Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Men as individuals, women as mothers : women's delayed achievement of individualism Dubeski, Norman Darcy 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1993_spring_dubeski_norman.pdf [ 5.57MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0086096.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086096-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086096-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086096-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086096-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086096-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086096-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

MEN AS INDIVIDUALS; WOMEN AS MOTHERS: WOMEN'S DELAYED ACHIEVEMENT OF INDIVIDUALISMBy NORMAN DARCY DUBE SKIB.A. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1991A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THEDEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY & SOCIOLOGYWe accept this thesis as conforming to the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAPRIL 1993^COPYRIGHT NORMAN DUBESKI 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of A 01 Akapda'y The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate (kr 13, igq DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACT: Both the philosophy and practice of individualism as developed in Western Societysince the end of feudalism to present day has largely been reserved as a luxury for men atthe expense of women. Equality between men was created for a large part by the equalposition that all men shared over women with men having state-enforced dominationwithin marriage. As new freedoms arose successively from the defeudalization of society,spiritual freedom, legal freedom, political freedom, economic freedom, sexual freedom,these freedoms were intended mainly for men and only much later did women attain thesame freedoms that men took for granted. Only slowly did women achieve the freedomsand moral and political equality that are necessary for living as true individuals, that is aspeople who live for themselves first and foremost, and not solely for the collective goodor for their families. Often the philosophers who espoused equality for all mankind werethemselves sexist and did not believe women were meant to be equal to men and to havetheir interests as individuals put before the roles men had created for them. As womenfought to expand the definitions of individualism and intrinsic human rights to includewomen, they have been handicapped by women's association with nature andreproduction, men's superior economic power, and men's physical violence and misogyny.Women have made many gains but women and minority groups still face the obstaclescreated by the fact that individualism is a late luxury in human development which dependson an universally equitable high material standard of living, a standard that is rarelyavailable to all members of any modern country, however prosperous due to inequalitieswithin society.iiTABLE OF CONTENTS^iiiAbstract^ iiTable of Contents^ iiiChapter One: Introduction^ 1Chapter Two: The Medieval Foundation of Modern Life^ 16Chapter Three: The Reformation^ 29Chapter Four: The Scientific Revolution^ 38Chapter Five: The Enlightenment and Women^ 43Chapter Six: Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution^ 52Chapter Seven: The Secular Inquisition^ 60Chapter Eight: Democracy and Autonomy^ 73Chapter Nine- Feminism and the Decline of the Patriarchal Family^ 88Chapter Ten: The Housewife and Self-Realization^ 94Chapter Eleven: Concluding Comments^ 101Bibliography^ 107Appendix^ 114Chapter One: IntroductionToday in western society each woman's rights for self-determination, autonomy and self-realization are recognized by nearly all people and are paid at least lip service by our politicians andmedia. However, equality between women and men remains problematic. It is the purpose of this thesis toexamine how inequality between men and women helped create individualism for men in past centuriesand how today sexual inequality, though diminished, still remains a persistent obstacle for many womenin their attempts to be individuals in the same full sense that most men enjoy.Individualism is tenuous for women, as women achieve it fleetingly only as they compete,cooperate, and differentiate themselves through rules largely created by men. As the federal JusticeMinister Kim Campbell stated in a recent speech in November 1992, women are accepted in the upperechelons of government and business only insofar they can pretend to be ersatz men. Our culturalstereotypes of women, the structure of our language, our economy with its segregation of women intooccupations that are either unpaid or unrespected, and the privacy of the nuclear family, all handicapwomen's ability to differentiate themselves as equals with men. Ultimately, women remain bound to theirsexual status as females, defined by their biology, and prone to stigmatization, while men easily transcendtheir sexuality and are automatically recognized as human beings without difficulty. Equality before thelaw is a necessary but insufficient condition for women to achieve equality as people as they struggleagainst a backlog of cultural handicaps from our more patriarchal past.Individualism (1) is the ability of people in modern society to differentiate themselves from eachother and their right and ability to independently pursue their own self-development even against theneeds of their own society. It is necessary that the person is recognized as separate and autonomous,independent of any links they have with others, and self-responsible. This includes the moral equality ofall human beings, that a person must never be used merely as a means to another's desires. Each personbecomes a subject in his or her own right, a person of equal value to anyone else.2Emile Durkheim had reservations against individualism: he rejected it as a starting point forunderstanding society, and thus also differentiated individualism from both utilitarianism and atomisticegoism [ Giddens, 1971 1 but he praised it as a worthwhile goal of group and united social action:In short, individualism thus understood is the glorification not of the self, but of theindividual in general. Its motive force is not egoism but sympathy for all that is human,a wider pity for all sufferings, for all human miseries, a more ardent desire to combatand alleviate them, a great thirst for justice. [ Lukes, 1969, p. 24 1Durkeheim called individualism 'the cult of the individual' but showed how it was separate from separateindividual action, and stated "Not only is individualism distinct from anarchy; but it is henceforth the onlysystem of beliefs which can ensure the moral unity of the country." [ Lukes, 1969, p.25 J Durkheimemphasized individualism as the process of which individuals acted not as it they were alone or if onlythey themselves mattered, but individualism as a social process:A verbal similarity has made it possible to believe that individualism necessarilyresulted from individual, and thus egoistic, sentiments. In reality, the religion of theindividual is a social institution like all known religions. It is society which assigns usthis ideal as the sole common end which is today capable of providing a focus for men'swills. To remove this ideal, without putting any other in its place, is therefore to plungeus into that very moral anarchy which it is sought to avoid. [ Lukes, 1969, p. 28The differences between men and women's experience of the development of individualism thus was notan expression of their different natures, but of the sexes relative positions within society and the divisionof labor. Durkheim emphasized the importance of the division of labor within the development ofindividualism, for individualism depended on a spontaneous division of labour in a relative meritocracy.Durkheim, 1949, p.377 Thus, as we explore the development of individualism for men, we shallregularly show how women were kept subordinate to men and denied full recognition as humanindividuals as they were confined to traditional and nonvaluable work which rarely gave an outlet for thefull expression of their potential and faculties.The whole period of history starting with the end of the Middle Ages to the twentieth century canbe seen as the evolution of individualism. Feudal and religious restraints were eroded by economicdevelopment and secularization to give people freedom from coercion from their own man-made23institutions. This lack of coercion is called negative freedom. The Renaissance, the Reformation, theEnlightenment, the end of feudalism, and the Scientific Revolution, were all vital steps in removing thebounds that tradition placed on people. New social roles were created. Status became the result ofachievement rather than ascription, honor and duty faded, and people's choices became dictated by theirobligations to themselves rather than to others.(2)Concepts of individualism have evolved from an initial paradigm of seeing freedom fromexcessive constraint being in itself a sufficient condition to visions which see some constraints on allpeople as necessary to help otherwise disadvantaged people overcome a lack of opportunities, poverty, andother problems caused by inequality of condition. Our definitions of freedom have expanded from HerbertSpencer's liberalism, which sees freedom as merely the state of being without experiencing directinstitutionalized coercion, to a new definition, positive freedom, which includes the empowerment of theindividual to overcome obstacles. Within positive freedom people receive the material means to freely actso that they can take advantage of opportunities. [ Lane, p.65, 19811 As theories of individualism becamemore complex, so expanded the responsibilities of the collective group to the individual to ensure a chanceto enter the pursuit of happiness. This has grown to become a proactive vision of individualism thatincludes help for the human subject to follow the unique motivations and dreams within their soul. In theeighteenth century Enlightenment theorists thought that ending restraints on human nature would besufficient alone to bring all the good qualities of the human spirit to the fore. [ Lane (in Pennock), p.383,1983 ] Human beings were seen as equal in the atomic individualism of the eighteenth and earlynineteenth centuries, with human beings being so equal at heart as to be nearly interchangeable inpolitical and economic theory. [ Simmel, p.67 (in Wolff) 1950 ] More recently in the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries, the definition of individualism was expanded to include positive freedoms, freedomsfor self -development and self-realization. f Wiltshire, p.191, 1978 1 These positive freedoms included thefreedom to live in a meaningful fashion without the oppressive worries of poverty and violence, and thefreedom to develop the sensitive inclinations that each person harbors in their heart to develop a calling, avocation, or a hobby, for full self -expression and self-realization. Today, this individuality has become an34end in itself. The rights of individuals in western society have achieved complete superiority over therights of the family and the community. However, the evolution of individualism was experienced muchdifferently for women than it was for men. When the concepts of individualism have not been sex-blindand ignored women's handicaps from living in a patriarchal society, some of the elements within thedevelopment of individualism may have actually served to disadvantage women further and to entrenchtheir status as nonindividuals. As men have become independent subjects and praised for their masculineand human qualities, women have too often been relegated as Other, the composite of undesired'nonhuman' qualities, or have been restricted to and perceived chiefly through their role as mothers.The rise of the new luxuries of freedoms and opportunities for self-realization and differentiationfor men have rested upon the manual labor and social restrictions upon women. In Ancient Rome theconcept of citizenship for the upper classes rested upon the groaning backs of the slave underclass, andstill today both the work and the rewards of maintaining society are distributed unequally. Historically, therise of equality for men was accompanied by continued and sometimes intensified restraints over women.As the ascriptive nature of traditional class boundaries faded and all men became equal before the law inthe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, andthe United States in western society, women remained mired in their assigned role as Other, and becameexcluded from involvement in politics, business, and academia. For all men to be equal, the aristocrat, thebourgeois, and the proletariat, it was perceived openly at the time, that men naturally shared a commondominance over women.(3) As men competed in modern society women became their level playing field.The disproportionate share of manual work done by women, proletarians, and Third World workers freed(white middle class) men up to pursue other diversions. The restrictions against women's careers reservedall opportunities for men. Women were made to be and seen as frivolous and uneducated to reserve seriousand important 'human' matters for men. In addition, a strong element of fear and coercion existed. Thethreat of rape and sexual assault, and the relative lack of economic opportunities for women, combined toensure that each woman would need a man to protect her from men as a group. Women became definedby their link to a man, and a woman without a male protector would be vulnerable. Claric Feinman called45this the madonna/whore duality: traditionally, men see women who are protected by men as madonnaswho deserve protection from the law, but women without a male protector are seen as probably evil,especially as seductive whores, who do not deserve to be protected but to be punished. I 011enburger,p.144, 1992The full recognition of women as individuals may be difficult without substantially transformingsociety and modern culture. Our values, our language, our philosophical tradition built on the dichotomyof male/female, all may prevent women from being recognized as individuals. Despite negative freedoms,the absence of formal restraint, despite the new positive freedoms of economic opportunity, self -reliance,and independence for women, and despite the freedom of choice in consumer goods and in birth control,women frequently are identified as women more than they are as separate unique people. Women remaindisproportionately identified by their sexual roles as wife and mother, and men have the freedom ofalways being identified as human instead of as males, fathers and lovers. Georg Simmel once said, "Forthe man, there is a sense in which sexuality is something he does. For the woman, it is a mode of being." ISimmel, 107, 1984 J Today, culture and individualism remain primarily male, and women are admittedtemporarily and have to constantly prove themselves.Georg Simmel, a German sociologist of the late Wilhehnine period, was aware that women'sprimary responsibility for childrearing robbed them of opportunities that men take for granted todistinguish themselves and that science and medicine had been often used as a rationale to restrictwomen's entrance into higher education, [ Simmel, p. 30, 1984 1 but he was also crucially aware thatwestern culture itself, morally, linguistically, and logically, facilitated the rise of individualism more formen than for women. He states:The male sex is not merely superior in relation to the female but acquires that status ofthe generally human, governing the phenomena of the individual male and theindividual female in the same way. In various media, this fact is grounded in the powerposition of men. If we express the historical relationship between the sexes quite grosslyas that between master and slave, then it is one of the privileges of the master that hedoes not always need to think about the fact that he is master. The position of the slave,on the other hand, ensures that he will never forget his status. There is no doubt that thewoman loses a conscious sense of her being as a female much more rarely than holdstrue for the man and his being as a male. There are innumerable occasions on which the56man appears to think in a purely objective fashion without his masculinity concurrentlyoccupying any place in his perceptions. On the other hand, it seems as if the womannever loses the feeling -which may be more or less clear or obscure -that she is a woman.This forms the subterranean ground of her life that never entirely disappears. All thecontents of her life transpire on its basis. [ Simmel, p. 103, 1984As Simmel noticed, women are seen as either part of traditional community, or as parts and add-ons to male individuals:"...none of the expressions of women, none of the phenomena and objectivations of hernature, is perceived as generally human. On the contrary, in relation to the expressionsof the nature of the male, which are perceived as transsexual and purely objective, theyare collectively perceived as specifically female. Man lacks the orientation to a specificexternal entity that is given to the woman by virtue of the unity of her existence with herexistence as woman. [ Simmel, p. 124, 1984Hence men are seen as logical, abstract, cultured, and objective, while women are forced to take the role ofOther and be seen as illogical, natural and subjective.Language and our value system seems predisposed to distinguish between individual men than itdoes between different women:"In general, the average man's interest in women lies in something that is roughly thesame in both the seamstress and the princess... On the whole, we can describe theindividual man better than the individual woman. This is not only a consequence of thefact that, because of the social predominance of the man, the entire linguisticconceptualization of our culture corresponds to the male coloration of mental processes.It is true that the genus woman is important enough to require concepts of definition.However, the universe of language has not concerned itself with the individualizedcharacteristics of women, and the fine nuances that are essential here are just as oftenunavailable for the psychological description of individual women as they are for womenthemselves in their attempt to make themselves fully understandable to men. Simmel,p. 125, 1984]At the time Simnel was writing, middle-class women had left the public workplace at the end of thenineteenth century and the ideology of motherhood as the sole calling for women was well-established.Men's work could be labeled many different ways from fireman, chairman, businessman, priest, andsoldier, but the only legitimate occupation for all women was housewife. Also, we have manymasculinized compliments for men such as 'he's got balls,' to distinguish unusual and commendablehuman behaviors which are not necessarily sexual, i.e. a rescue or a bold business deal, but we never useas a compliment 'she's got fits' as anything other than a lewd suggestive sexual remark. Women can67achieve opportunities for advancement and public recognition through adopting male values and gainingentrance to the 'male sphere' of public action, but the great amount of unpaid work women did inhousework and childrearing remains anti-individualistic in that the work was seen as women's naturalrole rising from their instinctual nurturing nature and too unimportant for men want to do themselves.Simmel also pointed out that the few main concepts that we usually use to differentiate betweenwomen are all generic and intrinsic to women's biology or feminine role. A woman can be a mother, awife, an old maid, a virgin maiden, a promiscuous slut, or a lover, but in all of these categories, thewoman is defined by her relationship to men and by her biology (genitals) that she shares in common withall women:"In the typically complete woman, much that is quite generic and actually impersonalbecomes something completely personal... Of course there is nothing more general thanerotic relationships. And whereas there are countless occasions on which the man alsoexperiences them and treats them in this way, they seem to constitute the specificallypersonal fate of the woman, not a generic event that happens to her, but rather herinherently most characteristic productivity. This also holds true for her relationship tothe child, both before and after its birth -this most typical of all relationships, whichextends so deeply into the subhuman... This relationship, which is so completelyimpersonal that it is nothing more than a transitional point in the development of thespecies, grows out of the center in which all the energies of her nature coalesce to formher personality. [Simnel, p. 126, 1984 1Women usually get differentiated by their role as mothers and potential lovers. If the only distinction awoman who happens to have children is whether she is a 'good' mother or a 'bad mother' (often dependenton whether she stays home with the kids or not) she cannot compete for individuality against men whoregardless of whether they have kids, automatically are distinct and can differentiate themselves by theiropinions and by what they wish to do, and who are not perceived mainly as fathers.In the English language there are about twenty terms to describe the sexually active man such asstud or ladies' man (both positive), but there are two hundred such terms to describe women such astramp, whore, slut, cunt, and floozy (all negative). [ Doyle, p.221, 1991 1 Sexual activity with women issomething a man can take part in without changing his status in a community or his self-identity, but thedouble standard exists for women in that her primary identity remains for men as something that is78determined by her sexual history. Virtue for men is linked to bravery, strength, and honesty, but virtue forwomen is chastity and 'a honest woman' is a virgin. [ Gilman, (1898) 1966 ] It is crucial to note that notonly are words to describe women's sexuality are more often negative than words to describe men'ssexuality, but this sexual double-standard has carried over into every day conversation and vocabulary todescribe nonsexual behavior:Positive Masculine^Negative Other"He's got balls." "The company went tits up.""Fight like a man!"^"Throw like a girl.""Are you man or mouse?"^"Single-mother.""Prove your manhood."^"Vietnam emasculated America.""Sow wild oats."^"The U.N. is impotent.""Virile."^ "The commission got castrated.""Stud" "Slut"Masculine terms are used for approved human behavior, while feminine terms are reserved for eitherdeviant, female, or child-like behavior. The masculine has become human, and the human has becomemasculine. Any deviation from this norm has to be specified: A male doctor is a doctor, a male lawyer is alawyer, but a woman would become a female-doctor or a woman-lawyer. Even today, the successful careerwoman is still often limited to a few certain roles such as 'dragon lady' or the 'mother manager' [ Lips,p. I 72 J.The status of women and how or whether men perceive women as human subjects or alternatelysexual objects, is too often linked to their looks and their sexual availability. As men age, their status oftenrises with economic success, while women may endure substantial stigmatization as they age, and many ofwomen's jobs such as those in the service sector, i.e. secretary and bank teller, are often dependent on theirlooks. Women are uniquely stigmatized in a fashion that is completely unique to their status as women,and is different from stereotyping due to class or race. The proper role for femininity as defined by men issomething that a woman is not, rather than any discrete or concrete quality. A man can never be too89strong, too brave, too career-oriented, and too virile. In contrast, a woman has to avoid being in the literalsense, and to avoid being too much of any quality. A woman is told to avoid being frigid and to avoidbeing a slut, to avoid being fat and to avoid being flat-chested, to avoid being assertive and to avoid beingclingy, to avoid being bitchy and to avoid being mousy, to avoid being ugly but to also avoid being toobeautiful or else she won't be taken seriously or will risk rape. To use existentialist terminology, women'sapproved being is nothingness. Unfortunately, society's standards and expectations for men are impossiblefor women as a whole to attain, and one woman temporarily meeting the ideal may make other womenappear more deviant.