønning and Hansen 1994: 45). Ignorant and emotional women are the products of political, legal and social structures that do not allow them to develop their capabilities, and to make rational and systematic reflections. She claims that women should be educated for responsible citizenship, not only to make them attractive for marriage. Female education has contributed to “render women more artificial, weak characters, than they would otherwise have been: and consequently, more useless members of society” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 22).

Wollstonecraft ’s vindication of the rights of women is based on both utilitarian and moral psychological arguments. She does not use the concept utilitarianism herself, but she argues that the elimination of female subordination will, in the end, benefit the whole society. The utilitarian argument is that patriarchal social structures prevent the development of a good and civilized society, organized in accordance with rational principles. John Stuart Mill later used the same line of reasoning. In On the Subjection of Women, his defense of equality is clearly utilitarian. According to Mill , there is no empirical evidence that a society in which women are oppressed is more beneficial for the community than a society where men and women are equal (Mill 2006). The moral psychological argument is related to the psychological consequences of oppression. According to Wollstonecraft , unjust social relations have created a society of monstrous and unfeeling characters, and people with heartless and artificial emotions (Engster 2001: 581). If women do not have access to formal channels of power, they will instead try to reach their aims through cynical manipulation. Young girls are early taught that power and influence can be achieved by invoking men’s appetite (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 99–101). For women, this is both cynical and humiliating, and also risky. Women have power over men only insofar as men find them attractive (Wollstonecraft 2003a). Women need responsibility and empowerment to strengthen their moral character. Increased equality will, in turn, contribute to develop relationships in which men and women respect each other in a new and improved way.

Wollstonecraft ’s criticism is primarily directed to the wealthiest members of the society. Wealth and inactivity prevent both men and women from developing a moral character. “The comparison with the rich still occurs to me; for when men neglect the duties of humanity, women will follow their example; a common steam hurries them both along with thoughtless celerity” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 64). The working class tends to be idealized because moral character is formed by hard work and struggle. “Happy is it when people have the cares of life to struggle with; for the struggles prevent their becoming a prey to enervating vices, merely from idleness!” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 54). However, Wollstonecraft is surprisingly silent when it comes to the emancipation of working-class women. Nor does she analyze how the oppression of working-class women differs from the oppression of women from the middle-class or upper-class.

4 The Citizenship of Women

As mention in the introduction, Wollstonecraft calls for a revolution in female manners. The kind of revolution she has in mind is primarily a moral revolution which is driven by education, enlightenment and claims of rights, justice and liberty. “Moralists have unanimously agreed that unless virtue be nurtured by liberty, it will never attain due strength” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 191). The revolutions in female manners will necessarily lead to political consequences because it will become apparent that women can make both political and economic contributions in society. Wollstonecraft is however also defending traditional gender roles. She emphasizes that the first duty of all human beings is to develop as rational beings. But after this, the duties of women are primarily related to their roles as mothers and wives.

Speaking of women at large, their first duty is to themselves as rational creatures, and the next, in point of importance, as citizens, is that, which includes so many, of mother. The rank in life which dispenses with their fulfilling this duty, necessary degrades them by making them mere dolls (Wollstonecraft 1988: 145).

The point is then, if women should be able to educate their children and to take care of the household in a proper way, they need access to a different kind of knowledge (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 102). She asks, how can a woman who does not think be able to take care of her children? (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 121). Women and men have different civic duties, at least for some periods in life, but they are of equal importance for the society (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 95). It is therefore crucial that women are given the opportunity to achieve the knowledge necessary to exercise their citizenship. The most interesting part of her discussion is that she defines domestic work as a civic duty, and that she defines domestic work as equally important as work related to the public sphere. At this point, she seems to be ahead of her time. Later, the feminist movement made recognition of unpaid domestic work one of their most essential claims.