(4)As we have seen from the classic Broverman study, psychologists and people in general seeapproved human qualities of creativity, courage, honesty, and assertiveness as approved masculinequalities. Approved feminine traits, however, are completely opposite to the traits of a mature emotionallyhealthy adult [ Ruth, 1990, p.128 1. Women are Other in our society, and are assigned all the negativenon-masculine qualities. Broverman states "Should a woman change toward being a healthy adult, shebecomes sick as a woman. If she is a healthy woman, she is sick as a person." [Schur, 1984, p. 209 J Thispolarization is gradually fading and this generation of women have opportunities that their grandmothersdid not have. However, individualism for women is not achieved to the full extent that men have today,and we can only guess at the possible benefits for both men and women that if women today did not haveto struggle against stigmatization, job segregation, and marginalization.The recognition of a person as a free, empowered, unique, self -oriented, responsible, creative,individual with unique personal achievements, depends upon both society's reaction and labeling and thathuman being's own constant efforts. The individual must be recognized as distinct and autonomous byother people as well as by his or her self. In addition, the person must be free and uncoerced in the actionsof their daily lives and able to take advantages of opportunities for self-improvement to follow their ownunique inclinations. Each human being needs the means to secure themselves from fear, torment, hungerand anxiety, in accordance with Abram Maslow's theory of hierarchy of needs, before they can achievetheir highest forms of self-development. We now call such needs human rights and see them fit for910universal application for all human beings. Negative freedom, that is freedom from restraint or what KarlMarx might call 'bourgeois freedom,' is a necessary but insufficient condition for individualism. Inaddition to 'freedom from,' the individual needs the positive freedoms of 'freedom to' and 'freedom for.' Aperson who has talent and the inclination to develop that skill, needs to do so to become a self-actualizedindividual. A painter has to paint, a fish has to swim, a musician has to play. To allow materialconditions, such as relative property, to prevent people from developing their unique talents, is to denythem their full potential as individuals. Liberal theory failed to recognize that true equality of opportunitydepends on relative equality of condition. In the pursuit of happiness, some people start on the finish linewhile others start far back and handicapped with poverty or physical disadvantages.Individualism cannot be given from one person to another but it can be taken away. Coercion, adenial of freedom, poverty, stigmatization, and racial, class, or sexist stereotypes to force other people intopreconceived roles, all threaten to hurt or dehumanize relationships between people. However,individualism is an active condition, a person has to keep trying for better self-realization and to yield thefullest self-expression of their own unique emotions and nature. Today, women still face more restraintsthan men. Women bear the brunt of laws restricting human sexuality, such as limitations on birth controland abortion, and as. well bear the greater burden from the demands of the fashion industry which tellsthem to lose weight and to look young and beautiful. Every woman has Cooley's 'Looking Glass Self' asshe is forced to see herself as others might see her and is forced to internalize male standards ofwomanhood in order to succeed. [ Brehm, 1989, p.86 1 Also, the segregation of women into narrow rolesby being treated as chiefly wife, mother, or sex object, and segregated into lower-paying manual workwithout control over the work, are daily invisible restrictions on many women's' full potential.(5)Traditional roles for women, though they may be satisfying for some woman, nearly always restrictwomen's involvement in the public sphere and limit them to carrying for family members with a muchsmaller social circle.The status of women relative to men cannot be divorced from the concept of individualism.Sexual inequality may have helped initiate individualism. Equality within the sexes built on men's1011subordination of women, helped men seize new opportunities as they became available and to distinguishthemselves as fully human individuals separate from women. Today, it is the inequality between the sexesthat maintains women's greater burden in our society, and places more limits on women's self-expressionand self-realization than men. Women also remain more vulnerable than men to having theirindividuality, opportunities, or public recognition as morally equal human beings, yanked away. Womenneed economic independence by having their work publicly and directly rewarded.(6) In periods of historyin which women's work lost economic value relative to the work of men, no matter how women's positionmight be glossed over as domestic bliss, women faced increased vulnerability and misogyny.If women are not equal to men, with equal freedom to freely enter social roles and to advancetheir careers, then women have less freedom and more vulnerability to stigmatization. Women as acategory are disproportionately vulnerable to both violence, poverty, and enforced dependence. As EdwinSchur (1984) stated, it is the most vulnerable groups in any society which are prone to being stigmatizedand robbed of individuality. As long as women are vulnerable, they will be dependent on the grace ormercy of male guardians. As long as they are dependent on the grace of individual men, women will beforced to endure unrealistic expectations of 'femininity', vulnerable to violence, quick to be labeleddeviant, and treated by men primarily in regards to their sexuality and biology and seen as human onlysecondarily. The absence of formal and legal restrictions, this attainment of negative freedom, does notnecessarily allow women to realize themselves as individuals. Rather the culmination of the feministemancipatory project involves the synthesis of materialist and idealist freedoms for women attainedthrough the relative equality of the sexes and maintained through vigorous and voluntary participation bywomen in all aspects of modern life.Any discussion of an "emancipatory project" would seem to reject structural-functionalistthinking and would lead to conflict theory, yet such a direction would not necessarily be Marxist. Thesocial thought on individualism covers a wide swath of meaning, definitions, and interpretations, anddelineations have to be made and parameters set for this analysis. The reader may wish to turn to theAppendix at the end to re-acquaint themselves with the conventional meaning of the term. The normal1112use of individualism assumes private property and the powers of the free market, and so hence, theMarxist definition is incompatible with this analysis. Marx states in the German Ideology:In history up to the present it is certainly an empirical fact that separate individualshave, with the broadening of their activity into world-historical activity, become moreand more enslaved under a power alien to them, a power which has become more andmore enormous and, in the last instance, turns out to be the world market. But it is justas empirically established that, by the overthrow of the existing state of society by thecommunist revolution and the abolition of private property which is identical with it,this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be dissolved; and that thenthe liberation of each single individual will be accomplished in the measure in whichhistory becomes transformed into world history. [ Tucker, 1978, (1846) p. 163]Marxists thus see private property and the division of labor as both oppressive and mutually incompatiblewith individualism. However, individualism was well developed as a social philosophy long before Marx'stime, and all conventional variants value private property. Today, we have seen from the examples ofcountries which had professed Marxism that the abolition of private property only reduces personalfreedom and autonomy, strengthening the case for the conventional definition of individualism as definedby the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Marx's conception of freedom as given in the third volume of Capital israther unobtainable:the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessityand mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond thesphere of actual material production.... Beyond it begins that development of humanenergy which is an end in itself, the true realms of freedom..." [ Pearce, 1989, p. 168 IAll societies will always have to have labor for mundane considerations, from the elimination of noxiouswastes to policing, unpleasant tasks will always have to be accomplished. Marx derided liberalism asmerely 'bourgeois freedom,' but Marx's own idea of freedom is unrealistic and unobtainable. As freedom isthe foundation of individualism, as Marx's definition of freedom is problematic, so too would be theMarxian conception of individualism.Emile Durkheim, who was neither an utopian socialist, an Anarchist, nor a Marxist, sawtremendous potential in the future development of individualism in society as long as there remained somechecks and balances, and common sense restrictions to prevent some people from using their freedoms totake freedoms away from other people. Durkheim saw the way to a contented and free social peace (as1213opposed to stability bought by coercion) through a mixture of freedom guided by secular moral regulation.Moral discipline would have to be maintained to control human's limitless appetites for acquisition andpleasure. I Mestrovic, 1988, p.130 I Unlike Marx, Durkheim was more in accord with both reality andconvention when he stressed the freedoms that would be necessary for individualism and the modernemancipatory project:This individual liberty which is so dear to us supposed not only the faculty to go about aswe please; it implies the existence of a circle of things which we may dispose of as wewill. Individualism would only be a word if we did not have a material sphere of actionin which we exercise a sort of sovereignty. When one says that individual property is asacred thing, one only states in symbolic form an indubitable moral axiom; forindividual property is the material condition of the cult of the individual. I LaCapra,1972, p.234.Thus private property was not the scourge of individualism, but its companion. Throughout the analysis ofthis paper in the later chapters the control of private property within marriage shall be firmly explored, toreveal how women historically have often lacked personal control of property within marriage and so weredenied recognition as persons as well as voting rights. Durkheim did share with Marx a keen interest inthe division of labor, and like Marx, opposed any rigid division of labor. However, but where Marx wishedit possible to end the division of labor completely so that a person could have many jobs in one day,Durkheim saw how the division of labor, if arrived upon equitably, would serve as both the glue formodern society and to facilitate individualism as well:Inversely, we may say that the division of labor produces solidarity only of it isspontaneous and in proportion as it is spontaneous. But by spontaneity we mustunderstand not simply the absence of all express violence, but also of everything that caneven indirectly shackle the free unfolding of the social force that each carries in himself.It supposes not only that individuals are not relegated to determinate functions by force,but also that no obstacle, of whatever nature, prevents them from occupying the place inthe social framework which is compatible with their faculties. In short, labor is dividedspontaneously only if society is constituted in such a way that social inequalities exactlyexpress natural inequalities. I Durkheim, 1949, p. 377 IThus for women to be considered individuals in the same sense that men are, we can put together thefollowing conditions: 1) Women must be free from violence directed towards them as women, that ismisogyny and sexual harassment. 2) The division of labour in the work place must not follow genderlines, neither should little girls be socialized for certain occupations nor women be kept in lower paid and1314less responsible positions. 3) Women must have the same opportunities as men to find work and outletssuitable for their talents. If these three conditions are met there would be greater individualistic socialcohesion, and there would probably be profound changes in society as upper level positions ofresponsibility would no longer be masculinized, in that as Simmel once pointed out, in modern societysuccess is masculine and failure is feminine. [ Simmel, 1984 J Unfortunately, despite substantialimprovements, serious gender inequalities in western society still exist.The question then, is how did we get to this present state of affairs of fading sexual polarizationbut strong indirect discrimination and stigmatization of women? This thesis starts with an examination ofthe social changes within the Middle Ages and moves to how the rigid and feudal society evolved intotoday's individualistic culture. Individualism is not the legal declaration of women's equality with menand so we cannot just look upon history as the independent evolution of ideas from the Middle Ages topresent day. Rather individualism is the fusion of ideology and practice for a transformation of everymoment of everyday life. Women struggled for full recognition as equal human beings, and without thatstruggle they would never have attained the legal human rights we now take for granted.Notes1) In this thesis, the word 'individuality' would quickly become overused because it has several definitions,many of which have expanded over time. However, whenever possible, I shall try to make my argumentspecific, and refer directly to the component of individuality that is referred to, autonomy andindependence, self -responsibility, moral equality, individuation, and opportunity for self -realizationthrough new experiences, gathering new skills and productive work. However, the word individuality isused frequently by my sources, and my use of it is often unavoidable. Whenever my meaning may beambiguous, it will be useful to know that I intend to keep to the literal meaning as defined by theEncyclopedia Britannica Micropedia. The article from the Micropedia is printed in full in the Appendix.2) The rise of the modern state brought new obligations, such as conscription, and later governmentregulation of business and the environment. Only in peacetime is the democratic state a firm ally ofindividualism.3) It seems more than a coincidence that mass-suffrage for men were achieved in eras of intensifyingsexism in France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. The dominant ideologies in allthose countries at the time of male mass suffrage were openly sexist and generally banned women fromthe public sphere because they were 'irrational' or 'too pure.'4) For example, if all women lost weight to appease fashion's unrealistic demands, probably the sameproportion of women would be seen as too fat or too thin as before. For one woman to manage to conform1415to the feminine ideal, it makes other women appear more deviant. Not all women can be the Cosmopolitanmagazine superwoman who has a good career, wonderful hair, a fantastic sex life, and an anorexic bodywith large cleavage.5) The stay-at-home nonworking mother is an idyllic image which many people think is the desirablemethod of raising children. However, a woman usually loses her identity upon marriage in regard to hercredit rating, her last name, and her medical insurance plan, Vuuren, 1973, p.160 I and both theworking and stay-at-home wife often subsidize their husbands' career and leisure self-development byworking more hours a week than they do. I Wilson, 1991, p. 55 I6) Independence seems to be a necessary condition for individualism. This is not to say facetiously thatdependents such as the physically handicapped, the elderly, and children, are not people, but to recognizethat bargaining power in any relationship is a necessary to ensure being treated with respect. A womanwho is financially independent has much greater protection from ending up in a continual cycle ofviolence or verbal abuse from her husband, than a woman who tries to rely solely on the powers of thelaw. In addition, work increases the sense of self-worth a person feels, and leads to greater socialopportunities. As Georg Simmel stated in On Individuality and Social Forms "Individuality in being andaction generally increases to the degree that the social circle encompassing the individual expands."Simmel, 1971, p. 252 I1516Chapter Two: The Medieval Foundation of Modern LifeIn the European Middle Ages individualism did not exist for either men or women, that is peoplewere recognized and evaluated primarily by their links with other people than for their own uniquenatures. Society was organized in a manner that was seen to be God-ordained or at least ordered for thebenefit of the collective whole. The material standard of living was low, and individualism was a luxurythat few could afford. Few people had the opportunity for self-development by being able to secure aneducation, to move to where they wished to live, to work at the occupation they wished, to have freedom ofconscience and religious expression, and to marry whoever they liked with little regard for material andfamilial considerations. Peasants by definition, [ Macfarlane, 1978 J were directly dependent on both theirfamily members and their family's land tenure. Peasant society was organized collectively, with all theyounger family members needing approval from the head of their family and perhaps the local landlordand aristocrat for being able to marry. The whole of society was based on ascription, with the place in theDivine Order being relegated through one's birth. On the whole, though there were periods of massivesocial change throughout the Middle Ages, there remained little opportunity for self-expression exceptthrough orthodox religious devotion, and each person remained subservient to the bonds of Church, caste,and family.In a society based on ascription in which one's social position was determined by their birth, theconditions regarding a birth were the most important determinants of a person's life. Anyone born abastard faced considerable social stigma, and conversely, one of the best compliments a person couldreceive was that they came "from good breeding," that is from within a proper marriage between uppercaste partners. In a society in which people's survival depended on their ties and hereditary rights, abastard risked becoming a marginalized outcast because they lacked hereditary rights. In France anunmarried noblewoman who gave birth was automatically disinherited, and in England widows who had abastard could lose their dowry, and their children would have no land rights to live as a tenant or peasant.[ Shahar, p.118, 1983]  In addition, the Roman Catholic Church saw bastards as the embodiment of carnalsin and bastards would have to receive a special dispensation before they themselves could enter the1617Church. [ Shahar, p. 113, 1983 J In addition to legitimacy, the race, caste, and religion of one's parentscould permanently cripple a child's life chances. All children born to Jewish parents would also grow upto be aliens in their own land. Jews were often forcibly excluded from areas, including the entire nation ofEngland at one point. Jewish people were not protected by Christian law. I Painter, p.237, 1958 I Jewswere forbidden to own land, and barred from some professions like being an apothecary. A person wasexpected to fulfill the destiny of the caste into which they were born, which could be pleasant for some ofthe aristocrats, but the converse held true, that those who were born to marginalized or stigmatizedpersons, would also be expected to remain as outcasts.Order and continuity were the purposes of the feudal structure, and the way this wasaccomplished was by limiting a person's opportunities to those of their ancestors and their caste."Statues regulating the crafts in German cities show ample proof of the concept of adegrading profession affecting a person's descendants. Where guild statues specified theregistration of 'worthy birth' as a prerequisite to the acquisition of corporate rights andprivileges, they excluded not only persons born out of wedlock or of unfree parentagebut also the offspring of persons in certain professional categories. The long list includesexecutioners, jailers, executioners' assistants and lesser law -enforcement officials,gravediggers, butchers, custodians of public baths, barbers, prostitutes and theirprotectors, musicians, acrobats or buffoons, canvas weavers, fillers, and shepherds." [Goff, p.362]As the Middle Ages progressed, the feudal restrictions on serfs and villeins in Western Europe graduallydeclined, but the spirit of the law continued to reflect the birth status of the people concerned and theirhereditary obligations and rights. Serfdom was not formally abolished until 1789 in France, 1861 inRussia, and 1918 in Hungary. Serfdom may have disappeared in practice relatively early in England andScandinavia, though the legal distinctions of the aristocracy remained. [ Macfarlane, 1978 IIt is essential to understand that the feudal bonds of the Middle Ages were both restrictive andalso facilitated survival. Money was too scarce to be used in most transactions up to the end of theeleventh century in Europe. I Painter, p.95, 1958 [ This meant that nearly all transactions had to be paidin kind, not cash, until about the twelfth century. The peasant paid taxes to his lord through a proportionof necessities such as grain, meat, firewood, and his own unpaid labour to work on the aristocrat's own1718estates. The feudal lord had to be self-sufficient, and generally lived on only the products of his ownbarony until the later Middle Ages when trade routes reopened. Transportation was difficult, roads eitherdusty or flooded, and merchants were attacked by robbers or, alternately, the local baron. All food had tobe grown locally in each feudal fief. Until the rise of commerce in the 1100s, every person had to have adirect connection to the feudal hierarchy as either a peasant farmer or a landlord, in order to survive. Alllegitimate children to serfs belonged to the barony which both owned them and guaranteed them themeans of subsistence. Landless knights sought to win land through marriage, battle, or jousting, andlandless men from the other castes were outcasts, thieves, mercenaries, or itinerant monks. Once trade anda monetary economy opened up, greater occupational specialization was made possible and the feudalclass polarization of priest/knight/peasant began to die. Feudalization only ended once people such assuccessful merchants and farmers, could buy land outright for themselves, and not have to win it throughbattle for their lords, by marriage, or by a grant from their king. In effect, money was to open the doorleading out of the Middle Ages.Most people in the Middle Ages were peasants, and their life was generally difficult and fixedinto misery by the feudal structure. Some peasants were freemen, but most were serfs who were the chatteland property of their lords, or villeins, who had slightly better legal rights. The lot of a serf was betterthan that of a landless man without a bond to the feudal structure, however. A serf who was born into avillage as an adult had the right to gather firewood, to fish, and to pasture his animals in the common landheld by the lord. But ultimately a serf owned nothing and was nothing. Serfs had little incentive to workharder than they needed to for survival and to pay their tithes, because they were subject to the tax called"tallage" that allowed a baron to raise a serfs taxes as high as he wanted to confiscate anything valuable.Painter, p.100 ] Lords also had a monopoly over the industrial use of water for mills as well as amonopoly on bake ovens. (Le Goff, p.125, 1990 1 The only restraint on a lord's taxes was that he wouldgain nothing if he taxed his serfs to death. A serf could not leave the barony or marry without permissionfrom his lord. Women serfs did have geographic mobility that men did not have, I Labarge, p.167, 1986 1but they were subject to the infamous "droit du seigneur," that is a French baron had the legal right to1819sleep with and rape the bride before her wedding day. Serfs were always at mercy of their brutal lords, andmost barons and knights needed now legal right to rape any peasant women they wished. [ Painter, p.102] In the feudal hierarchy, a person had rights of protection only from those of their own class and below.but not from their own lords. The only option for safety for women from male brutality or alternately along series of pregnancies, was to enter the Catholic Church and becoming a nun, cloistered from theoutside world.To restrict competition and to lobby for political power within the new towns, merchant and craftguilds were set up by traders and craftsmen. Guilds regulated the quality of the goods produced, set theprices, and limited entry into the profession by setting rules for the length of apprenticeship. At first in theHigh Middle Ages, entry into the guilds was relatively easy, and any free man could become a master afteran apprenticeship. As the Middle Ages lengthened and the power of the guilds grew, the guilds set muchstronger limits upon entry. [ Painter, p.230, 1958 ] Guilds had the absolute monopoly of production of thatparticular good or service in that town, and could ban a craftsmen outright if he or she took in too manyapprentices, sold goods too cheaply, worked too hard, or innovated on production techniques. [ Painter,p.231 1 The guilds gradually made a stranglehold on production, and restricted entrepreneurship andexperimentation. Guild secrets were called mysteries, and guild masters could neither reveal them, orimprove on them. Eventually the opportunity of becoming a guild master became limited to sons and son-in-laws of guild families. [ Painter, p.230 1In the Middle Ages, a person's life chances were fixed and set by the conditions of their birth,their parent's profession, and by the Roman Catholic Church. People in this era in general should not bethought of as individuals. Autonomous individuals starved. Each person needed a link to belong to theland (like a serf), or to belong to a family, church, or guild. People who had individual consciences riskedbeing murdered by the Inquisition as a heretic or a pagan, or being placed under the Church's Interdict,which would restrict other people from dealing with them. The Roman Catholic Church was not entirelymonolithic and all powerful in the Middle Ages, but it was hegemonic in that it was the source of alllegitimate ethical and moral authority and discourse. The vast majority of the people could not participate1920in this discourse or make any impression on the Church, however. The Roman Catholic Church carefullykept the scriptures in their original Greek and Latin and out of the vulgar common languages. Many localpriests might also be relatively uneducated and uninformed of the total content of the scriptures. Bookswere scarce, and literacy uncommon among both peasants and nobleman. Interestingly, until the laterMiddle Ages, women were more often literate than their husbands, as book learning was seen aseffeminate. [ Bridenthal, 1987 Peasants had completely no say in the religion that was pushed on them,and in actual fact, many peasants had their connection to the Church through superstitious awe formagical rites and the miracles of the Saints. [ Lc Goff, p.133, 1990 1 Peasants prayed and sacrificed to thesaints for a good harvest without having read any church doctrine or understanding the true cause andeffect of agricultural production. Most people's lives were shrouded in a religious and magical aura:Disease and famine was seen as God's will, and people did not or could not understand the actualprocesses of nutrition, sanitation, epidemiology in their own lives. God's will was manifested in the worldaround them. Innocence or guilt was proved often by trial by ordeal, such as fire or water, or by fighting aduel, in which God blessed the winner. [ Labarge, p.205, 1986 1 If a person got sick or became poor, itwas God's will, and people consciously denied cause and effect as coming from both their own actions andnature, (including natural laws and germs) and worshipped a God who was solely responsible for thefeudal order. This denial of the power of human agency was to linger into the 18th century's Counter-Enlightenment's arguments of Louis De Bonald. I Bottomore, p.90 1978 1Three key features of the Middle Ages must be noted for both women and individualism: I) Inthe Middle Ages neither men nor women were free, and feudal society was built upon ascription, tradition,obligation, and duty rather than on intrinsic individual rights. Neither equality nor liberty was seen asdesirable. 2) There was considerable sexism, patriarchy, and misogyny latent within the Middle Ages.There was sexism from the theology of Roman Catholic Church. There was misogyny from superior malephysical force which was important in the violent society. The agricultural economy and system ofproperty ownership gave the male head of the family sole control over all other family members on thelandholding. There was strong patriarchal power and familial obligations which kept children, wives, and2021women in particular under the control of their fathers or husbands. However, the Catholic Churchimplemented incest restrictions and made mutual consent necessary for marriage which prevented a trueand complete patriarchal society from emerging as children could not be legally forced into marriages (orincest) against their will by their fathers. 3) The work of both men and women were indispensable andnecessary for survival. Women worked hard in agricultural production, and were especially crucial inhealing, midwifery, and cloth production. This economic interdependence between men and womengenerally managed to keep the forces of misogyny and sexism at bay. A male merchant needed a literateand level-headed wife to manage his business accounts and a male craftsmen and guild master needed awife who could manage the apprentices and join him in the skilled work. [ Bridenthal, 1987 I A noblemanneeded a strong-willed wife to manage his estates while he was gone out to win the king's favor or to winmore estates in politics or warfare. [ Labarge, p.19, 1986 1In the early Middle Ages, unmarried women appear to have been scarce relative to unmarriedmen. [ Guttentag, 1983 J Women often died early in childbirth and until the Roman Catholic Churchsuccessfully enforced monogamy, rich men could keep concubines and many wives, making the remainingwomen even more valuable to the greater pool of unmarried men. For most of Europe in the early MiddleAges, tribal German law was in place and the concept of dowry in place involved the groom giving gifts tothe bride which ensured women a significant measure of economic independence and thus bargainingpower within marriage. However, it appears that life expectancies for women in the later Middle Ageslengthened so that women on the average lived longer than men, perhaps due to urbanization and betternutrition. A massive social change in regards for gender relations occurred in the high Middle Ages as thestatus of women fell. Starting in the mid twelfth century the Roman form of dowry re-emerged to spreadall over Europe, a form of dowry in which the bride's family paid the groom to take the woman, turningweddings into a financial transaction between men as women were transferred from the authority of oneman to another. The ages for women at first marriage dropped, and the age for men at first marriage rose.[ Bridenthal, 1987, p.162 1 & [ Guttentag, 1983 1 This increased mating gradient led to further dowryinflation and a strongly reduced bargaining power of women within marriage as young women married2122much older, stronger, and experienced men. Women lost the measure of economic independence withinmarriage that they once had, and a married woman was expected to mold herself completely to the will ofher husband, however brutal.The increased mating gradient and the change that men would now have to be paid to entermarriage both facilitated misogyny. Women were expected to be virginal at marriage while men wereinformally allowed to be sexually active. O'Faolain, p.137, 1973 1 Men could fulfill their desires throughprostitution, rape, seduction and coercion. Men could thus freely chose from a relatively large pool ofunmarried women and could afford to be disdainful, picky, and misogynist without rebuke. Youngerwomen lost their bargaining power within relationships, something demographer Marcia Guttentag called'dyadic power' in her book Too Many Women? Older women also lost their status as a large pool ofwidows and elderly single women were created without having the same property rights and economicopportunities as men did, and thus became vulnerable to stigmatization, scorn, misogyny, and poverty.The return to the patriarchal Roman dowry system was accompanied by changes in property lawrestricting women's rights to control property and in Church laws restricting nun's involvement in theworld outside their abbeys as nuns were forced to become cloistered. Women became seen to beexpendable, which was reflected in the Roman Catholic Church's Inquisition. The Inquisition started inthe thirteenth century and peaked in the sixteenth century, as an exercise of power of the new emergingand male-only church bureaucracy. About eighty-five percent of the Inquisition's victims were women. 1Vuuren, 1973 ] Women who did not have a male guardian, those which were independent without maleguardians, who were conspicuously competent midwives, or those who were mad or mentally retarded,were especially vulnerable to being stigmatized and labeled witches. The Inquisition declared that womenwere all more susceptible to evil than men, because women had insatiable carnal lust and because Eve wasformed from a bent rib. [ O'Faolain, p.209, 1973 1 & [ Vuuren, 1973 1 As the Church grew in coercivestrength and organizational complexity, because the church was exclusively male, this homosocialityallowed misogyny to develop without any check or balance.2223Christianity has never eliminated its philosophical roots in Jewish and Hebrew tradition. Judaismwas never individualistic. The Christian Old Testament which was based on the earliest Hebrew writingsthe Torah, dictated that the Hebrews were a special race chosen by God. Judaism emphasized proper andrigid familial and sexual roles and stability over individual rights. Men and not women were to beeducated and allowed to read the Talmud. Rape victims and rapists would be forced to marry to prevent afather from having his daughter ruined for marriage. The rights of the father came first in general, andthe rights and obligations of the family surmounted any individual rights. An orthodox Jew had to placefamilial and religious obligations before individual self-development. [ Guttentag, 1983 j According to theTen Conunandments, God being a jealous and vengeful God, would punish the children andgrandchildren of those that had incurred His wrath. However, these elements were de-emphasized asChristianity evolved separately from Judaism and Christianity did not incorporate the later holy bookscalled the Talmud. However, strong anti -individualistic elements from Judaism would remain and bestrengthened within Christianity. The Doctrine of the Original Sin, based on the Genesis story of theGarden of Eden, would remain an albatross around Christianity's neck: Belief in the Original Sin has twoimplications for individualism. The first is that women were more susceptible to sin than men and weremeant to atone for their collective sin as women by giving birth in pain. The second implication being thatall of humanity had "fallen" from its previous high state (of moral ignorance no less) and needed thestrong authority of God to restrain, bind, control, and restrict evil human nature and that human'sperception of morality should be replaced with what had been ordained by God and laid down in theBible. Human beings were to distrust their own experiences and reasoning because God worked inmysterious ways and human being's sole purpose was to be an uncritical vessel of God's will which wouldremain incomprehensible to individual human minds.Christianity runs afoul for women for it teaches women to practice self-denial according to rulesmade by and judged by men. Virtue and chastity are forever intertwined, and because women bearchildren, the fall from grace for women is much more visible for women than for men. A man can confessadultery and be forgiven, but once a woman sins, it seems to be remembered forever by the community.2324The possibility of having an illegitimate child, and being permanently stigmatized for it, becomesextended to that if a woman lets her chastity slip once, even if an illegitimate child does not result, it isremembered forever. Men insisted on having virgins for wives because of the assumption that if a womanwas not chaste before marriage, she would not be chaste during marriage and would commit adultery, andthe paternity of the children would be confused. The whole legal history of Greek, Hebrew, and Romaneras, as well as medieval Europe can be re-read as men trying to control paternity and to enforce their ideaof virtue for women, onto women. The double-standard for adultery was noteworthy all through theseperiods. Jesus, according to the New Testament, tried to end the practice of only the woman beingpunished for adultery, but according to the laws and social customs of these eras, the double-standardremained. Honor for a woman depended on her chastity, and honor for a man depended on his wife's anddaughter's chastity.Jesus espoused and supported the traditional familial structure of Jewish society, as hecondemned divorce and sexual freedom, but he preached spiritual equality between men and women aswell as ending the sexual double standard. Unfortunately, as Christianity progressed and became aninstitution, it took on a greater hierarchical structure and began to embody the full extent of the sexism ofits times. The Apostle Paul or his disciple Timothy, laid what was to become the foundation forChristianity's sexism:"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach orhave authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; andAdam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yetwoman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love andholiness, with modesty. ( 1 Timothy 2:11-15)The doctrine of the Original Sin became the foundation of misogyny. Men were to be seen as individuals,that they could largely be defined by what they did, but woman, that is all women, had to be reminded thatthey were to blame for man's fall from paradise. In medieval Christian theology, stretching even throughthe Reformation as we shall see later, women were equated with Eve, and seen as the sinful cause formen's suffering. Women could only redeem themselves through their humble obedience to men, and inCatholicism, perpetual virginity was seen as even better. Sexual intercourse was seen as the mechanism2425which transferred the curse of the Original Sin from generation to generation, and sex would forever inRoman Catholicism be seen as something dirty and sinful. St. Jerome described a woman who is chaste assomewhat blessed and redeemed, but only the female virgin as fully redeemed. Later church fatherscontinued this tradition. Tertulian (160-230) fought against women's role in teaching, coined the term incalling women 'the devil's gateway,' and blamed women for causing the mortality of all of mankind andthe eventual death of Christ. [ Carmody, p. 1711 Tertullian saw all women as modern Eves worthy ofenslavement:"In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband andhe shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God's sentence hangs stillover all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil'sgateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. Itwas you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack.With what ease you shattered that image of God: man! Because of the death youmerited, the Son of God had to die." [ O'Faolain, 1973, p. 132]St. Augustine (354-430) in his treatise used mental gymnastics to explain how men and womencould have spiritual equality in Christ without altering women's intrinsic inequality. Augustine declaredthat man and woman together were the image of God, but man alone without woman was also the imageof God, but a woman alone was incomplete."Augustine even states that woman in herself does not possess the image of God becauseshe is the image of the body. She possesses the image of God only when taken togetherwith the male, who is her head, whereas the male possesses the image of God withoutregard to his relation to the woman. Thus we see clearly in Augustine the theologicalanthropology that makes the male the image of normative humanity and woman the'other' in the sense of the lower and incomplete." [ Sharma, p.218, 1987] This quote embodies the thrust of my overall argument. In the peculiar development of individualism,men are seen as whole and complete in themselves, in Christian doctrine, in traditional laws andmorality, and as the rational economic man of classical liberal economic theory. Women however, arcseen as incomplete in themselves and are defined in relationship to men. Women are seen as negation,what man is not or should not be. Men and women may have achieved equality in Christ in Christianity,and then legal equality in the early twentieth century, but women still are not seen as immediately human.Women would remain women first, and human second.2526The rise of learning in the late Middle Ages did not benefit women in the development of Churchtheology. The new universities which started to be founded starting in the thirteenth century excludedwomen, and men discussed women only as subject matter. The new interest in Greek ideas, brought newmisogynist ideas into Christian philosophy. The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas adoptedAristotelian biology, which declared that the identity (genetics) of the human species comes solely fromthe male semen, and women are only produced when conception goes wrong and a defective baby is born.[ Sharma, p. 218 1 By nature, Aquinas and his contemporaries declared, women are to be submissive toand dependent on men. We cannot separate the development of theology from the obsession of men indetermining paternity. Men wanted to assert that their child was theirs, that is that they were the father,and what is more, in carrying out the full development of the implications of ownership, that the child wastheir sole creation, that the woman only nurtured the fetus. Again, women would be denied by thisphilosophy, recognition as human, and instead would be defined as 'other.' The conception of sexuality inthe medieval Roman Catholic era was completely disadvantageous to women. Women were defined bytheir sexuality at the same time their contribution to reproducing the human race was denigrated and theywere continually reminded that giving birth in pain was their punishment for Eve's transgression.Labeling women a separate species to be herded like cattle would not have been a big step. The monkswere paranoid in their fear of women's sexuality, and saw women as a danger to be avoided, one monk inthe twelfth century calling women bags of filth covered by a deceptively beautiful skin. [ O'Faolain, p. xii,1973 ] Women would not be allowed to forget that they were women, that they were guilty of creating sinand that they would have to be punished and controlled.As the Middle Ages progressed, the status of women, their opportunities for careers and mostimportantly their recognition as legal persons, as able to bring cases to court and to own and distributeproperty, steadily fell. This may or may not have been the inevitable consequence of the increase oforganization and technology, and subsequent increased abilities of social control of the growinginstitutions of church and state which were staffed at the highest levels exclusively by men, bringing outthe latent misogyny of a society. As long as organization was problematic, and the level of technology2627close to a subsistence level, it mattered little that the popes and kings were all men, because lifeeverywhere depended on both the manual work and often leadership of women. But as women wereexcluded from new technologies and excluded from the growing organizations, this ended the system ofchecks and balances, and important men could now make decisions between themselves and view womenas an abstract and negative category of Other.There were many indications that the status of women began to seriously deteriorate starting inthe late 12th century. Abbeys, which had been the educational centers for the whole community, wereforbidden to educate men or to take part in secular educational affairs and community leadership. [Vuuren, p.36, 1973 J The new universities of the 13th and subsequent centuries were reserved for men.Bridenthal, p. 166] When an institution is reserved for only one group there is no representative of theexploited group present to defend their sex or race from being treated as a merely subhuman category in alofty theory. Also, the males in the institution are accustomed to discussing serious matters only with eachother, only seeing each other as human, and so will only interact with women when they need somethingfrom them not as individuals, but as women, i.e. their sexuality. This homosociality reinforced men'scontrol over both formal social institutions and informal networks, culture and language. [ Chafctz, p.77 1The rise of bureaucracies in the Middle Ages eroded the powers of noble women and abbesses. Thebureaucracies of the state as manned by men, reduced to extinction the administrative role played by noblewomen, queens, and abbesses. [ Labarge, p.44 1 The two growing institutions were the Roman CatholicChurch and the state, and women were explicitly denied the chance to be officials in either organization.As the feudal hierarchy became more detailed, women's status fell correspondingly. The effect iscausal, not a mere correlation. As the times grew less tumultuous, feudal government became formalizedand subject to greater delineations of power and subordination at exactly the same time as the familystructure homogenized. If a male serf was subject to his overlord, his wife was subject to him. The stabilityof any hierarchical system depends on people in the middle, that is people who are to be ruled and orderedto do as they are told, but who perceive at least some self-interest in the status quo, by being above anothergroup. Ancient Indian and Japanese civilizations had the caste of untouchables, people so lowly they were2728seen as subhuman. A hierarchical system needs reproduction of hierarchy at all levels. For the church andstate to rule, relations within the family and marriage would have to be not egalitarian. Likewise, brutalityand mean-spiritedness begets itself, 'the master kicks the slave and the slave kicks the dog.' Husbands andfathers were the representative of the whole household to the state and Church, and they in turn wouldreproduce the domination with their own relations with women. For the men in the Church and state tosuccessfully dominate society, women ended up dominated.The consensus that emerged in all the countries in the last centuries of the Middle Ages was thatwomen were Other. Women had no property rights within marriage, and were forced by religion, law, andnecessity to be obedient to their husbands and fathers. Women were passed as objects from father tohusband, and even widows had their freedom of action restricted by usually not being able to inherit eventhe majority of their husband's property. Men could be virtuous by thought and action. The only virtuereserved for women was through inaction --through passivity to their male guardians, and to be chaste,that is to have only sexual relations within marriage, or ideally to be celibate and not to have sex at all. IO'Faolain, p.137, 1973 I The cult of virginity remained supreme, for men to be spiritually pure, theywould have to avoid women. It was no coincidence that women often resisted the Roman CatholicChurch's ideological hegemony, by being active in the heretical and religious reform movements of the13th century, to be quashed by force and the Inquisition. [ Vuuren, p.42 [ Both men as well as womenwere denied freedom in the Middle Ages, but women's experience of feudalism was profoundly muchdifferent than what men experienced. If men were controlled and subordinated within the feudalhierarchy, they also formed a superior caste above women who would never be allowed to forget that theirsexuality as women was evil.2829Chapter Three: The ReformationMoral equality is a necessary condition for any form of individualism. In order for a person tohave sole control over deciding what their interests should be, and to be able to put their interests beforethose of society, it has to be recognized that each person is the one most capable to decide their priorities.Without this equality of conscience, a feudal-like society is the only alternative. Freedom of conscienceprevents any one profession, caste, or class, from gaining hegemonic ideological control. The moralequality created by the Reformation eventually reversed the priorities of obligations from the group to theindividual. People were given an obligation to develop their own private spirituality as they saw fit,distrusting the advice and orders from the church hierarchy. The bonds keeping feudalism togetherdecayed as European society experienced atomization as individuals were obligated to trust their owninterpretation of the Bible and perception of morality instead of relying on a select few to orchestrate aconsensus for the benefit of the whole society. However this atomization caused by the Reformation, likethe similar process caused later by the French Enlightenment, broke the bonds and obligations for mensomewhat differently than what women experienced. The Protestant Reformation began the process ofliberation for both men and women, but the potential improvements for women probably lay more in whatthe Reformation made possible in subsequent centuries, than in the actual Reformation itself.The Reformation ended the monolithic supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe andled to religious pluralism (if not tolerance) in which religious sects and churches could reflect the ideas ofindependent free-thinkers such as Calvin and Luther and as well as reflect local nationalistic ambitions inEngland and Holland. Church censorship ended. The feudal powers of the Catholic Church werediminished except within the Papal States. Weber argued in The Protestant Ethic,  the Reformation mayhave facilitated the intensification and growth of capitalism latent in the European economy. A Protestantwork ethic was created, especially in the Calvinist sects. Protestants believed that everyone had a specialcalling in which they should unceasingly labor for the greater good of god. Calvinists may have taken thiswork ethic to the limit as some sects saw both hard work and material prosperity as evidence of God'sblessing. [ Weber, p.160, 1958 J Unnecessary or conspicuous consumption was seen as sinful, and so2930Protestantism may have intensified the drive for capital accumulation which helped bring about moderncapitalism. In addition, Weber said that the Reformation led to a disenchantment of the world, as Puritansin particular and Protestants in general had a fierce hatred of superstition and of Roman Catholic ritualsand sacrifices. [ Weber, p.168, 1958During the Reformation the Bible was translated from Latin into many languages, and religiousdiscussion could be carried out by the common people. The central guiding light of the Reformation wasthe idea of spiritual equality between all people, priests were not needed to serve as intermediariesbetween mankind and god, and that each literate individual could interpret the Bible for themselves. Thisachievement of moral equality broke some of the traditional bonds between people as they became morefree to hold different opinions without fear of being branded heretics.