Wollstonecraft is criticizing a society in which women are encouraged to develop vices as cynicism and vanity, instead of reason. She dreams of a society in which both men and women are respected for doing their tasks in a responsible and proper way. She hopes that: “Society will some time or other be so constituted, that man must necessarily fulfill the duties of a citizen, or be despised, and that while he was employed of any of the department of civil life, his wife, also an active citizen, should be equally intent to manage her family, educate her children, and assist her neighbors” (Wollstonecraft 1988 : 146).

Women’s duties are thereby related to their roles as mothers and wives. But, not every woman is a mother and wife. The responsibility as a mother is also time-limited. Wollstonecraft therefore claims that women should be able to support themselves economically. Economic dependence is a fundamental reason for the oppression of women. The right to participation in the labor market is therefore of crucial importance in order to save women from prostitution (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 222). Since men and women are equal when it comes to mental capacities, there is no reason to exclude women from the professional life: “Women may certainly study the art of healing, and be physicians as well as nurses” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 148).

We have seen that Wollstonecraft ’s claims for women’s rights are based both on moral and political arguments. The point is that rights are necessary in order to make women able to exercise their citizenship in a morally responsible way. This applies both to the public and private sphere. The society should be organized so that all are given opportunities to refine their sense of duty, and contribute to healthy and reasonable social development. According to Wollstonecraft , women will not develop a sense of duty if they are not given any rights (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 217). She is also claiming that women should have access to public offices: “I really think that women ought to have representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed without having any direct share allowed them in the deliberations of government” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 147).

Wollstonecraft often refers to liberty as the absence of arbitrary power. Within normative political theory it is common to make a distinction between negative and positive liberty. Positive liberty refers to sovereignty and the freedom to self-realization in accordance with a person’s rational convictions. Negative liberty is defined as the absence of external force or interference. While positive liberty most often is associated with the republican tradition in normative political theory, negative liberty is associated with the liberal tradition. But as Quentin Skinner points out, a lot was written about liberty in Britain before liberalism was recognized as a common theoretical approach. He is arguing for a third concept of liberty, which was developed by critics of the monarchy under the English civil war (1642–1651). These critics defined liberty as the absence of arbitrary power, a definition that can be traced back to the Roman law and the distinction between a slave (cervant) and a free man (liberi homines) (Skinner 2009: 86). A free citizen is entitled to act in accordance with his own decisions. A slave is entirely subject to the will of another (Skinner 2002: 249). In the English monarchy, people were forced pay taxes for random reasons, people were arrested without any reason and people were sentenced without a trial. The citizens were not free, but subject to the king’s arbitrary use of power (Skinner 2002: 251). According to Skinner , liberty as the absence of arbitrary power is the republican alternative to the classical definition of negative liberty . The classical definition of negative liberty is based on an assumed contradiction between the state and the individual. In the republican tradition, liberty implies free institutions and unhindered public discussions. People are free when they are entitled to participate in the processes of political decision-making (Nilsen 2009: IX). When people are able to make their own laws, there are no contradictions between liberty and a legislative authority (Skinner 2009: 202). But most important, government officials cannot make the law its sole discretion. To be a slave is to be subject to other person’s arbitrary will and decisions. Price has formulated a similar definition of liberty. A citizen is free by virtue of not being governed by the arbitrary decisions of another (Walker 2012).

To defend the American colonists’ rejection of the British throne, Price claimed that liberty is to live in a self-governed association not subject to decisions made by another over which one has no control (Skinner 2009: 204). It is not unlikely that Wollstonecraft was inspired by such a pre-liberal conception of liberty. Liberty is referred to as independence from arbitrary decisions and resolutions (Wollstonecraft 2003b: 220). She calls for a society in which women have the right to influence decisions that are of their concern. Women are not only subject to arbitrary power exercised by the government, but also to arbitrary power exercised by their husbands’ arbitrary and cultural structures that maintains their dependence. The claim for autonomy applies both to the public life and the family.