( 1) Louis de BonaId, a Frenchphilosopher of the Counter Enlightenment, argued forcefully that the Reformation later led to thesecularization of society by making divorce legal and placing it under political control, which weakenedthe family structure as well. The sin of Protestantism, de BonaId said, was that located religion in theindividual's faith and not in the needs and structure of the whole society. [ Bottomore & Nisbet, p.94-95,1978 1 Emile Durkheim, who, unlike de Bonald, was neither reactionary nor Catholic, dislikedProtestantism's insistence upon the primacy of individual faith [ Bottomore & Nisbet, p.112 J and believedthat the modern ideals of moral individualism had their immediate origin in Protestantism which drew outthe most individualistic elements out of Christian theology. [ Giddens, p.213, 1971The Reformation's drastic change in the sixteenth century also facilitated the subsequentScientific Revolution in the seventeenth century. Whereas Gallileo had been forced by threat of death bythe Catholic Church to recant and formally withdraw his astronomical observations that Jupiter hadplanets and the earth moved around the sun, in Protestant parts of northern Europe astronomers such asCopernicus and Kepler had much less difficulty and were able to get their observations published withoutprosecution. However, the Reformation seems to have been the start of the public/private dichotomy whichwas to grow and limit the roles of women in later centuries. The Reformation led to the privacy andsanctity of the nuclear family, and facilitated and encouraged the belief that women were to be mothers3031who being good and spiritual were to spend most of their time raising their children. Except for a minorityof the Protestant reformers, such as those in the Anabaptist movement, [ Sharma, 1987 1 most of theleaders of the Reformation were determined to limit women's roles and opportunities. The Reformationcoupled with the subsequent rise of capitalism, created the belief that it was a man's world, and thatwomen belonged in the home. [ Carmody, 1985 1 & [ O'Faolain, 1974The Reformation had different effects on women than men. A great benefit for women was thatProtestantism broke the medieval association of women with evil. [ Hamilton, 1978, p. 58 I Womenachieved spiritual equality with men, a major event considering that Eve in particular and women ingeneral had been blamed for the Fall of Man. Wives were given spiritual equality with their husbands, andthough they were bound to obey their husbands, women became the moral and spiritual center of thehome, with responsibility for making sure the children became proper Christians. [ Hamilton, 1978, p.66] Max Weber was wrong when he wrote in the Protestant Ethic "The sexual asceticism of Puritanismdiffers only in degree, not in fundamental principle, from that of monasticism..." [ Weber, 1958, p. 158 1To the contrary, the medieval monks had been almost rabid and hysterical with their denunciations ofwomen as being evil temptresses, luring men to their doom. [ Hamilton, 1978, p. 51 I Also, where theCatholic Church had denounced women as sinful because they had insatiable carnal lust, [ Andersen,1988, p.226 1 the Protestants did not believe that women were as lustful or more sinful as men were.Though several sects of Protestants such as the Puritans were wary of the pleasures of sexual activity, anddid not encourage sexual pleasure as a goal within marriage, the Protestant conception of sexuality wasfundamentally different from monasticism. The Protestants did not believe women to be any more evilthan men, chastity was no longer required for moral purity, and a married woman could have sexualrelations with her husband without either of them damning themselves.Protestants ended the virgin/whore dichotomy for women, and instead emphasized the familialresponsibilities of women to be good mothers. Protestants glorified women as mothers, and in doing sodistinguished the nuclear family from its more polymorphous origins, and made the nuclear family therigid building block of their society. Divorce became next to impossible to attain, and both men and3132women were to put their responsibilities to their marriage foremost. [ Hamilton, p. 54 I The medievalCatholic conception of divorce included annulment, in which the marriage was ruled invalid, andrepudiation, which did not end the marriage but allowed the partners to live apart. Both methods hadallowed a certain flexibility in ending dead marriages, a flexibility which ended during the Reformation:The Protestants were very concerned with stable, non-adulterous, life-long marriages...The Protestants had made getting out of a marriage impossible except on grounds ofadultery. While the Catholic Church had not sanctioned divorce it had evolved aconsiderable range of 'evasions, fictions and loopholes.' These according to O.R.McGregor, 'had served to make the medieval system tolerable in practice.' Powell hasgone further'so tangled was the causality respecting marriage, at the beginning of thesixteenth century, that it might be said that for a sufficient consideration, a canonicalflaw might be found in almost any marriage.' The Protestants abolished all these popishremnants: adultery became the only way out of a marriage. [ Hamilton, 1978, p. 63This end to discretion in divorce (2) cemented a woman's identity with that of her role of wife to herhusband and mother to her kids. Women were no longer evil and were spiritual equals of men, but theywere defined by their familial responsibilities, a situation not particularly congruous with theestablishment of autonomous individualism that was arising for men.It is probably not often considered that the Reformation robbed women of a major choice andfreedom in their lives; the freedom to reject the role of being a wife. In Catholic areas of Europe, womenwho did not wish to endure physical abuse from husbands and to bear children until they agedprematurely or died in childbirth, often joined the Church as nuns. Abbeys and nunneries gave women theopportunity to be educated, to be free of physical violence, and to not have to serve and clean up aftermen. During the Middle Ages rich women made generous grants to nunneries, and then retired to them insafety if they choose. The Reformation's closure of nunneries in large areas of Europe ended this choicefor many women who would have taken it. With no avenue of escape left, with no choice, nearly allwomen out of economic necessity had to enter marriage even if they did not particularly want to. Somewomen could enter their sister's household and live as a part of another family, but the Reformation hadclosed a major freedom of women's lives. Women from idealistic pressures in the Protestant churches andfrom economic necessity, were to be identified not as separate individuals, but solely as mothers.3233Women probably benefited more from the turbulence within the Reformation than the actualoutcome once the situation had stabilized:The sixteenth century marks the transition from medieval to modern world, and theReformation era encompasses this period of transit with its mix of both worlds. We havealready seen that in the localized, decentralized society of the feudal Middle Ages,women had greater opportunities within the family and community... The ensuingdisplacement of women was not necessarily a result of the Reformation. What does seemsignificant about the Reformation era, specifically, is that it was a period of upheavalthat allowed -as do all such periods in history -women's roles to be less sharply definedor to be defined under the rubric of religious or political action... In either case, whathad been an open-ended situation for women became one of increasing rigidity. Theupheaval was followed by a time of retrenchment, when the progressive elements fromthe standpoint of women's possibilities were expunged from these movements. Oneexample of this conservative reaction regarded divorce. During the early Reformation,progressives had wished to grant divorce for adultery, desertion, continued absence, andeven extreme incompatibility. By the end of the century, the rule in England was toallow remarriage only by a special act of Parliament for each case. What theReformation era witnessed was the changing delineation of women's roles. As thisperiod drew to a close, women's roles became defined increasingly by sex -to thedetriment of all women -rather than by class. [ Bridenthal, 1977, p. 187 ]The Reformation left women more excluded than before from positions of theological power. The biblicalban against women speaking in public, inspired by the writings of the Apostle Paul, remained in force andin male prejudice well into the nineteenth century. [ Donovan, 1990, p.14 J The Reformation did open upfuture possibilities for women, in finally granting them equal freedom of conscience with men but itshould be noted that during the Reformation period the traditional freedoms for women ended as new oneswere conceived.In Protestant countries the Reformation is usually taught as a great emancipation for freedom ofthought and spiritual equality. The great intellectual thinkers of the Reformation were little lesschauvinistic and misogynistic than the Catholic theologians who had preceded them. Martin Luthertaught that women had a greater share of original sin than men [ Carmody, p. 175 J though he did seewomen as having more potential for spiritual improvement than men. As I have stated in the previouschapter, the doctrine of original sin is an institution of social control to subordinate and humiliate allwomen as a group, declaring that they are all the same and that they all should be punished. MartinLuther was adamant that women should be bound to the home as mothers and wives. He states:3334"The rule remains with the husband, and the wife is compelled to obey him by God'scommand. He rules the home and the state, wages war, defends his possessions, tills thesoil, builds, plants, etc. The woman on the other hand is like a nail driven into the wall.She sits at home... Just as the snail carries its house with it, so the wife should stay athome and look after the affairs of the household, as one who has been deprived of theduty of administering those affairs that are outside and that concern the state. She doesnot go beyond her most personal duties." [ Carmody, p. 175 ISuch a position, confining women to the household, would have been absurd in the high Middle Ageswhen women had greater leadership opportunities, and did not even reflect the reality of Luther's erawhen most women were still involved in hard physical labour. Because the thinkers of the Reformationtook the Bible as the only sure knowledge of God's will, they had more in conunon with the most stridentreligious fundamentalists of today and the ancient Hebrew patriarchs, than with any philosophy ofequality. Luther tried to soften his position by saying that women, perhaps because they were inferior tomen, had the greatest potential for improvements in virtue, if they guarded their chastity and obeyed men.[ McCann, p. 297, 1983 ]The Reformation cannot go down as an era which benefited both men and women. More thananything else, the Reformation was a time of the redefinition of the proper gender roles for both sexes.Sexual intercourse became no longer a sin, no longer being something that could lure men to their doomin the arms of the devil's collaborator. However, this sexual revolution had a double standard. TheReformation freed men up to enjoy sexual relations with women, a holy man or religious leader no longerhad to be celibate. However, a woman could no longer be celibate, and the social forces to ensure chastityand reduce celibacy in women increased in this period. Men could now enjoy sex, and women more thanever would have to obey them in their will. John Calvin insisted on women's obedience to men, and theirconfinement to the newly emerging private sphere of the isolated household. Calvin went as far as to saythat it was just that only female adulterers should be stoned because it was a greater sin on their part, andthat women who left home for work or adventure, would deserve being raped if it happened to them. [Carmody, p. 176] The influential puritan John Milton saw women's insubordination to their husbands asworse than adultery, and only supported the legalization of divorce only as an option for the husband. ICarmody, p.178 I Again like previous theorists, Milton saw man as created for God, and woman for man.3435On a personal observation, the Reformation reminds me somewhat of the sexual revolution of the 1960s,in which many young men used the new ideology to demand sex from women while depriving themleadership roles in their revolutionary organizations and still calling women 'cunts.' [ Firestone, 1970 1The Reformation allowed each man, in Luther's terms, to be his own priest. Man was raised towards God,and women were kept nailed to the ground, men would remain their religious leaders.The Roman Catholic Church was also heavily influenced by the Reformation in its attitudes tothe importance of the nuclear family and women's necessary subservience in it. The Reformation hadchanged the roles for women and the family in both Catholic as well as Protestant parts of Europe.Divorce in most Catholic countries moved out of the jurisdiction of secular law to the Church's control,and loopholes for divorce were eliminated to make divorce even more impossible to obtain. [ Vuuren, p.50, 1973 1 However, the Reformation seemed to have stimulated interest in reading the Bible in all partsof Europe, and this facilitated an increase for education for women, though usually at a lower level thanfor men.Many of the changes of the Reformation occurred out of the direct self-interest of men. KingHenry VIII started the Church of England just to get a legitimate male heir. Monasteries and nunnerieswere closed down and the land was sold off for his personal profit. In subsequent centuries in England,divorce was generally reserved for men, and Parliament's Divorce Bills were passed to facilitate thesuccession of male heirs in male aristocratic families [ O'Faolain, p. 319] Many European leaders andrebels adopted Protestantism as part of nationalism with the Protestant Dutch fighting off their Spanishoverlords for independence. Protestants often accused Catholics of being spies, obedient to their master inRome. The liberalization of sex within marriage directly benefited men. Women were forced to be moresubmissive to their husbands at the same time men's recognition of women's own sexual needs ended.Previously, there had been a Catholic tradition that a man was obligated to serve his wife's sexual needs,but with the strange link of sex and evil, when the Reformation ended women's identification with evil, italso gradually ended men's recognition of women's sexual pleasure.3536The Reformation and the liberalization of religion did not happen necessarily as just the spark ofLuther's idea. Luther certainly was the leader of the Reformation, and he was responsible for both itsdirection and its failure to catch on in most of Germany after he sided with the princes during therebellion of the peasants, yet I suspect other less visible factors were at work. The Catholic Church hadbeen in decay and decadence for a long period, and the invention of the printing press laid open thepossibility of quickly disseminating social criticism and printing copies of the Bible in the commonlanguages. The greater power and organization of the state and the increased wealth of the growingmiddle classes from mercantile capitalism laid the ground for a confrontation against the Roman CatholicChurch. As people turned their attention to the market they had to take greater responsibility for theiractions, relying less upon tradition to tell them what to produce and how much to sell it for. Themerchants and weavers who were not guild members and who thus participated directly in the free-markethad less loyalty to the Catholic Church than members of the traditional classes. 1 Vuuren, p.40, 1973 1The medieval Catholic Church had fought to set prices, tithes, and to ban interest on loans, and so it waslikely that the families of the growing middle-classes would find themselves less committed to theCatholic Church than in the past. Theological disputes were certainly nothing new, the Roman CatholicChurch had fought the Eastern Orthodox Church, heretical sects, and popes in Rome had fought anti-popes in Avignon. However, the Reformation succeeded because the new religious ideas were bound to thegrowing economic power and needs of a rising class. The Catholic Church successfully dominated thefeudal arena, and was always able to force recalcitrant princes and peasants into obedience, but theChurch adapted too slowly to nationalism and capitalism, losing large numbers of supporters before itconsolidated its position. However, the Reformation remained a theological dispute between mendiscussing mankind's proper relationship to God and women, and women remained largely without avoice to protest their own subordination.Footnotes1) Still it was difficult to be a free-thinker after the Reformation. Calvinist Geneva is sometimesromanticized as an idyllic society, but they would burn atheists. Roman Catholics certainly did not have a3637monopoly on religious bigotry and intolerance. Likewise, people in Colonial America in the seventeenthand eighteenth century were intolerant of Shakers and Catholics, and women who wished to debatetheology even in the privacy of their own home.2) However, the emphasis that the Reformation placed on the spiritual foundation of marriage laid thefoundation for new provisions of divorce. If marriage was a holy spiritual relationship that had to be basedon mutual affection, then the death of that affection would eventually become sufficient grounds fordivorce in later centuries. So, it is possible to take a position on either side of the question whether theReformation made divorce more possible. I would say that it eventually changed the type of groundsnecessary for divorce, from only functional grounds such as consanguine, leprosy, adultery, impotence,idolatry, to include emotional reasons. However, the immediate effect of the Reformation was to cementthe family together, and to make divorce and separation (something that occurs frequently throughouthistory yet does not get much scholarly attention) less likely. The great legalization of divorce inProtestant countries largely occurred not in the sixteenth century but in the twentieth and so it would besimplistic to credit it solely to Protestantism.3738Chapter Four: The Scientific RevolutionParadoxically, the uniformity of scientific thought with its drive to establish consensus onsingular scientific truth and fact, had a liberating effect for the individual. Science assumes that with logiceverybody is capable of making the right conclusions from the available data. I call this belief thatknowledge is reachable by anyone through proper observation and experimentation, "ontologicalequality." Scientific truths remain constant for everyone. Though the interpretation of facts may differ andhypothetical constructs may be challenged, scientists in any place in the world, regardless of their race orsex, can come to the same conclusion. A practical scientific consensus generally emerges, such as that theEarth is round, which then challenges beliefs in tradition and superstition. The perceived worth of magicand religion become weakened, and critical thinking intensifies. This is a profound liberating effect forthe individual, and this Scientific Revolution directly facilitated the French Enlightenment and laterschools of radical philosophy including modern feminism. Faith in traditional authority is weakened, andthe fact that things were done one way in the past becomes no longer in itself a significant reason tocontinue the same behavior if new alternatives seem promising.Superstition, including magic and religion, are incompatible with individual autonomy.Superstition brings a great coercive effect into every day living, usually in the form of a long list of thingspeople must not do or to risk supernatural wrath beyond their comprehension. Superstition robs people oftheir natural inclination and ability to make decisions, and robs them of self-responsibility. Traditionally,people who believe in the supernatural would blame the supernatural for what befell them, instead ofthemselves or the people around them, when applicable. Thus ending superstition drops the blinkerswhich prevents people from seeing true cause and effect. People then become empowered as trueindividuals. Morality ceases to be a reified constant handed to humanity by a forbidding God, but anevolving consensus reached between human beings. Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were both quiteinterested in this part of modern life. DurIcheim studied the rise of secular morality, and Weber coiningthe term 'disenchantment of the world' to describe how people were losing their feelings of supernaturalwonder and mysticism. The end of magic frees people to a level of equality, no longer does one person in3839a tribe or community claim the mantle of the prophet to the supernatural to order other people about. Nolonger do ordinary people need shamans or priests to tell them right and wrong, to reassure them, and toserve as a bridge between humanity and the supernatural. This is highly similar to how in the ReformationLuther declared each man to be his own priest: ending the supernatural allows each person to belong tothemselves and to have no obligation to other people because of the perceived will of the supernatural.The Scientific Revolution made secularization and atheism possible. No longer did knowledgehave to be taken on faith. All social life and institutions no longer needed to be built to follow the assumedwill of God, but could now be justified in their own terms. Emile Durkheim praised this development ofrationalism:Rationalism is only one of the aspects of individualism: it is the intellectual aspect of it.We are not dealing here with two different states of mind; each is the converse of theother. When one feels the need of liberating individual thought, it is because in ageneral way one feels the need of liberating the individual. Intellectual servitude is onlyone of the servitudes that individualism combats. All developments of individualism hasthe effect of opening moral consciousness to new ideas and rendering it moredemanding. Mestrovic, 1988, 139As science begot secularization which in turn begot a loss of traditional morality, it made progressivedevelopments of this new modern morality possible. The Scientific Revolution created both a higherstandard of living, and gave hope to subsequent generations of social critics in the Enlightenment andbeyond that reason, logic, and observation could create a better basis for society than tradition and custom.Though science liberates the individual by ending the often violently coercive effect of traditionalmoral institutions such as religion, unfortunately the practice of science requires specialization which isbeyond most people. Because only a small proportion of any society can be scientists, a scientific eliteemerges, and as before when we discussed the Roman Catholic Church, any elite can become corruptedand warped through homosociality and its own material interests. If certain groups are excluded from thepractice of science, there is no one to defend their interests within the scientific institutions. As all theearly scientists in the 17th and 18th centuries were men, this facilitated a certain misogyny and sexism tobecome incorporated directly into the fundamental assumptions of basic science and perceived "objective3940knowledge" of the Scientific Revolution. Women were generally perceived as sexual creatures andresearch objects, because that was usually how the male researchers interacted with them, and theydiscussed their work with only their fellow male scientists.Science is the study of cause and effect with the principle of exacting measurements to yieldtestable and disprovable theories about the world around us. Science espouses the free flow of informationwithout restriction on the subjects explored. However, there is a great difference between science and theScientific Revolution. Strictly speaking, the Scientific Revolution was a historical period in which menrejected faith and theology's role in explaining the natural world, and instead uplifted and highly valuedrationality, calculation, universality, abstraction, and scientific objectivity. Men like Newton and Gallileowere geniuses who sought to mathematize and quantify the relationships of nature around them. However,nearly all scientists, until recent decades, believed that neither the interests of the scientist nor his class,sex, or racial background, could affect the data and their results. This may have distorted scientificprogress because scientific research until this last generation was almost exclusively done by men, (exceptfor a few women like Madam Curie), and these men were usually white and from middle-classbackgrounds with middle-class interests. However, as science raised certain values, other values had tofall. The Scientific Revolution devalued emotion and intuition, and argued vehemently that nothingshould stand in the way of scientific progress. Science became an end to itself, and paradoxically, its valueof value-free research was imposed on the world.The Scientific Revolution propped open the door to freedom of knowledge that had beenunlocked by the Reformation, but the costs of the scientific paradigm have been felt in general more bywomen than by men. The witch-craze may have been linked with the rise of science [ Donovan, 1990,p.29 1, women's sexuality has been a favourite topic for investigation by male scientific researchers, andthe origins of the professions of both psychiatry and gynecology lie in the domination of deviant women toget them to conform to roles constructed for them by men. [ Daly, 1978 J & [ Abbot, 1990, 106-107 1.Science is not value neutral. The Scientific Revolution was built on many assumptions, such as4041that truth is solid fact that can be deduced through reason and observation, that science is capable ofexplaining everything eventually, the universe is run rationally and mechanically like a giant clock, andnot the least, there is an implicit assumption that those who practice science, traditionally men, aresomehow better, more rational, wiser, and more responsible, than those who do not, especially women:The rise of the mechanistic world view went hand in hand with dramatic changes in thenature-as-female metaphor. Where once nature had been seen as living, as the mother ofcreation, by 1700 the metaphor had changed to one of dominion and enslavement. It hasbeen pointed out that this metaphor carried often aggressively sexual overtones,implications that female nature needed to be subject to rape-like force, to enable men(sic) to tear her secrets from her. Discussions of the sexual metaphor commonly makereference to the writings of Francis Bacon, sometimes called the 'father of modernscience.' In his perhaps aptly-named The Masculine Birth of Time Bacon wrote of theneed for the human mind to conquer nature by gaining knowledge about her: 'I am comein very truth leading to you Nature with all her children to bind her to your service andmake her your slave.' Bacon appealed to all 'true sons of knowledge' to 'penetratefurther,' and thus find the way into her 'inner chambers,' Female nature was, in the faceof such masculine prowess, coyly submissive. [ Birke, p. 115 1The Scientific Revolution degraded the knowledge of women and the wisdom from their experiences. Themedical knowledge of women healers when not labeled witchcraft, was gradually replaced by licencedmale doctors who often did more harm than good in assisting in and demanding total control inchildbirth. [ Abbott, 1990, p.115 j Knowledge was seen as an exclusively masculine domain, and womenwere often the subject matter.The association of women with nature cannot, however, be accepted uncritically. For,nature does not take on the personal qualities of a living woman in the scientific view;rather both nature and women take on the qualities of an Other to the rational 1, themale subject. They become an It, profane, something to be controlled and manipulatedto run as the physical cosmos does in the Newtonian hypothesis -that is, rationally. Theimpulse in the scientific view is to impose rational order on all that is alive,unpredictable, and therefore non-rational." [ Donovan, p.29-30 1Ironically this ability to control unpredictable nature would have to depend on pre-existing predictablelaws within nature. But it would seem reasonable to speculate that the Scientific Revolution's denigrationof women's knowledge by the presumption that only acceptable paradigm was that of masculine science,also facilitated male control over the construction through social discourse the knowledge of proper rolesfor women and the definition of proper femininity.4142Initially, only scientists in particular and men in general were seen as sharers of intrinsic andinfallible logic leading definite truths through what can be called, 'ontological equality.' Women andmembers of visible minorities were seen as incapable of conducting proper science though they would beeffected by science's results. Science certainly benefited many women as well as men, but the diverseelements within the Scientific Revolution itself were not value-neutral, and sometimes prevented menfrom seeing women as their equals and as individuals. The Scientific Revolution replaced metaphysicalfaith with an unquestioning faith in science as a reified God, with logic as something that wassimultaneously unified and autonomous to human beings and inside them (men) as well. To questionscience became unthinkable, yet science quickly became a shield for many different personal, economic,and political interests. Science became the new ideology and the main force for the social legitimation ofthe new status quo, with 'scientific knowledge' used to justify the oppression of women (sexism), Negroesand Asians, (racism and eugenics) and men's domination of other animals (vivisection). This is not to saythat science as the study of empirical cause and effect is wrong, but that 'scientific knowledge' cansometimes be used to mean whatever the people who can make it official knowledge want it to mean. AsWeber pointed out in his lectures on the sociology of science, as science rises in esteem, there is a certaintendency to confuse scientist's technical expertise with moral and social insight.4243Chapter Five: The Enlightenment and WomenThe philosophy of atomic individualism which possibly originated in the 17th century withThomas Hobbes has been usually associated with French Enlightenment thinkers and English politicaleconomists of the late 18th century, who sought, unlike Hobbes, to overthrow or diminish the old feudalorder. Atomic individualism saw people as having few bonds to each other, but with the people themselvesrelatively interchangeable. In essence, there would be only one type of person, the rational, free-bornindividual who made contracts with other people only for self-profit and self-security. Other individualswere to be kept at an arm's length, so to speak, the moral influence of others distrusted, and all interactionwas to be in theory, calculated in advance by this new political and economic man. This negative freedom,as calculated by the lack of obligations and restraints, was seen as the only rightful goal. In any case theworld in this new political philosophy was a lonely world, with tradition and emotion disdained, and atremendous gulf between individual on one hand and the society and state on the other. In thephilosophies of both Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacque Rousseau, whose theories were otherwise quitedifferent, the individual came first, and society came afterwards as only the creation of these individualcontracts. It was Rousseau's liberalist interpretation of the social contract that would become the center ofthe Enlightenment philosophies debated in the new Parisienne salon society. Rousseau declared there wasno greater sin than for one man to be subservient to another, and that all people had inalienable and equalrights. However inspiring and egalitarian this seemed to people at the time, this social vision was onemore of fraternity between men than true equality between both men and women. The Enlightenmentphilosophers were interested in moving the world and displacing the nobility and other feudal classes, andmost of them saw the increased subordination and confinement of women as the method to reach this newequality between men.The Enlightenment of the 18th century drew its inspiration from the Scientific Revolution of the17th century, and drew the power of its voice from the printing press and the rising power of thebourgeoisie, restless as the new class chaffed against the restrictions of feudalism. Newton (1687),Galileo, Descartes, and Kepler had rejected faith's role in explanation and instead tried to explain4344existence and nature from empiricial fact and reason. In the eighteenth century, writers like Diderot,Condorcet, Voltaire, Thomas, and Rousseau searched for laws similar to scientific principles to describeand explain human behavior, and to describe the ideal human society to free mankind from oppression.The Enlightenment was built on several assumptions: All men had the faculties to use reason, a positivefreedom-loving human nature is intrinsic within all men --Rousseau's famous "Man is born free buteverywhere he is in chains," no man had an intrinsic right to oppress another, that reason and rationalitywould set mankind free, and that truth was unified and objective and could be discovered by men throughreason and empirical observation. The Enlightenment was an emancipatory project to free mankind fromsuperstition, irrationality, and feudalism. The Enlightenment culminated in the French Revolution's TheRights of Man of 1789 and the slogan "Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity." A brotherhood of man washoped to be established with all men equal, without coercion, with every man free to do what he pleasedwithout feudal or church restriction, to the betterment of all. [ Simmel, 1950, p.437]Unfortunately, when most writers of the Enlightenment used "he", "man," and "mankind," theyusually meant males and were not referring to both men and women. The new concept of atomicindividualism of the Enlightenment, with its view that most restrictions should be ended to give mankindwhat can be called pure negative freedom, rested on the assumption that man, and not woman, werepurely rational."It rapidly became clear that the men who had resolutely claimed individualism forthemselves had no intention of including large segments of humanity in the definition ofindividual. Women, children, slaves and frequently men of insufficient property werenot taken to be individuals at all -certainly not self-accountable members of the polity. [Fox, 1991, p.122 IIn effect, the inspiring Enlightenment's concept of the noble man who should be liberated to his truenature, rested on the groaning backs of women. The Enlightenment with the rights of the American andFrench Revolutions, (1) may have freed man, but the status of women took a distinct step backwards onceall the tumult had ended."Initially, few even considered that the political discourse of individualism should applyto women at all. In the heat of the French Revolution, some women, most notably MaryWollstonecraft in her pioneering A VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN,4445and even some men, made the case for the rights of woman. Those precocious claimswere soon repudiated, primarily by men who viewed either the liberty or the equality ofwomen as an unacceptable threat to the stability of families -and to the psyches of menwhose autonomy depended upon unquestioning female support. By the end of the FrenchRevolution, women in France, Britain, and the United States found themselves, ifanything, more firmly and universally excluded from the political realm than they hadbeen before it. [ Fox, p.123, 1991 1However, the discourse of the Enlightenment provided the vocabulary of intrinsic rights and equality thatliberal feminists would use to great effect in the following centuries.If the Enlightenment sought on one hand to free mankind to be free unrestrained individuals,then on the other it sought to keep women pregnant, lactating, (2) deprived of a scientific education, andsubmissive. The public and private sphere dichotomy achieved full maturation at about this time. Thoughmost Frenchmen at this time were very poor and lived in rural areas, there was growing social concern,especially by the influential writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau, over the apparently idle wives of the rich whoeither were sensuous and decadent, or were moving into male circles and interested in debate and politics.[ Eisenstein, p. 58, 1981 (Rousseau's disdain for the politically active woman was heavily ironicconsidering that Parisienne women provided him with hospitality and the Enlightenment grew asdiscussions made in their salons.) Rousseau, Robespierre, and Napoleon all wanted to ensure the stabilityof society, that is the commitment of men to the new order, by keeping women out of the public sphere,keeping them obedient to their husbands, and by tying them to a single and fixed social role as submissivemothers which would keep them from developing their individuality. [ Bridenthal & Koonz, pages 249 &253, 1977] The concept of motherhood as a career, a calling, an occupation, and a necessity for mankind,which did not exist in the Middle Ages, [ Abbott, 1990, p.89 1 was glorified by Enlightenment men asthey tried to confine women within its prison."No more than individualism did the ideology of domesticity, true womanhood, andseparate spheres emerge fully formed at one moment in time. Beginning in the lateseventeenth century and at an accelerating pace throughout the eighteenth, Europeanand American culture, following the British lead, had been discovering the virtues ofsubmissive womanhood and engaging in a substantive reworking of the prevailingnotion of woman. During the Enlightenment, as Ruth Salvaggio has suggested, womenwere not so much excluded from culture as "the very idea of woman became a metaphorand figure of the essence of exclusion -of not being, of absence.' But also during thistransformation, and in a surprisingly brief span of time, women who had been longviewed as especially evil, began to be depicted as especially good. The new vision above4546all emphasized women's identities as dependent upon their specific relations with menwithin families: their roles as mothers, wives, daughters. Of the three roles, many maletheorists unquestionably preferred that of mother, with its opportunities for minimizingfemale sexuality and for viewing women as primarily devoted to the nurture of men. Ineffect, the eighteenth century invented the modern concept of motherhood. There wereprecedents, but only in the eighteenth century did the ideal of motherhood crystallize aswoman's highest mission -as her distinct career. [ Fox, 1991, 124 J...The new concept of motherhood confirmed the new centrality of the individual,although not by endowing mothers with individualism. The purpose of motherhood was,rather, to nurture the individual. Literally, good mothers nursed their own children.Figuratively, they nurtured them.... The ideology of motherhood that would rapidlydevelop into a full blown ideology of bourgeois domesticity appeared to offer an idealsolution to the problem of women's place in the brave new world of individualism. [ Fox,125]There is nothing wrong with motherhood just as there is nothing wrong with fatherhood. In any freesociety a mother might decide to stay home and take care of her own children, but she will be robbed ofher individuality and restricted in her ambition if the choice is made for her against her will. Turningwomen into a submissive wife and a slave to a man's children, prevents her from being an individual. Thechild of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, gave sons independence of their fathers at age twenty-one [ Bottomore & Nisbet, p.87, 1978 1 but kept women as legal minors.How the concepts of natural rights and the equality of mankind could lead to sexism, chauvinism,and misogyny, may need some explanation. Rousseau himself in The Social Contract, described how menand women in his hypothetical state of nature were totally equal and independent of each other. However,it was the paradigm of logic the Enlightenment thinkers used, as well as the previous loss of skill statusfor women workers in the rise of mercantile capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, which caused men'sdevaluation of women. As less work for exchange was done in the home, as men's work was removedfrom the home just as married women remained tied to the home and assumed sole responsibility forraising children, male writers and scientists had adopted a mechanical paradigm of the universe whichneglected to explain emotions and the nonrational. Everything that could not be explained by laws andscientific observation, (or was not work done by men) became Other, less than real and not significant,and the domestic sphere and women fell into this category. [ Donovan, 1990, p.3 J Women's perceivedemotionality, as being sexual, irrational, religious, and instinctually nurturing creatures, was distrusted,4647and the philosophers based their emancipatory project on abstract logic instead which did not deal withthe concerns or perspectives of women.Though there were individual exceptions to this sexism such as Condorcet and Olympe deGouges who both died prematurely in the course of the French Revolution because of their liberal beliefs,most of the Enlightenment thinkers were patriarchal and intrinsically sexist with their social criticism.Even John Locke (1632-1704) an English liberal who espoused a laissez-faire world and a renunciation ofthe Divine Right of kings because it was patriarchal and denied that it was God's will that women bedominated by man, [ Eisenstein, p. 30-40, 1981 1 was still convinced that women ought to obey men as isdemonstrated in his following statement:"The natural differences between the sexes, however, override any presupposition of anequal right to autonomy for men and woman. Here and only here a natural differencecreates a justified domination of one person by another." I Sydie, 1987, p. 2 1The most influential of the Enlightenment thinkers was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and he was also the onemost convinced that women were inferior to men, and that being defined by their sex and not their reason,he believed that they were less individualistic than men were."...Rousseau's individualism for men is rooted in a patriarchal and, hence, dependentexistence for women; that the promise of independence and equality for man requiresthe subordination of woman. In trying to deny woman her 'natural' power, Rousseaurenders her powerless. In trying to strengthen man, he seeks to weaken woman." IEisenstein, p. 56, 1981"Rousseau: The consequences of sex are wholly unlike for man and women. The male isonly a male now and again, the female is always a female, or at least all her youth;everything reminds her of her sex; the performance of her functions requires a specialconstitution. She needs care during pregnancy and freedom from work when her child isborn; she must have a quiet, easy life while she nurses her children... [ Eisenstein, p. 67,1981 JRousseau's idea of the good society depended on the suppression and coercion of women. He felt thatwomen should only be educated to please their husbands, and that the moral fabric of society depended onkeeping them in the newly-created private sphere (which at this point in time was still small as only asmall minority of women could afford to concentrate only on childrearing) and to keep them out ofparticipation in politics and business in the public sphere:4748"Female shyness and modesty stem from nature: woman was designed, said Rousseau,'so that she would submit to men.' Rousseau not only believed women to be naturallyinferior and submissive but also put great emphasis on the notion that the sexes shouldbe separated. ...Rousseau believed that it was inappropriate for women to share andparticipate in society outside the home. 'If she is married, what business has she amongmen?' he asked, and if she is single, 'why does she run the risk, by her indecentdeportment, of shocking the man who would be inclined to make her his wife'?'Rousseau believed that women had no ability to contribute to the art and work ofcivilization, apart from the domestic roles. [ Bridenthal, p. 225, 1977 IThe male philosophers of the Enlightenment as they rebelled against superstition and feudalism,were generally unanimous that the subservience of women, the oppression of women, would be needed fortheir envisioned good society in which all men would be free. Few of the philosophers considered theirown work on man's emancipation applicable to women, and neither did they consider women capable ofhaving something worthwhile to say about philosophy. Likewise, when the philosophers of theconservative bacIdash criticized the liberal Enlightenment they did agree that the subordination of womenwas necessary for stable society. Louis de Bonald thought that the idea of natural rights was preposterousfor society was built on the duties of the individual to society, and in particular the family and RomanCatholic Church. He wished for the father to have absolute control over all of his children andgrandchildren until his death. [ Nisbet, p.96, 1978 1 Most of the French conservatives of the Counter -Enlightenment like Bonald and Joseph de Maistre sought to re-establish the power of the (male) pope andthe male head of the family to end the disease of individualism. But as their solution was to confinewomen to the family and appointed, nonelected, male authority, from women's point of view, the Counter-Enlightenment and the Enlightenment must have been experienced as very similar.There were many conservative and reactionary thinkers in the 19th century who did notnecessarily believe that society needed to be built upon Roman Catholicism yet who still believed thatwomen lacked the true rational mental faculties to be considered real human beings. Arthur Schopcnhauersaid that woman"is in every respect backward, lacking in reason and reflection, a kind of middle stepbetween the child and the man, WHO IS THE TRUE HUMAN BEING... In the lastresort, women exist solely for the propagation of the race." [ Miles, 1982, p.149 ]Georg Hegel stated:4849"The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants; mencorrespond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development ismore placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. Whenwomen hold the helm of government the State is at once in jeopardy..." [ Miles, p. 150 1The 'father' of sociology, Auguste Comte, also embodied the sexism of his time and set sociology off on asexist start, seeing women as not genuinely human and fit only to serve men:"It is in order to better develop her moral superiority that woman must gratefully acceptthe rightful practical domination of man... First as a mother, and soon as a sister, thenabove all as a wife, and finally as a daughter, marginally as a maidservant, in these fournatural roles woman is destined to preserve man from the corruption inherent in hispractical and theoretical existence." [ Miles, 1982, p. 151 ]These comments illustrate the linking of women with motherhood that was typical of both theEnlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment. The philosophers of the era were nearly unanimous thatwomen existed to propagate the race, were objects of reproduction, and that they did not have the criticaland rational faculties of men. These opinions were challenged, first by Olympe de Gouge in the FrenchRevolution, who was beheaded for her opinions, then by Mary Wollstonecraft, and then later in thenineteenth century by Sarah Grimke, Frances Wright, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill.The Enlightenment thinkers chorused together to demand that women stay in the home,concentrate on being good mothers, and leave real and important matters to men. Sometimes theirthoughts verged on sexual apartheid:"Thus, Desmahis, and later Rousseau and Holbach held up for emulation the values ofclassical Athens... They were well aware of the fact that the life experience of the lady inclassical Athens was profoundly different from that of her spouse. Enlightenmentthinkers who praised the Athenians sincerely believed that men and women should leadseparate and unequal lives. Alongside the argument for female equality, based onnatural law, there existed a second, even stronger trend in Enlightenment thought,which stressed the sexual differences and the appropriateness of an exclusively domesticrole for women. [ Bridenthal, 1977, p. 223, ]It does not matter so much what individual men thought women should do as what occurred inthe actual practice of daily life, and the lack of praxis for women. The sexist social criticisms of theEnlightenment were influential and detrimental on the future status of women because they successfullydefined the desired social role for women of the emerging classes. Bourgeoisie men wished to keep their4950women as career housewives, and men who aspired to the status of the bourgeois later did the same assoon as the Industrial Revolution had progressed enough in the late nineteenth century to allow them todeny their wives paid employment. However, the liberal ideology of the Enlightenment, that truth could beachieved through reason and observation, proved to be a double-edged sword, and many feminists such asMary Wollstonecraft, Sarah Grimke, Elizabeth Stanton, and Harriet Taylor made convincing argumentsfor women's education, suffrage, and participation in skilled work in the public sphere. But the sexistheritage of the Enlightenment has lingered on into the twentieth century in 'conservative' and 'traditional'values which links women's primary responsibility to the domestic sphere of childraising and caring forthe home.The liberal ideology of individual autonomy, and intrinsic individual rights, though it helpedwomen's emancipation when women finally won recognition as persons in the twentieth century, may alsohave hindered the improvement of the status of women somewhat. In upholding individual rights overcollective rights men kept their right to discriminate against women who depending on the time period.may not be even recognized by law as individual persons themselves. Also, by safeguarding the right toprivacy, the liberal ideology in (to paraphrase P. E. Trudeau) 'keeping the state out of the bedrooms Of thisnation' has usually prevented much from being done in combating wife rape, wife battering, andpornography. The justice system, because it is built on the liberal paradigm of autonomous individuals andassumptions that 1) individuals have the right to do everything that is not specifically prohibited, and 2)only behavior that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to hurt another person, (except betweenhusband and wife), is criminal, slows progress in dealing with women's oppression. I Fox, p.39, 1991 IThus, it may be misguided to retain the Enlightenment's notion