5 Wollstonecraft on Education

Wollstonecraft is often referred to as a philosopher of education. But she could have been defined as a moral philosopher or political philosopher as well. Some suggest that she would be better known if she had not been labeled a philosopher of education (Rustad 2003: xiii). Anyway, there is no doubt that her philosophy is driven and motivated by her ideas of education. Enlightenment, knowledge and education are the key to social and political reforms. After she finished her job as a governess with an Irish aristocratic family, she wrote Thoughts on the Education of Daughters (1787). In this book, she is inspired by John Locke ’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1734). Following the thoughts from Locke , she is arguing for the importance of public education, supported by supervision by the parents. Wollstonecraft warns against both schooling at home and private boarding schools. Children educated at home will often “acquire to high opinion of their own importance, from being allowed to tyrannize over servants, and from the anxiety expressed by most mothers, on the score of manners, who eager to teach the accomplishments of a gentleman, stifle, in their birth, the virtue of a man” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 158). In boarding schools, the children will suffer from lack of care from their parents and the children will use their off-hours in dirty tricks and rottenness (Wollstonecraft 1988: 159). According to Wollstonecraft , the responsibility for education and upbringing should be shared between public day schools and the families. Children should be brought up at home, because home is the place to learn to be caring and to provide tenderness and concern for other people. This is crucial for children to acquire capabilities for friendship and love in their adult lives (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 244). Since Wollstonecraft constantly refers to how harmful it is to be brought up by ignorant, emotional or tyrannical mothers, it’s peculiar how she emphasizes the importance of supervising by the parents. I suppose that the family she has in mind is the ideal family, based on friendship and mutual respect.

As we have seen, Wollstonecraft is advocating public day schools, before boarding schools. At public schools, children will learn to recognize each other as equals. Because boarding schools are dependent on the parent’s willingness to pay, teachers will work hard to secure children of the richest families admission to the university. Boarding schools will therefore contribute to reproduce and reinforce existing social differences (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 245). Private boarding schools are based on elitism, and prioritize to educate a few bright students at the cost of the many. This is not to the benefit of the society as a whole (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 244). Wollstonecraft also thinks that girls and boys should study together, so they can learn decencies “which produce modesty, without those sexual distinctions that taint the mind” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 165). The main argument for not having a segregated school is that children should learn to respect each other. The mixing of genders will hopefully make boys less selfish and forceful, and girls less weak and vain. This will make them better prepared for a marriage based on equality and friendship.

Wollstonecraft gives a fairly detailed description of how education should be organized. Elementary school, for children from 5 to 9 years of age, should be free and open to all classes (Wollstonecraft 1988: 168). From the age of nine, those who are intended for domestic employment or mechanical trades should be removed to more practical-oriented schools. Youth with superior abilities should be taught language, natural science, history and politics (Wollstonecraft 1988: 168). The most important point is that also girls need to be taught theoretical knowledge. Those who do not recognize this do not recognize the value of the work women, in fact, are doing. “In public schools, women, to guard against the error of ignorance should be taught the element of anatomy and medicine, not only to enable them to take care of their own health, but to make them rational nurses of their infants, parents, and husbands” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 177).

Wollstonecraft stresses the idea that school is an institution of formation in which the children should be taught virtues that are important to exercising moral good citizenship. Her ideas on education are as much about politics as pedagogy. Her discussion of education should be understood as a premise in an argument for the necessity of social and political reforms which provide women access to the professional life and rights to political participation.

6 Wollstonecraft and Rousseau on Education

In the first parts of A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Wollstonecraft is arguing against characteristics of women given by other authors. Much of the discussion is devoted to Jean-Jacques Rousseau ’s ideas on education. Wollstonecraft respects many of his philosophical ideas. She is an admirer of his anti-elitism and egalitarianism . However, she does not share his skeptical approach to the ideals that characterizes the Age of Enlightenment.