that individuals are necessarilyautonomous, because the life experiences and status of women is bound up in their relations with othermen and women. With women having the main responsibility for childcare, women tend to (but notnecessarily) experience more inter-relatedness in their relationships with other people, and see the goal oftheir lives as not independence but as interdependence. Autonomous or atomic individualism may rest onthe oppression of women, or at least facilitate it, [Fox. p. 66 I and so perhaps a more community-oriented5051paradigm of individualism would be better in perceiving the differences in experiences between men andwomen. [ Fox, 1991, p.38The Enlightenment must be seen as more than a rejection of superstition and feudalism, but alsoas an embrace of new values to deal with a changing world. These values, stressed women's domestic roleand often her exclusion from public affairs Also the new legal and moral system valued abstract laws overemotion, and universal laws over specificity of situation, or surmounted the male model of justice over thefemale, as theorized by psychologist Carol Gilligan I Donovan, 1990, p.168 I. (Gilligan argued that men'smodel of justice deals with hypothetical situations and sees the suffering caused by the enforcement of lawas a necessary price for a universal law, while women are more concerned about negotiations,interdependence, and compromises, and reject universal laws in order to minimize suffering.) Thesefactors combined to make the Enlightenment a different experience for men than it was for women.Women's attainment of recognized (political) and effective (economic) individualism should be seen ashistorically specific and of occurring in different steps than it did for men, with the Enlightenment beingan era of doubtful progress for women at best.Notes1) The Enlightenment climaxed with the French Revolution yet it would be simplistic to equate the two.Certainly, thinkers like Locke, Hume, and Voltaire were not violent revolutionists. In addition, many ofthe changes the French Revolution created were swept back by both Napoleon and following therestoration of the Bourbon monarchy, so I have decided not to focus in on the Revolution but on theEnlightenment as a whole. Because of this, we cannot speak of a linear model of progress or consistentchange. However, the French Revolution did lay the basis for France as a modern state and provided amodel for other countries. The guilds were abolished as was primogeniture, the law that the eldest sonautomatically inherited the whole estate, and the powers of the Roman Catholic Church in France weremuch reduced, the aristocracy lost their hold on lucrative government jobs, and sons gained theirindependence from their fathers at age twenty-one. [ Bottomore & Nisbet, p.88-89, 19782) Interestingly, the Enlightenment also generally ended of the practice of upper class mothers hiring awet-nurse for their children. The Enlightenment thinkers, notably Rousseau, had very firm opinions thatwomen should dedicate themselves to being the best possible mothers, who should nurse their ownchildren.5152Chapter Six: Capitalism and the Industrial RevolutionIndustrial capitalism became the vital engine of modern individualism. Emile Durkhcim sawindustrialization as changing the glue that held society together from mechanical solidarity to organicsolidarity. In pre-industrial eras, there was less differentiation by occupation, and most people did similarwork. Craft specialization did exist, but usually in most villages, the butcher, the baker, and the candle-stick maker, would keep stock animals behind their home and perceived their whole livelihood asdependent on the success of farming in the whole community. There would be a consensus of valuesthroughout the small community. Industrialization involved the specialization of occupation and aseparation between the workplace and the home. The number of professions increased dramatically to anuncountable level. With the rise or organic solidarity, society was held together because of constanteconomic interdependence. The people all held different occupations and different interests (especiallybeliefs about what they should be paid for their work!) but recognized that they would ultimately have toreach agreements with each other though their opposing interests would never be resolved. With thisindustrialization, people in each occupation saw they had something that set them apart from all otherpeople in different jobs. In addition, Durkheim saw that wage labour greatly reduced the power within thefamily unit. The family dependent on a single unbreakable estate or farm diminished in numbers, andmost families became of the type of several economically independent men and their dependents, whowere related to each other. The economic independence of women, however, was problematic, as we shallsee below in this chapter. However, familial authority rapidly diminished as children no longer weredependent on their parent's estate and could instead find jobs in the expanding economy. Durkhcimbelieved that these new ideas of individualism, of a person reducing their bonds to the community andputting their interests before society, were born in the Reformation and Enlightenment and becameessentially the new religion in the era of industrialization. [ Carrithers & Lukes, p.63 JThe bonds of the family over the individual declined. As productive labour left the household andits members worked outside the household, the parents no longer controlled the daily work of theirchildren. The home eventually became a center of consumption rather than production. As now people5253lived and worked in two different places, employers lost both the means and inclination to meddle in thepersonal lives of their employees. 1 Seccombe, p. 234, 1992 When in the Middle Ages, children riskedstarvation if they left their parents' household unless they entered another household, and thus were underthe rule of the head of the family, youths in the age of industrial capitalism sought work outside the home.The powers of the father over their adult children gradually dissipated as proletarianization ended the sizeof the economic classes of the rural farmers and the urban shopkeeper and guild masters. 1 Seccombe, p.243, 1992 With household property, except for the upper classes and the dwindling petite -bourgeois, nolonger productive, the features of marriage as a property transaction declined. I Seccombe, p. 235 1 Also,with the rise of pensions, parents were no longer dependent on their children for support in their old age.However, the benefits of industrialization, urbanization, and proletarianization were distributed unequallybetween the sexes. Women's unpaid domestic labour lost its recognition as real work, and theopportunities for men of getting a wage-job elsewhere, made unmarried women increasingly vulnerablefor getting deserted by their lovers if they pregnant. [ Seccombe, p. 244 1The transition from a subsistence level rural farming economy to an industrial urban economywas gradual and took place over many generations. As small rural farming families lost the ability to feedthemselves as population increased, and as Enclosure Acts drove peasants off their land and preventedfarmers from grazing animals on common areas, a rural proletariat was created. [Macfarlane. 1978 1Women and men, even if their families still owned small plots of land, were obliged to seek wage labouras agricultural workers or to take in work in the 'putting out system' of cottage industries, or to send theirchildren to be servants and apprentices to richer families. Mercantile capitalism gradually eroded the oldfeudal order. Large land-owners in England abandoned their duties to their peasants and drove themaway, to raise sheep and cash crops on land once used for subsistence farming. The human misery causedby these Enclosure Acts reached such a level that Sir Thomas More, the Chancellor of England underKing Henry VIII, deplored the greed of the new generation of landowners in his Utopia. In EasternEurope, peasants remained tied to their land against their will, as late as 1850 in the Germanic kingdomsin Central Europe. However as trade expanded, cities grew, and competition rose, it became impossible for5354any one area to be self-sufficient and ignore the social factors created by the rising forces of the freemarket.Georg Simmel highlighted how the rise of the free market facilitated individualism as individualslooked to the market and not to tradition or to each other for what they were to produce, how they were toproduce, whom they would produce it for, and for what price they would sell it for. [ Simmel, 1984, p. 4 1& [ Simmel, p.439, 1950 J The money economy depersonalized economic relations:"Money is concerned only with what is common to all: it asks for the exchange value, itreduces all quality and individuality to the question: How much? All intimate emotionalrelations between persons are founded in their individuality, whereas in rationalrelations man is reckoned with like a number, like an element which is in itselfindifferent." [ Simmel, p. 439 1The money economy, Sirnmel perceived, created individual autonomy, for anyone's money was as good asanyone else's. Urbanization and monetarization created personal space between people even though itpacked their physical bodies closer together like ball bearings in a box.The "rationalism" of modern capitalism was also a key feature in Max Weber's writings. AsTalcott Parsons states, Weber pointed out that modern capitalism is different from the buying and sellingof previous eras. "What characterizes capitalistic acquisition is rather its 'rationality." [ Parsons, p. 505,1939 ] The market demands a code of personal ethics and self-discipline from the individuals who enter it.People can not produce what they like, how they like, and sell it for what they want. All producers mustfollow the market, and make commodities in the way that the market desires for greatest efficiency, andsell in price and quantity for what the market can bear. People have to calculate and follow the market,and disregard all advice from traditional sources of authority such as the Church and parents, if they wantto succeed. Ultimately, Weber said, this rationality and independence created by the dependence oncalculation, creates the state of pure responsibility of the individual towards himself I Lowith,p.56Industrial capitalism benefited men's attainment of individuality more than it did for women. Dueto their childcaring responsibilities and the threat of male violence, women were often less mobile and lessable to travel far to seek out work. The division between the public and private spheres were created at this5455time, as the household gradually lost its capacity to serve as a workplace for goods to be produced forexchange and later for subsistence and consumption as well. Housework first emerged as a recognizedoccupation for women about 1830 in North America and Western Europe. [ Wilson, 1991, p.49 I Men'sproductive labour left the home never to return and the household ended being a workshop and became a'haven in a heartless world.'Many modernist writers saw the decline of the guilds as beneficial for the economy or for theindividual.(1) Adam Smith was a proponent of task specialization in the division of labour for greaterproductivity. Georg Sinunel in his essay "Individual and Society in Eighteenth and Nineteenth CenturyViews of Life" and "The Metropolis and Mental Life" [ Simmel, (editor Wolff) 1950, p.64 & 448 1 saw theguilds as one of the many restrictions in the eighteenth century on personal freedom and self-development. However, the decline of the guilds definitely handicapped women more than it did men.There were some women-dominated craft guilds like brewing and weaving, and women usually had theirskilled work and business entrepreneurship recognized in most guilds:The Weavers, like other craft guilds, regarded a wife as a trade partner having the rightto succeed to and carry on the business after her husband's death. Widows, in fact, tookover all the rights, privileges, and liabilities of their deceased husbands, for example asto the proper number of looms, journeymen and apprentices. [ Hamilton, p. 32 JWomen survived relatively well the transition as guilds were replaced by home cottage industries as itinitially increased the opportunities for paid employment for women though it began the process ofdeskilling their trade. However, as mass production and heavy mechanization replaced the cottageindustries, the status of women, their employment opportunities, and their remuneration for their wagework, all declined simultaneously:"In medieval Europe, women usually had been admitted to the craft guilds and, as guildmembers, could enter contracts and were responsible for their own debts. The guildswere now in decay, and the newer forms of commercial organizations were almostentirely male dominated. Since men in all trades objected to competition from lower-paid women, it is not surprising that they tried to confine them to the least lucrativework. Throughout this period men were invading trades traditionally exercised bywomen just as they had already ousted them from work such as wholesale brewing.IBridenthal, 1977, p. 203 j5556Women were allowed to work, but only in the unprofessionalized occupations involving manual labour. Adouble-bind was created. Lower class women were thought to be more bestial and thus fit for heavylabour, and could be paid half as much as a man for the same work, and middle class women were thoughtto be fragile and were denied all occupations except being a governess. j Bridenthal, p.203Lower class women were obligated to work to support themselves and their families, yet theylargely were unable to control the value given to their work and have it seen as skilled as that of workdone by men."Apprenticeships were made a universal and compulsory form of job training in Britainin 1563 through an act of parliament... The repeal of the act in 1814 followed aprolonged struggle between organized skilled labour and manufacturing employersseeking a free labour force.. .Men were better organized than women to resist attacks onapprenticeships. In their struggles to maintain their skilled status, their power, and theirwages, the craft unions excluded women workers from training and from unionmembership. This was done not simply because of prejudice, but because women couldbe paid lower wages and used to undermine the union's position. Women were then usedby employers as strikebreakers. The fact that untrained women were used by employersto replace male workers suggests that the skill necessary for work could still be pickedup more casually than through a formal apprenticeship.. .The enforcement ofapprenticeship regulations and the exclusion of women became tactics to preserve theskilled status of jobs under attack. The consequence was that women were pushed intoareas of employment that did not demand an apprenticeship." [ Gaskell, (in Hamilton)1986, p. 368-370,For much of the mid 19th century, women's wages for factory work were below the actual cost ofmaintaining let alone reproducing, their labour power. As Frederick Engels observed in his The Conditionof the Working Class in England, factory managers deliberately kept women's wages below the amount aperson needed to feed and shelter themselves, assuming that a working woman would either stay with herparents or co-inhabit with a man, who would then demand sex in return for shelter. [ O'Faolain, 1973 I Infact, many factory managers, foremen and office managers often demanded sexual intercourse from someof their female employees, which is how the famous New York madam Poly Adler got her start intoprostitution: she preferred straight prostitution to prostituting herself to work at minimum wage IVuuren, 1973 I Lower class working women had no rights within the workforce, yet would be blamed fora host of society's ills, and though forced to work to survive, they would be accused of being improperwomen and bad mothers.5657In the pre-industrial period women and men worked together in the household unit. Thehousehold lost its viability as a centre of production between 1820 and 1860, earlier in the moreindustrialized nations than in the nations that industrialized later. [ Margolis, 1984, p 28 1 Afterindustrialization, middle-class women were excluded from economically productive roles and were leftbehind at home by their husbands each morning as the men went to their factories and offices. It became astatus symbol to have an unproductive wife at home. A woman who devoted her whole life to herfemininity and her sex, that is who did not challenge her husband's success with her own, who spent manyhours grooming herself or indulging in trivialities, made their husbands feel more masculine andimportant by comparison. The image of proper womanhood became an absence of worthwhile productionexcept reproduction and motherhood. Women were to be what real people involved in the real world werenot. The lower-class families experienced industrialization much differently as men, women, and youngchildren engaged in manual work in the factories and mines. Gradually, however, between 1832 and 1844in Britain protective legislation was introduced banning women and children from certain occupationsand from working certain shifts. [ Faulkner, p.153 ] Women thus began to lose some of their worth toemployers in manual labour, even though they continued to be paid significantly less for the same workthan a man. Men gradually secured for themselves the jobs that were seen as most skilled, and womenwere excluded from the new unions when they were formed. Starting in the mid 19th century workingmen demanded a family wage so that they could have the same family unit (including the same powerover dependent wives) as did the bourgeois. [ Abbott, p. 79, 1990 ] Women became to be seen as solelyresponsible for caring for children, and youth crime and infant mortality was blamed on negligent andignorant mothers, especially those who worked. Middle class women intent on social reform set out toteach lower-class.women who to be proper mothers, how to be feminine, and how to be hygienic. I Abbott,p. 79-80, 1990 1The Industrial Revolution did eventually provide an unprecedented level of prosperity for Europeand North America. Those who could afford it could use their new leisure time to develop nonproductiveskills and hobbies that reflected their private inclinations, rather than economic necessity. Men and5758women could chose from a growing number of consumer products, and workers could moved from oneoccupation to another and move freely from one city to another. Urbanization gave people more freedomto choose their friends, employers, employees and mates, and to find entertainment, and also the freedomto ignore other people. [ Simmel, 1950, p.443 ] With a person free to meet and choose to interact withanyone from a large and growing number of people in urban settings, each interaction becomes lessimportant relative to the person's own identity.(2) The consumer market led to self-differentiation byconsumption. Millions of people moved above the level of subsistence and poverty and could leisurely turntheir concern to the more expressive human needs of creativity, self-expression and self-realization.Feudal powers and restrictions had been completely swept away. The employed worker, except in theMarxian definition, was independent and individualistic, that except during the course of the alienatedworkday, they were under few restrictions and had opportunities for leisure, education, and travel thatmost people did not have in previous centuries.However, mature Industrial Capitalism has left Europe and North America in the mid twentiethcentury a legacy with an economy in which men do the vast majority of work that is seen as skilled.Business boardrooms, the military, and government, were left as exclusive domains of males. Womenwere still expected to- consider raising children and caring for their husband as their primary occupationand calling in life. In the 'economic individualism' which was the prevailing ideology, of the rational mancarefully interacting in the marketplace, [ Lukes, p. 1990 1 women were unable to compete. Women werebound with the unpaid work of childraising, and except for some of the lowest paid work in the economy,had to live their participation in the individualism of the free market solely through their fathers andhusbands. The grand theories of political scientists and economists from Thomas Hobbes to MiltonFriedmann, who discussed rational economic man as the liberated individual with no ties to anyone buthimself, left women subsumed under the category of household unit.Footnotes1) Emile Durkheim may have been nearly alone, except for few reactionary thinkers like Louis de Bonald,5859in lamenting the loss of the guilds. Durkheim, like Auguste Comte had been before him, was lessenthusiastic about individualism than many of his contemporaries, and Durkheim was concerned aboutwhat was holding society together. He wished for intermediate forms of social organization such as guildsas a buffer between individual and state.2) "Sociologists should be reminded of this point by the economic theory of public goods. One may onlyimagine that ever-increasing numbers of interaction partners leave less time to the individual for others.In the economists' language, the marginal utility of every individual social contract decreases. This meansthat individuals -with their own interest- become more important to themselves. The impact of others onindividuals' social identity is decreasing. This is a numerical way of explaining the growing impact ofindividualism and individual interests with respect to collective interests, an analysis in the spirit ofSimmel's (1890) and Blau's (1977) structural sociology....Sinunel described how individual identity -and,I may add, the particularity of individual interests -is developed by belonging to different and cross-cuttingsocial circles. Individuals' participation in many of those circles guarantees that there can be no interestidentity between any social circle and its individuals. The conflict of collective and individual interests isinevitable." Karl Hondrich, "Micropathology and Macronormality" in The Micro-Macro Link, by JeffreyAlexander, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 19875960Chapter Seven: The Secular Inquisition of Biological DeterminismThere has been an international effort across several centuries fought to systematically de-individualize women in every sense of individuality. Male ideologues of the new social order fought toensure women's economic dependence on men, to destroy and discredit women's independent sources ofknowledge and moral criticism, to prevent women from developing professional skills, to keep easy accessto women's sexuality for men, and to see women as a means to another person's, whether man or fetus's,utility and well-being. In the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church carried out the Inquisition whichwas responsible for the deaths of millions of women while the new educational elite used Greekphysiological theory to explain why women were inferior to men. In the modern era the powers ofreligious institutions declined to be replaced by science and medicine as the new white garbed priesthood.In the past scientists had fought against traditional authority, now scientists and doctors became thetraditional moral authority by successfully limiting entrance into their professions and thus elevating theirprestige for all matters. Whereas priests had expounded from the pulpit on women's subordination beingcreated by the Original Sin, Social-Darwinists, doctors and psychologists taught from behind their lecternsthat women's minds were captive to their reproductive tracts. I call this the Secular Inquisition, aninternational and coordinated search-and-destroy effort to destroy the authenticity of women's own reportsof their experiences, to label women as pathologically sick, and to label any women who did not behaveproperly, as deviant.The Secular Inquisition of Biological Determinism has its roots in the distant past yet was mostmanifested in the period of the Victorian Era through to the 1960s. In the French Enlightenmentphilosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that women should confine themselves to motherhood,yet what I call the Secular Inquisition started when women's economic independence declined in the 19thcentury simultaneously as the male secular institutions of science, medicine, and law rose in prestige andsocial control to become pro-active social forces, imposing their own moral vision upon women. As the6o61institution of medicine, like the Roman Catholic Church before it, was homosocial, staffed only by menwho treated women as objects and subject matter to be controlled, its version of morality was warped andmisogynistic.The utility and security of traditional household productive roles declined in the 19th century,creating a dependence for subsistence of all people on the public sphere of wage earning in industrialcapitalism. Where once women's work had been essential for survival, the work done within the familyunit and household became greatly insufficient for one's economic independence. Women then had towork outside the home, or failing to take in boarders or the neighbour's washing, had to strike up a sexualrelationship of dependence with some man who was employed. However, as individualism and equalityarose for men through the 19th century, men sought to retain for themselves the new wealth of theIndustrial Revolution and the new skills of science and technology. With women's traditional role ofproducer of the means of subsistence within the home no