Rousseau claimed that women by nature are weak and passive. Conversely, the nature of men is to be rational, active and creative. Men and women are created different to complement each other in their respective roles. The relationship between the sexes is, so to speak, complementary, but far from egalitarian. In Emile (1762), or Education, the differences between the sexes is described as the following:

In the union of the sexes each alike contributes to the common end, but in different ways. From this diversity springs the first difference which may be observed between man and woman in their moral relations. The man should be strong and active; the woman should be weak and passive; the one must have both the power and the will; it is enough that the other should offer little resistance. When this principle is admitted, it follows that woman is specially made for man’s delight. If man in his turn ought to be pleasing in her eyes, the necessity is less urgent (Rousseau 1921: 353).

According to Rousseau , masculinity is associated with transcendence, reason and development. Women should bring out the best in men by help and support. The difference between men and women is, according to Rousseau , neither a human invention or based on prejudices, but completely rational (Rousseau 1994: 176). The aim of the education of children is to cultivate the natural differences between the sexes. Boys and girls should be prepared to fulfill their different roles later in life. Boys should be educated to become free and independent citizens. They should be encouraged to autonomous thinking and not to become slaves of habits and prejudices. The education of boys should therefore be as unrestricted as possible (Nagel 1999: 132). In contrast to boys, girls should, from early childhood, learn that their duties as women are to please, comfort and obey their husbands.

Wollstonecraft agrees that education should be aimed at cultivating natural capacities. However, since the mental capabilities of human beings are equal, this is rather an argument for the education of both sexes together. She claims that the aim of education should be to give back to women the ability for rational reasoning that the culture has taken away from them. Furthermore, if Rousseau is right that education should prepare women for their role as wives and mothers, his own ideas of education would not do the job. Wollstonecraft cannot understand why girls should be taught the mistresses’ art of seduction, if the aim of education should be to prepare them for the role as a mother and a wife (Wollstonecraft 1988: 91). She thinks Rousseau ’s flawed logic has to do with his sensibility for the charm of women and his inclination to appeal to the emotions of his readers. He is a seducer who does not call for reflection. “And thus making us feel whilst dreaming that we reason, erroneous conclusions are left in the mind” (Wollstonecraft 1988: 91).

Rousseau is known for his skepticism toward the Enlightenment ideals of reason and progress. Human beings are not by definition rational beings. He thinks that reflection is contrary to nature and compares the thinking human being with a perverse animal (Rousseau 1984: 37). Like Hobbes and Locke , Rousseau has developed a theory of how human societies would look like without a state. Unlike Hobbes and Locke , however, Rousseau ’s state of nature is not characterized by battles and competition. Rather, the opposite: The state of nature is a condition of peace in which people are happy because there is no shortage of goods, and because those who live there do not know how to speak and think. Wollstonecraft is highly critical of his celebration of the pre-cognitive condition.

I say unsound; for to assert that a state of nature is preferable to civilization, in all its possible perfection, is, in other words, to arraign supreme wisdom; and the paradoxical exclamation, that God has made all things right, and error has been introduced by the creature, whom he formed knowing what he formed, is as philosophical as impious (Wollstonecraft 1988: 14).

Wollstonecraft believes that humans are given the capability to rational thinking in order to be able to create something good. Then it becomes both absurd and impious to downgrade the importance of reason. Reason is a gift that gives human beings a capacity to rise above the state of limited sensation. Keeping women in a condition of ignorance, and encouraging them to cultivate sensuality and emotions are against the order of nature.

7 The Religious Foundation of Wollstonecraft’s Feminism

In the feminist reception, the religious dimension in Wollstonecraft ’s works is often underestimated. A Vindication of the Rights of Women is most often interpreted in the humanist tradition of the Enlightenment, and not as a religious text. But her ideas are deeply rooted in her religious convictions. The call for a revolution in female manners is first and foremost an appeal that women should reconcile with the creator (Taylor 2006: 77). She claims that human rights should apply to both sexes because every human being has the right to develop as a rational being. All human beings have a duty to God to develop the ability to rational thinking and to improve one’s moral character. This is also a condition for achieving eternal salvation in paradise. Oppression of women is inconsistent with God’s command. Enslaving women on earth means denying them access to heavenly paradise.

Wollstonecraft ’s arguments for equality are also based on her religious convictions. There is reason to believe that she was inspired by the rational dissenters and their liberal, rational and individualistic interpretations of religious beliefs. The dissenters were opponents of the church of England and defended a kind of Protestantism mixed with psychological ideas from Locke , Newtonian cosmology, rational moral philosophy, and ideas of social and political reforms (Taylor 2006: 108). They rejected the idea of original sin. They also believed that humans are good by nature and that all humans can develop toward faultlessness. Liberal values as autonomy and tolerance were given a religious foundation. They argued, for instance, that tolerance follows from the fact that the individual is his or her own authority when it comes to questions of faith. With Price and the dissenters, Wollstonecraft argued that every human should have the right to act in accordance with his or her own convictions. This is the only way humans can act honorably and from virtue (Taylor 2006: 109).

As already mentioned, Wollstonecraft believed that an equal right to education is the first step toward emancipation and legal reforms amendment that will give women access to paid work and public offices. However, education is not only a mean to emancipation, but also is necessary for salvation (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 81).

If both men and women have been given a soul to develop, to encourage women to cultivate their emotions before their reason is not in accordance with the plan of nature. Wollstonecraft upholds that since a women have an immortal soul, she also have an intellect to be developed (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 95).

8 Reception and Criticism

The work of Wollstonecraft has been subject of different interpretations. Because of her definition of liberty as the absence of arbitrary power, her work can be associated with what Skinner defines as the pre-liberal British republican tradition in political theory. But, because of her politicization of family and class and her criticism of private property, she is also characterized as a pioneer of radical socialism (Taylor 1992). Wollstonecraft ’s politicization of class and family contradicts traditional liberal thought where the market and the family are considered as belonging to the private sphere of the society, in other words, spheres for individual actions that should be protected from political interference. However, Susan Ferguson claims that Wollstonecraft ’s critique of private property cannot be explained within the framework of socialist ideology. What she it fact is criticizing is the aristocracy, a social structure in which property and privileges are inherited. But she is not arguing for the elimination of private property as such. Ferguson argues that Wollstonecraft is more aligned with Paine , who claimed that aristocratic privileges “stood in the way of a family-based economy of artisans and farmers with relatively equal holdings of private property” (Ferguson 1999: 434). Wollstonecraft , for instance, advises that large farmlands should be divided into smaller farms (Ferguson 1999: 438). This is fairly consistent with Adam Smith ’s Wealth of Nations (Ferguson 1999: 434).

Scholars also disagree on whether Wollstonecraft ’s work contributes to a politicizing of the family. As mention, within classic liberal thought, the family is regarded as a private institution. The family should therefore be protected from the exercise of political power. Locke is arguing that political power should be distinguished from natural power, which is exemplified by the power of the father over his child, the power of the husband over his wife and the power of the master over his servant (Locke 1993: 115). Wollstonecraft is, however, known for being a pioneer when it comes to the feminist critique of the division between the private and the public spheres of society. It’s obvious that she challenges this distinction in some ways, for example, when she emphasizes that unpaid domestic work is useful to society. She also claims the “contract” that regulates social relations in the public sphere should apply to the private sphere as well (MacKenzie 1993: 48). Consequently, principles of liberty and equality should apply to all areas of social life, to the family as well to public life. According to Wollstonecraft , the family is like the state in miniature.

But not all agree that Wollstonecraft challenges the structural distinction between public and private realms. For example, she never denies that women’s duties are associated with the care of children and the running of a household. Even though she argues that liberty and equality should apply for the private sphere, she does not discard the existence of a natural sexual distinction of labor (Ferguson 1999: 48). She is not analyzing how the liberal division between the public sphere and private sphere has been used to maintain traditional dualistic conceptions of what is naturally feminine and masculine. Feminists have pointed out that Wollstonecraft ignores that the division of sexes according to duties derives from the division between the public and the private that is the root of women’s subordination (MacKenzie 1993: 37). The claim that families should be governed by the same principles as public life is based on ideas of what makes women better mothers and wives.