longer tenable, men debated 'the WomanQuestion' to decide for women their proper place in the new modern age. Though Enlightenmentphilosophers had sought to make motherhood women's sole vocation in the late 18th century, it was in theearly to mid-19th century that men began using science and specifically medicine, to argue for women'sconfinement to the home. When as before in Greek, Roman, and Medieval times, women's key role ineconomic production kept any misogynist philosophy from becoming too restrictive in practice on apersonal level, as women became confined to a sole reproductive role, women became much morevulnerable to the growing sexist pseudo -scientific ideology labeling women as sexless creatures of sexwhose sole destiny was to propagate the human race.Starting in the mid 19th century, in the western industrialized countries, men both bourgeois andproletarian, gradually drove women out of the workforce. Men successfully excluded women from thegrowing professions and unionized industrialized jobs, and often placed additional limits on the paidlabour participation of married women. Most disturbing of all, men placed emotional barriers aroundwomen, successfully dominating the production of legitimate knowledge about what was proper'womanhood,' a sort of psychological rape, and blocking women's opportunities for self-realization.6162Women were prevented from following their own inclinations or developing their unique talents. Forexample, a middle-class young woman would be expected to have several "accomplishments" such aspiano or sewing, but never to be taken seriously for any skill. Lower class women never entirely left theworkforce, but their working conditions and job security were poor, and they were held in much contemptby the general population. A man who had a working wife was seen as a failure, and a working motherwas seen as a bad mother. Working women of the lower class were also seen as racially different than thegeneral population, more hardy, coarse and animal-like, fit for male sexual assault, unlike the refined anddelicate middle-class women who needed male protection. This left women the roles of being a stay-at-home mother, a hysteric, an invalid, a domestic servant, a nonunionized factory worker, a cleaning lady,and of course, a prostitute. By driving the majority of women out of the paid labour force, men as a groupsuccessfully expropriated women's unpaid labour and could delegate all economically unproductive butnecessary work to them. Men would write or research, women would type out the manuscript, men wouldwork, and women would feed them and care for their children. Women lost recognition of their desires forsexual satisfaction in the Victorian Age at the same time men would ensure that women's economicdependence would facilitate their own.Industrialization raised life expectancies for both men and women, and eventually both loweredinfant mortality rates and created incentives for family planning as children switched from being anotherset of hands around the home to work to being another useless mouth to feed. The greatest horrors ofworking and living conditions of the mid 19th gradually faded and there was a general increase in thestandard of living until the Great Depression. Literacy rates rose, and jobs eventually required knowledgeor training rather than brute physical labour though working-class men continued to claim that most(industrial) jobs had to be closed to women because men alone possessed the necessary physical strength.Likewise, middle-class men felt that women lacked the necessary mental faculties for professions likepolitics, law, and medicine, and should play their debt to the whole society by raising children. Thisnotion that women had an obligation to devote their lives to child-rearing, seems to be uncannilyanalogous to how ancient Christian theologians argued that women had to save themselves through child-6263bearing. Family size steadily dwindled, yet women were told to dedicate their whole lives to theirhusband's children. There came to be only one proper role for women, that of the dedicated mother, andthe definition of that role was to be solely decided by men. Women's initiation into proper motherhoodwould be controlled by men, women's tasks would be assigned by men, and women's sexuality would becontrolled by men. Men's individualism would rest upon women's housework raising children and uponmen's control over women's sexuality, allowing men to more or less freely express their sexual desires andto invest in their own careers and leisure.The Secular Inquisition was a case of massive Biological Determinism spilling out of science andsocial science, and in particular medicine and psychology, to rob women of their recognition as normalhuman beings. Women were told to be mothers, and were unable to escape from their sexual identity aswomen. Women's lives were seen and made to revolve around their sexuality, that is their attractivenessand usefulness to men as women. A woman's mind, her thoughts, her aspirations, her morality, were allseen to be created solely by her sexuality and her acceptance of her proper place. Women were told to bindthemselves with bras and corsets, to have their bodies injured with rib-removal, liposuction, and siliconeimplants, to diet until they fainted from malnutrition, to sacrifice their careers for their children andhusbands, to have vaginal orgasms instead of clitoral ones, and to be attractive and deferential to men butto blame themselves if they got raped or beaten. Most deviance by women from the proper roles createdfor them by men would get them stigmatized as being labeled a single-mother, a slut, frigid, or asmentally ill. Women would be drugged, shocked, or have their brains cut into by white-robed maleprofessionals trying to exorcise any demon of uniqueness within a woman that prevented her from beinggeneric.Men appropriated for themselves the legitimate sources of knowledge. Women's sexuality wasfascinating for men who sought to come up with theories to explain women's subordination in society asnecessary and to improve men's benefits from the control of women. As we have discussed in an earlierchapter, anatomists of the late Middle Ages either denied that women "contributed to the form ofchildren," (that is gave children half of their DNA) or believed it and sought to prevent the knowledge6364from reaching women. I O'Faolain, 1973 I In the 19th century, however, this misogyny reached newheights as male physicians and Social-Darwinists denied women the status of being human. SocialDarwinists took and twisted Charles Darwin's basic concepts of evolution and applied them to humansociety to come to the conclusion that those people with superior economic power, the white males, wereobviously those who were the most evolved. Herbert Spencer, as well as Beecher and Sumner, were socialcommentators who believed that women were less evolved than men. Spencer and the Social Darwinistsbelieved that this evolutionary superiority should be instituted by law and women should be preventedfrom being applying for jobs in business and government. [ 011enburger, p.5, 1992 ] Women wereclassified as the vessels in which mankind reproduced itself but were denied all recognition ofindependent identity by many of the prestigious minds of the late Victorian Era. For example, one of thefounders of obstetrics in the 1880s, Dr. DeLee said that he "often wondered whether Nature did notdeliberately intend women to be used up in the process of reproduction, in a manner analogous to that ofthe salmon that dies after spawning." [ Hubbard, p. 150, 1989]This belief that men alone constituted the essential component of the human species was quiteprevalent in the late 19th century from the influence of Social-Darwinism. All progress was attributed tomen, mankind was seen to have made its progress from the innovations of male hunters in the prehistoricpast, and women were seen as less evolved and lacking the vital human element of innovation. [Ehrenreich,p.107,1978 ] This was also quite common in sociological theory at the time as well, and itwould remain to the American sociologist Lester Ward to stand this sexist theory on its head by pointingout that with most other animals, such as spiders, apes, bees, and ants, it was the female that was thespecies and that males only were necessary for reproduction. [ Gilman, (1898) 1966 ] But people likeLester Ward and the humanist Charlotte Gilman were a decided minority as the self-proclaimed scientistswho supported the ruling establishment used Social Darwinism to fight to entrench the interests of whitemen in American and European society. Darwin's theory of Evolution was used by conservatives all overthe world to justify the status quo. The rich used evolutionary theory to explain that they were rich becausethey were more highly evolved, and white male ideologues speculated that women and Negroes were less6465evolutionarily advanced.Psychology was built upon the subordination of women. Le Bon, the founder of social psychologyin the 19th century, called women "the most inferior form of human evolution-closer to children.., than toan adult civilized man." I Freedman, p.17, 1986 I Sigmund Freud, that famous Austrian psychologist andfounder of the Psycho-Analytic Theory of moral development, stated that women were biologicallydestined to be inferior to men. Freud bluntly declared that all women had unconscious penis envy, that itwas men and not women who were responsible for civilization, and that because women had not hadOedipal Complexes to overcome, their diminutive Electra Complexes were inadequate creations ofmorality. [ Donovan, p.95 1990 J Freud also helped invent the absurd myth of the vaginal orgasm, andinsisted that a properly adjusted woman would transfer her sexual feelings away from her clitoris. Evenmodern psychologists discussing the foundation of morality, like Lawrence Kohlberg, (1976) thought thatwomen had inferior morality because they were less prone to insisting on violent retribution to enforceuniversal laws but were more likely to negotiate. [ Hagedorn, p.70, 1990The application of science with its emphasis on the rational and detached researcherexperimenting wisely on the irrational human subject for its own good, has led to substantial mistreatmentof people, especially women:Western scientific medicine is said to be objective and value-free and doctors are seen asmedical scientists who are objective about their patients in much the same way as anyother scientists are about their subject matter. Medical science progresses via thescientific method (the experiment), resulting in the acquisition of certain, objective andunchallengeable facts and an autonomous and value-free body of knowledge. However,there are problems with this view of science, which sociologists have challenged ingeneral and specifically with respect to medicine. Sociologists argue that all scientificactivity is inevitably influenced by the society in which it is carried out and that thescientist plays a major role in explaining and ultimately justifying various aspects of theway in which a society is organized. Furthermore, feminists regard medical knowledgeas part of the means by which gender divisions in society are maintained. Medicine notonly reflects discriminatory views of women but serves to reproduce these views byactively stereotyping and controlling women who deviate from them. The way in whichwomen were seen as weak and in need of constant rest by the medical profession in thenineteenth century, thus justifying, for instance, their exclusion from higher education isone example. [ Abbott, p. 96, 1990Feminists have seen other problems in modern medicine. Physicians came to dominate the process of6566childbirth and to manage labour paternalistically as if they were producing a product out of the rawmaterial of women. Women have also born the brunt of psychiatric management of their personal lives,with women who complained of depression from caring endlessly for husband and children to be treatedwith psychoactive drugs and tranquilizers. [ Abbott, p.96] Likewise, women have had serious trouble withthe physician's control of abortion and contraception, which caused delays in abortions and disasters suchas the Dalkon Shield I.U.D.Part of the dangers of the rising economic power of science as a profession was that the new malescientists considered that the ends always justified the means. The scientists who violated moral decencywere often financially rewarded. This ties in with women's subjection by science, as male doctorsconsidered the female body, as more research material than human:"One of the most outrageous cases of experimentation is found in the practice of J.Marion Sims, originator of gynecology and early president of the American MedicalAssociation. One of his early claims to fame was the discovery of ways to suture tearsthat occurred between the vagina and bladder and the vagina and anus. He developedthese techniques by purchasing black female slaves, whom he kept in hospital quartersthat he built in his own yard. (Axelson 1985) Because he saw black slaves as enduring,passive, and helpless, he performed countless experimental operations on them withoutanesthesia. The pain he inflicted on them had to create unimaginable agony, yet thisseemed not to faze him in his obsessive search for techniques to build his own career...Sims, like other medical men of his day, believed that women's psychology stemmedfrom their sex organs, and he was anxious to perform clitoridectomies andoophorectomies (removal of the clitoris and ovaries.) His drastic use of the knife seemedintended not for the betterment of women, but for the enhancement of his own career,because an aspiring specialist, then as now, made his name through the invention andpublication of new techniques. Indeed, as one historian has noted, the operating roomswhere female surgery was performed in the nineteenth century were essentially 'an arenafor an exchange between men'..." [ Andersen, 1988, p.210 ]Women, members of minority racial groups in industrialized countries, citizens of Third World countries,and other disadvantaged people have too often ended up as research material for white male middle-classscientists, or as guinea pigs and naive consumers for their multinational corporations. Such examplesinclude the Meme breast implant, the Dalkon Shield I.U.D., and Nestle's marketing of infant formula inAfrica.The development of science was not value-free at all, rather one of its main projects was to6667control women, to explain their inferiority, and to prevent them from rising up in status. Women wereidentified with nature, and nature was meant to be ripped apart, to have her secrets raped from her, and tobe controlled. Science, and in particular medicine, fought to keep women from becoming self-responsiblesubjects for themselves because these male institutions perceived a threat to their cosy wealth and prestigeif women (and blacks) got in. 1 Ehrenreich, 1978 1 Not ignoring the real benefits of science which aremany, science and medicine has traditionally only seen women as subject matter for experimentation, andseen women only by their role as mothers:One example of the class-specificity of biologically determinist arguments is provided bythe kind of statements made during the later nineteenth century concerning theconstraints imposed by women's biology. Many medical treatises at this time opposededucation for women on the grounds that women were naturally physically weaker, as aresult of the demands made on their reproductive systems; stimulating the brain througheducation could only result in energy being drawn away from the reproductive system,resulting in further weakening and enfeeblement. A particular target for such attackswere those women who were seeking entry into higher education, including the medicalprofession itself. [ Birke, 1986, p. 26 JAlso, the rise of Darwinism and the acceptance of Evolutionism, was often used as a rationale fordenigrating women in the late nineteenth century. Biologists, physicians, and anatomists argued that menwere more highly evolved and had biological superiority over women. [ Simmel, p. 30, 1984 1 Also,Social-Darwinists often used scientific gibberish to justify the oppression of black people and Asians,saying that their brains were less developed than white people. [ Andersen, 1988, p.70 ]The high-point of women's dehumanization was created by the gynecology and psychiatricprofessions, which were both founded to deal with the problem of women's deviance from their assignedsocial roles. The operation hysterectomy was invented and named for treating hysteria in female patients.Women's biology was seen by the male practitioners as pathologically sick. Doctors in the late 19th andearly 20th century saw menestruation as a debilitating illness for both the mind and body. Doctorsrecommended rest and abstention from work and reading during menestruation, and some doctors arguedthat menestruation should be sufficient grounds to prevent women from entering the highly-skilledprofessions as they would be mentally unstable in those times. [ Ehrenreich, p. 101 I Most doctorsthroughout the Secular Inquisition believed that women's whole identities were not just affected but were6768determined by either their ovaries or their uteruses. In 1870 Dr. W. Bliss stated that all of a woman'squalities of mind and disposition sprang from her ovaries, and in 1883 Dr. G Austin stated that theovaries gave women all her characteristics of mind and body. [ Ehrenreich, p. 108, 1978 I In the 1870sand 1880s, doctors explained women's higher incidence of diseases such as tuberculosis, indigestion,kidney failure, on their wombs. [ Ehrenreich, p. 110 J The uterus and brain were seen to compete for awoman's energy, and most Victorian Age doctors said that they feared women reading because it wouldcause them sterility, while other doctors were more open with their motivation, and stated they feared theentrance of women into medical schools. In retrospect it is difficult to judge all doctors (and others) asbeing guilty of biological determinism because not all of them left damning evidence behind in medicaljournals and diaries, but this Biological Determinism was prevalent of both psychology and medicine untilwomen started to recreate for themselves a secure economic foundation in the late twentieth century.The scalpel was the Secular Inquisition's ultimate answer to deviance in women when womenwanted to be human instead of to act out the narrow role prescribed for them. Brain surgery ofleucotomies and lobotomies became frequent in the mid-twentieth century while gynecological surgeryremoving the ovaries or clitoris became common starting about the 1860s as soon as antiseptics andanesthetics were invented to prevent the patients from dying. As soon as it was possible to remove awoman's ovaries, men saw it as a necessity in treating women. To twist an old proverb, "Where there is away there is a will." Removing a woman's ovaries was seen as the ultimate cure-all for any undesirablebehavior. According to historian G. Barker-Benfield:"Among the indications were troublesomeness, eating like a ploughman, masturbation,attempted suicide, erotic tendencies, persecution mania, simple "cussedness," anddysmenorrhea (painful menestruation.) Most apparent in the enormous variety ofsymptoms doctors took to indicate castration was. a strong current of sexualappetitiveness on the part of women." [ Ehrenreich, p.111 1It was desirable for men to have a strong sex drive and to ensure that women would obey them in theirwill, but because men felt uncomfortable about women's natural human sexuality, women would have tohave either their ovaries or clitorises removed. These doctors who performed these operations were notnecessarily evil, but because women had no place in the male society, men tended to see any problems6869they had as a medical problem. During the Secular Inquisition the Biological Determinism of the timesresulted in motherhood and invalidism (1) being the two main social roles for women. If a woman was nota good mother and only a mother, that is sexless, cheerful, and obedient, she would be seen as needingmedical treatment to make 'a proper adjustment.'Biological Determinism within the medical profession did not die off with Social Darwinism atthe start of the twentieth century, rather it has lingered on until recent times. Doctors consideredpregnancy an illness which required mental and emotional rest, and would need a doctor to cure itthrough drugs and a scalpel at its termination. All pregnant women were seen as neurotic and to be at themercy of their hormones. Gynecologists eagerly accepted a responsibility for the mental health of theirpatients. In 1962 Drs. Sturgis and Menzer-Benaron wrote that improper gynecological health was thecause of sexual unhappiness, broken homes, illegitimacy, sterility, sexual deviancy, and juveniledelinquency. [ Ehrenreich, p.252 1 In 1967 an article in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology urgedgynecologists and obstetricians to link pelvic problems to emotional stress and to take management of thetotal patient to ensure a proper outcome.The Secular Inquisition was science's attempt to deal with the problems that women faced fromnot having independence. It is essential to note that technical and medical solutions were proposed forsocial problems. Well-meaning men hoped to use their scientific expertise to help individual women copewith and accept their problems of the lack of individualism, which prevented women as a whole fromattaining the very autonomy and self-worth they needed. The problems that women complained aboutwere usually seen as having pathological origins located within the woman's body, the woman then wouldbe treated, and the doctors would assume it to be a cure. Housewives complaining of depression orlassitude was one of the most common occurrences. Victorian Age doctors prescribed total intellectualrest, while modern doctors prescribed brain surgery. Psychiatrists Sargant and Slater (1972) stated that itwas often preferable to treat the housewife who experienced the symptom even if her problem was foundto be caused by the abuse that she received from her husband:69"A depressed woman, for instance, may owe her illness to a psychopathic husband whocannot change and who will not accept treatment... 