However, what is obvious is that Wollstonecraft has inspired later thinking on the relationship between private and public, as well as on justice within the family. Her reasoning is reflected in John Stuart Mill ’s On the Subjection of Women (1869) which is a harsh criticism of the legal oppression of women of his time. According to Mill , the family is a school in tyranny and male egotism that contribute to the reproduction of male domination from one generation to the next. Like Wollstonecraft , he attacks political structures and social cultures where women can exercise power only by flattery and seduction. This is a situation that makes women incapable of claiming their rights (Mill 2006: 85–86). Mill argues that if the family should be a school in virtues adapted to a modern society based on equality and justice, then spouses must be entitled to equality before the law (Mill 2006: 91–92). It is possible to assume that Mill ’s reasoning is influenced by Wollstonecraft ’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women.

Wollstonecraft ends her main work by saying: “Let women share the rights and she will emulate the virtues of man” (Wollstonecraft 2003a: 292). It has therefore been stated that her ideas do not appeal to contemporary feminist political theory. She is criticized, for instance, for not doing anything else than simply adding women to the liberal classic tradition and claiming that women should be treated as men, or as they were men (Engster 2001: 578). Catriona MacKenzie exemplifies this line of criticism by a reference to Moira Gatens , who claims that Wollstonecraft uncritically assumes that the liberal notion of equality and the reasons that ground it are sex-neutral. With this, she ignores that the idea of the equal citizen is constituted in opposition to those affective virtues associated with women. According to Gatens , Wollstonecraft ’s attempt to apply gender-neutral notions both on private and public relations, in fact, underestimates the ethical significance of virtues traditionally associated with women (Mackenzie 1993: 37). This kind of criticism is conducted within the framework of discussions between liberal feminists and feminist-care theorists (Holst 2009: 93). The early feminist movement was founded on values associated with Enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality. Some contemporary feminists are, however, critical of these values, because liberal values are supposed to be modeled by experiences and activities traditionally associated with male citizens and relations within the public sphere of society. Liberal values are defined in opposition to moral virtues associated with female experience and activities, which are mainly virtues embedded in the activities of care.

Care theorists have constructed ethical theories based on the moral significance of the virtues and modes of reflection embedded in relations of care.

Unlike liberal theories of justice which are based on universal and abstract principles, the ethics of care is taking contextual and situated moral thinking into account (Gilligan 1992; Held 1995). The philosopher Virginia Held argues that the ethics of care makes people better able to protect the vulnerable, reduce poverty and to take future generation into account than liberal theories of justice (Held 1995). Like Burke , she argues that liberal values encourage egoism and individualism.

Wollstonecraft is also critizised for treating emotions as fleeting and unstable and therefore unqualified as the foundation of moral reflections. It has been claimed that she is simply repeating traditional philosophical approaches on emotions. She is arguing that society should be based on reason, and discards Burke ’s analysis of the ideal of the Enlightenment as individualistic and selfish (Engster 2001: 579). There are, however, those who claim that to interpret Wollstonecraft ’s ideas as a rejection of the moral significance of emotion is mistaken (Engster 2001; MacKenzie 1993). As Daniel Engster points out, her ideas can enrich current debates on the relationship between care and justice. He argues that Wollstonecraft does not discharge the moral importance of emotion per se, but the unnatural and unhealthy which develop from unjust social relations (Engster 2001: 581). According to Engster , Wollstonecraft ’s ideas should be used to bridge the ethics of care and the ethics of justice. She argues that relations of care have to grow out of mutual respect and sympathy, which cannot be developed without political and social equality (Engster 2001: 584).

According to Wollstonecraft , social and political inequality is the seedbed of pathological social relations which make women unable to take care of their children and loved ones. A just society will lead to more care both in the public and private sphere. As Catriona MacKenzie points out, Wollstonecraft stresses the importance of a conception of morality which not only recognize women’s ability to rational thinking, but also their right to develop healthy moral relations, based on friendship and mutual respect, to those close to them (MacKenzie 1993: 36).