'women' patients of this type areoften helped by anti-depressant drugs. But in the occasional case where they do notwork, we have seen patients enabled by a leucotomy to return to the difficultenvironment and cope with it." [ Hanmer, p.118, 1987 1Here we can clearly see the problem: Men are individuals, and it is wrong and difficult to change theirbehavior, and so if women experience difficulty, than it is women's minds and women's behavior thatshould be changed. This paradigm has been used throughout history. Adultery and illegitimacy would beusually blamed on the woman, and women would be told that they would have to be careful to avoid rape,wife-beating, or sexual assault. Men were assumed to be individuals who could do what they wanted.Men fought to keep science from making a positive contribution to women's lives where it reallymattered, contraception. According to some sources like Elizabeth Gould Davis, the Vatican condemnedabortion as a sin only after the discovery of anesthetics, because that would allow women to shirk theirduty to give birth in pain. In 1873 the Comstock laws were passed in America to prohibit the mailing ofbirth control and the publish of knowledge to women about their fertility. [ McElroy, p. 199, 1982 ] Birthcontrol in Canada was banned outright in 1892. [ Wilson, p. 20, 1991 1 In Britain, Canada, and theUnited States, women birth-control activists like Margaret Sanger were arrested and harassed for teachingwomen about their menstrual cycles. There was a tremendous fear about giving contraception to womenbecause of the perceived subsequent lost of male control. Men thought that if women had freedom fromfear, they would become promiscuous, demand the same sexual satisfaction that men had, and would nothave to only have sex within marriage due to the economic burden of caring for a child. [ Homans, p. 66,1985 ] If men fought to prevent women from having freedom from fear of having an unwanted child or adangerous pregnancy, it is difficult to see how women could have experienced true self-realization duringthis period that contraception was legally unobtainable. Women would have to suppress their humandesires for happiness in order to survive in the man-made role of proper womanhood. The same peoplewho kept contraception illegal and unobtainable for women did little to help unwed mothers struggle withgrinding poverty and social stigmatization.7070•11During the Secular Inquisition men debated on how to use science to solve the 'woman problem.'Turning housework into a little science for women was proposed, that home economics would teachwomen how to be good homemakers. Men found more reasons to argue for the importance of constantchild -caring, that children needed an attentive mother in order to develop properly. Bad mothers wereseen as a threat to the proper established order of society. Mothers were not supposed to work and werenot supposed to let the child out of their sight, and at the same time women had to be careful not to stuntthe masculinity of their boy children by being overprotective. Life Magazine in 1956 blamed workingwomen for alcoholism in adult men and homosexuality in little boys. I Margolis, p. 222, 1984 I Also inthe 1950s, the anti-feminist pro-Freudian psychologist Marynia Farnham made a career for herself byurging women to stick to motherhood as their sole profession, and said that women's sense of moralitywas not up to the challenges of the workforce and women should avoid objective concepts and work.Margolis, p. 246The isolation of child-rearing and women's lack of direct involvement with the economic meansof production was a historically unique and temporary development. The homosociality of science has alsonow started to fade. Science remains influenced by its patriarchal and sexist past, but women now have avoice within science, and through their developing economic independence, are less vulnerable toscience's coercive powers. Women are no longer under such coercive power from their husbands. Today, ifa man who has cheated on his wife, suggests that his wife have brain surgery to stop being so depressed,the woman would probably tell him to go to hell. Women now have much more bargaining power withinmarriage, their recognized (paid) work gives them a greater sense of self-worth and an increased numberof social contacts, and their work is often in the professions, giving them a voice in the institutions ofsocial control. Things are not perfect today, women remain about twice as likely to be prescribed drugs formental problems than men are, I Williams, p.463, 1987 I and at least half of the hysterectomies performedeach year in North America are thought to be unnecessary. I Sue Fisher, 1986 I However, today thefeminist movement has succeeded in showing people that greater independence and individualism forwomen is the cure for women's emotional problems and concerns. I 011enburger, 1992 I Women's7 172problems are seen today to be socially constructed from inequality instead from a biological pathology.The feminist movement has highlighted the coercion that women feel in their everyday lives from men,and have fought to remove systemic sexual discrimination within institutions caused by regulations thatdo not take into account women's accounts of their own experiences of inequality. It is to the feministmovement that we now turn.NotesI) Invalidism was a career for middle-class women in the late nineteenth century. Some women adoptedthis voluntarily. Women invalids got continual bed rest and lots of sympathy. Other women weredepressed and tired with incredible fatigue because of their confinement to the domestic sphere withoutsufficient adult and human stimulation. Charlotte Gilman wrote The Yellow Wallpaper to describe howher well meaning husband and egotistical doctor almost drove her mad by their treatment of continualbaby-sitting without intellectual activity as treatment for her post-partum depression.7273Chapter Eight: Democracy and AutonomyDemocracy is one of the necessary attributes of a society built upon achievement rather thanascription. Without democracy, the political power of any state is a tyranny, and there are few restraints toprevent elites from solidifying their power and wealth at the expense of all others. However, democracy isnot a sufficient condition in order to guarantee individualism or egalitarianism. In the modern industrialcapitalist countries of the West, democracy ensures political debate, a circulation of elites, and perhapsmost important, a liberal framework of political rights. Democracy in the most narrow sense of half of apopulation bothering to vote every four years is completely insufficient to safeguard individual rights,rather the institutions that support democracy are crucial to give the rights and freedoms people need intheir lives every day. The process of maintaining democracy through adhering to a constitution andparticipating in political groups is more important than the mere act of voting.The voters of a democracy have control over their society in a way that completely transforms therelationship of the individual versus the collective from traditional society such as theocracies,dictatorships, monarchies, and fiefdoms. The individual emerges as not only ultimately responsible fortheir own fate, but also for the fate of the whole nation. Voters are asked to make decisions regarding theproper relationships of people and policies institutions they have never encountered themselves. In atraditional society it is the people's duty to modify themselves to tradition and to obey authority. In thedemocracy it is the voter's obligation to educate themselves and become authority. The voters in ademocratic state only rarely take part in the executive administration of government, yet governthemselves. The voters are asked to make judgements regarding the whole nation, the allocation ofresources, and their civil liberties. The elected representatives, though they can act with considerablediscretion within their elected terms, are responsible to their peers who elected them. It is crucial to notethat democracy dissolves sources of traditional authority. The voter cannot refuse responsibility for thefate of their country. People in a democracy often get the government that they deserve, for example if thepeople place a low premium on honesty, or are gullible to exhortations of nationalism, extremepartisanship, ideology, militarism, they will generally get a government that reflects their own values. The7374election campaigns often pander to both the lowest common values and to lofty abstract ideals, and votershave to exercise self discipline. Voters have an obligation to participate. Unlike in a traditional society, ina democracy voters has only themselves to blame for the evolution of government and the society. If theydisapprove of government policy, they are obliged to do something about it. Voters can run for office,vote, serve as volunteers in campaigns, and give donations to candidates and lobby groups. Thedemocratic system can only survive as long as its citizens do more than just vote once in a while.The growth of the franchise in a democratic state proportionately erodes traditional authority.The people who cannot vote remain essentially legal minors who have to obey tradition and acknowledgethe authority .of those above them. In regards to the experience of women, women remained fullyensconced under male authority within the family until they gained an independent voice and power at theballot box. In Canada in 1867, the franchise was denied to Indians, madmen, prisoners, children, andwomen, all groups which remained under the direct control of the white men who did gain the vote. Theact of getting the vote in the twentieth century for women (and other groups) in most western countriesdid not suddenly liberate women, but keeping the vote out of their hands was a sufficient means ofensuring their oppression. People who do not have the vote do not have responsibility for makingdecisions for themselves and for their own country, and do not have the opportunity to elect officials tosecure their rights, but rather find themselves bearing responsibilities to obey traditional authority for theperceived public good. For example in Canada and other western countries, the burden of maintainingpublic morality was kept solely on women's shoulders until they gained the vote, women were "thegatekeepers of morality." Women remained under the control of religion and of their fathers and husbandsuntil they gained the vote. Men used religious arguments to block women's suffrage in Canada, the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom. Men used passages in the Bible to say that women should not speak inpublic, teach men, or gainsay men in public. When women did gain the vote, they broke the powers thatreligion and traditional authority had over them. Women with the vote were no longer obliged to obey theBible, a book which they could not control its contents, but were obliged to help make up the rules for theadministration of the whole country. Women, and other groups such as Blacks, were no longer obliged to7475act subserviently as tradition dictated but became free to fight against traditions. As the lower classes,Blacks, and then women, gained the vote, their political power emerged as new sources of authority,diminishing the relative power of other sources, such as the voting power of the upper class, the power oftraditional religion and local customs. (1) If a person cannot be trusted to mark a ballot, then theycertainly cannot be trusted to make important decisions regarding themselves or other people. Giving thevote to people helps them develop themselves, to take responsibility, to vote intelligently, and gives themincreased respect from other people. Male politicians may not have been eager to implement a feministagenda, but they had to listen seriously to women voters as they would to men.Democracy has been implemented in different ways in varying degrees. In the United States,many positions including dog-catcher, sheriff, and district attorney are elected. In Germany and othersocial democratic countries, workers of unions can elect representatives to their company's board ofdirectors, an act which stresses democracy's materialist concerns. Canada has a more authoritativetradition, and with our parliamentary system, we approach more of a model of elected dictatorship, almostreminiscent of some ancient Greek city states. In addition, Canadian leaders in the failed CharlottetownAccord of 1992 proposed to strengthen the power of native chiefs who need not be elected, in aboriginalself-government. Western Europe and North America have strong democratic traditions yet ultimatelydemocracy remains nonparticipatory, which renders an organization of government which can easily dowithout elections or civil rights in emergencies. The state remains ultimately responsible to the people, butis not continuously responsible. During both World Wars, political rights and freedoms were severelycurtailed and young men were drafted to fight and die. Likewise in 1970 in Canada Pierre Trudeauinvoked the War Measures Act to deal with a terrorist kidnapping. These circumstances would seem tosuggest some wildly differing interpretations, that democracy can be taken away and put back in placeeasily because it poses no threat to the established powers of the capitalist class or the politicalbureaucracy, or alternately that our democratic traditions are strong enough to overcome any obstacle.In regards to exploring the separate developments of individualism in western society for menand women, we can speak of individualism as in facilitating democracy. Democracy does not make people7576feel unique, autonomous, and empowered, but democracy does intensify the very individualism that gaveit birth. A democratic government reflect the uniqueness of all its citizens and evenly protect civil libertiesso that all citizens have equal economic and political (but not financial) rights. Today the constitution ofour elected states safeguards individual rights and liberties, but those safeguards would not necessarilydisappear if the time interval between elections increased from what has been traditional. Hypotheticallyspeaking we can suggest that a nonelected government can create civil liberties and encourageindividualism, and that an elected government can equally take such liberties away.(2) However, today theelected democratic state is generally essential for maintaining the present and agreed upon mix andcomposition of liberties equally for all groups, such as protecting minorities from discrimination. Ourdemocracy safeguards civil rights and ensures that the present level of individualism is shared equally, yetit would be a folly to speak of democracy as having created individualism. Indeed, if individualism hadnot emerged from other causes at the end of feudalism, it is doubtful if democracy would have beenachieved, or even able to be implemented.Democracy has been invented in many different ways. We cannot speak of the development of asingle great democratic tradition. The Ancient Grecian model of participatory democracy of townmeetings of the land -owning men died, and a great gulf separated the Greeks from modern times.Parliamentary democracy emerged in Iceland and England separately as a way of bringing together noblesto forge a consensus and to prevent civil war by allowing all regions to have a say in policy. The Englishmodel of parliament shall bear the brunt of our scrutiny for the interest of this chapter as its history is wellknown and it will not be necessary to make references for all points.The Normans conquered England in 1066 and set up a feudal system unique in all Europe. Onthe continent, a vassal owed loyalty directly to his lord, and not to the lord or king to which the vassal'slord had sworn or otherwise owed, allegiance. This meant that in continental Europe a knight could not beprosecuted for treason for rebelling against a king if they had merely obeyed their own lord in hisrebellion. In England, the opposite system was created. Each knight in England owed direct and primaryallegiance to the king, regardless of the actions of the nobles of intervening ranks to whom the knight also7677owed additional allegiance. [ Painter, p.115 I This meant that the king of England was king equally to allof his subjects, and was not merely just the strongest of the nobles or a nobleman with a fancy title. Theking of England might be weak or ineffectual, depending on the person, but he was always everybody'sking. Geography also contributed to the unique development of English feudalism. The English weregenerally secure from invasion and there was less fighting between nobles over land, both factorscontributed to the peasant not needing their lords for protection as much as vassals did on the continent. [Macfarlane, 1978 [ In summary, in England the knights and barons had stronger links to the king andweaker links to their own little power bases. The farmers in England did not take on all the distinctlyfeudal characteristics of peasants in continental and especially Eastern Europe. [ Macfarlane, p.28 & 143By the fourteenth century the class of yeomans had quickly emerged in England. Yeomans were free andindependent small farmers one class below knights, with few feudal privileges or obligations save owingallegiance to the king. These yeoman gradually evolved into an important non-noble land-owning middleclass which was to dominate the House of Commons, government bureaucracy, and business. I Adams,p.350, 1913The Magna Carta of 1215 signed by the despotic King John set the stage for further developmentof democratic rights, but not necessarily democracy, in England. The Magna Carta specified the rights ofall free men to be free from such things as being arrested without charge, or from arbitrary taxation. TheMagna Carta would both have been less important and less likely to occur in continental Europeankingdoms at the time, with the probable exception of Scandinavia. In England the class of free men grewthe quickest. The rights of the Magna Carta were initially only meant for the nobility, but then wereextended to the growing yeoman class, and then eventually to the whole population as feudalism faded.King Henry the Eighth in the sixteenth century encouraged parliament in become an independentinstitution separate from direct royal control. King Charles the First, the second of the Stuart kings, triedto turn the clock back but lost the English Civil War of 1641-1649. Parliament consolidated its powerwith the Glorious Revolution of 1689, which ended the monarchy's executive powers but not its prestige inEnglish politics. The King of England remained influential, with the right to appoint citizens to the7778nobility. The king's nobles could sit in the House of Lords, the upper house of parliament. The House ofLords, in which each member was an aristocrat, remained quite powerful until 1911, after which it was nolonger able to be independent of the House of Commons or block legislation from the lower house.The English Parliament ended the executive and legislative powers of the monarchy, (patronageremained under royal control) but its purpose was never to create political equality or to strengthen therights of the individual versus society. For example, divorce in England was available only by an act ofParliament, and thus was generally reserved only for the nobility and those men with parliamentaryconnections. [ O'Faolain, p.319 1 Parliament remained dominated by aristocrats and large landownersuntil the 20th century. Seats in the House of Commons were sometimes essentially bought and sold asonly a small minority of the citizens could vote. To be a voter, a person had to be an individual, to both bemale and to own property. The Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 reduced the property qualificationssignificantly but did not abolish them. It was not until the late 19th century that universal suffrage for menwas created in most western countries. Universal suffrage for women had to wait until feudalism wascompletely abolished, until the property qualifications had been eliminated, and until women gainedcontrol of property within marriage. Canada, the U.K., and the United States implemented female suffrageat the end of World War I. Quebec women gained the provincial vote in 1940. France and Japan had towait until being occupied by American troops in 1944 and 1945 before the women gained politicalequality.Individualism necessarily precedes democracy and suffrage. Crucially, individuals need to beself-responsible and autonomous before they can have the right to vote. This judgement needs someexplanation. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were right, (3) ideas do not have independent existences,and today's ideas of free trade, equality, and universal suffrage would not have been tenable as solutionsback in the Middle Ages. [ Tucker, p.767, (1893) 1978 1 Individuals can only be free to vote after theyhave become free individuals. To turn cause and effect backwards, would suggest that Abraham Lincolnwould have given American blacks the vote first before freeing them from slavery. Likewise in SouthAfrica today, the Apartheid of the Group Areas Act and the Mixed Marriages Act had to be abolished7879before blacks could be given the vote. People have to be free in their daily interactions and relations withother people before universal suffrage becomes tenable. In Canada and Britain, universal suffrage for bothmen and women, was not preceded by particular feelings of denial and revolutionary class consciousnessfor those excluded from suffrage. I Cleverdon, p.7, 1974 1 After nearly all groups gained the right to vote,they were quickly co-opted into the traditional establishment. A worker's revolution failed to occur withmass suffrage, and the first wave of feminism is generally thought to have come to an end when womenwon the right to vote and failed to alter the balance of political power. (4)In a feudal society, people have an interdependent nonautonomous existence. They are notinterdependent only in the Durkheimian sense of organic solidarity, but they live with little separationbetween themselves. In Durkheim's organic solidarity, the economy as a whole in greatly interdependent,depending on hundreds of professions and international trade. In the feudal world, the local economy wasindependent and there was only a little trade, but the manner of daily living was not autonomous. Intoday's industrial wage economy, a person's wages and savings gives them autonomy from theirneighbours because that money belongs to them alone and they can spend it on whatever they choose andmove wherever they wish. Democracy would have impossible in the Middle Ages. Nobles were obligatedby law to give land tenure to their peasants. Likewise, a baron's castle or a knight's manor was not adwelling separate from the rest of the community. The local people expected to crowd into the castleduring an invasion. A nobleman's home was full of people, and privacy was impossible. Servants slept onthe floor of the rooms of their masters. Servants, men at arms, prostitutes, travelers, bards, and livestockall slept in the main hall. There were few hallways to separate rooms from each other, and there was littlefighting and no central heating, and people generally stayed crowded together. Giving an equaldemocratic vote to all the inhabitants of a castle, let alone a barony, would have been impossible even if abaron had been infected with twentieth century idealism and zeal. As long as people are living in yourhome and castle and did not have homes of their own, giving them the vote (to control your property)would have been unthinkable. In essence, the castles, the barons, and the peasants were all publicproperty. Both barons and servants would have to acquire private space and separate property before7980democracy would have been feasible. Likewise, the arbitrary brutality of the barons to the peasants wouldalso have to end. The people who participate as voters in a democracy have to have relatively equalamounts of personal autonomy over their homes and bodies to secure a commitment to the social order. Itwas no coincidence that democracy developed strongest in Britain and places like Geneva, which lost thefeudal qualities of land ownership the earliest. The unequal economic and living relations of feudal lifehad to end before democracy would give a result that would not be chaos.The very processes which caused the transition from ascriptive feudalism to competitivecapitalism ensured that women did not gain the vote until long after democracy matured. The changefrom the peasant society to modern individualism was caused, in part, by the creation of private ownershipof land. [ Macfarlane, 1978] In a peasant economy, individuals do not own land, rather the land or theright to farm land in the village, belongs to the whole peasant family. Likewise, in a peasant village thereis usually considerable common land for both growing crops and pasturing animals. The economic changewhich ended feudalism was the private ownership of land, as land would then belong exclusively to asingle individual, and not to a noble or peasant family. The new private land then could be bought andsold merely as a commodity. England was one of the first countries in medieval Europe to developprimogeniture. [ Macfarlane, 1978]  Primogeniture the practice of the eldest son (or the daughter if thereare no sons) to exclusively inherit the parent's land. Later, fathers could will their land to which of theirsons they pleased. It is essential to note the development of private property with the rise of democracyand the expansion of the voting franchise.As long as private property did not exist, the only form of democracy that could hypotheticallyexist was participatory democracy, which was too difficult in the conditions of the Middle Ages to beconsidered. Representative democracy needed private property and individual autonomy to develop.However, this meant that as long as women did not own property, and that serfs lived on the land holdingof feudal lords, most of the population could not be given voting rights. Suffrage was reserved exclusivelyfor those who had private property to control. There was considerable sexism against women participatingin government at the time democracy started in Europe from diffuse sources such as the Bible, Greek8081philosophy, and both Enlightenment and Counter -Enlightenment philosophy, but the main obstaclewhich prevented women from gaining the vote in the fledgling democracies, is that they had noindependent control of property. A voter had to meet property qualifications in order to get the vote. Toprevent property from being counted twice, only the man in a marriage was recognized as the owner of allproperty that both partners had brought into the marriage. Women had certain legal rights over theirdowries, but this seems to have disappeared in most European countries shortly after democracy startedand expanded. [ O'Faolain, 1974 1 In fact, couverture (male supremacy within marriage) in Englandstarted before universal suffrage was extended to men of all classes.Democracy could have developed along a different path than it did. It is possible that womencould have been included from the start, after all women had administered property in the Middle Ages. Acommunal system of democracy could have happened, but aside from peasant communes formedspontaneously in the Slavic countries of Serbia and Russia there was no will nor means for such a system.Democracy itself faced serious opposition from the aristocracy and nearly died several times. As thedifferent classes worked out political compromises in the French Revolutions and in the development ofthe English Parliament, women were excluded. Men had been always recognized as the heads ofhouseholds, and the 19th century liberal framework was built on the assumption that all male householdheads should be equal. Each household in the 19th century had both production for exchange, primarilyunder the control of the man, and production for use, that is women's new "domestic sphere." For ahousehold to survive, it needed both kinds of work, (especially child raising) and as such, only thehousehold was a complete and autonomous unit. Men were equal because they equally dominated womenand women were all equal because they had to obey their husbands. Men competed as equals, and womenbecame, as victims from both sex-blind economics and sexist misogyny, their level playing field. For mostof the 19th century, a male voter had to considerable property qualifications. Many men did fight toexclude women from politics as the feminist movement gradually arose, but for the most part, the maledominance of politics was gained with little protest and was formed primarily from economicconsiderations. However, when a few women did protest, such as Abijail Adams who asked her husband8182and future president John Adams to give equal rights to women in the American Revolution, and MaryWollstonecraft who asked the French education minister Talleyrand in the French Revolution to givewomen an equal opportunity for education, they were patronizingly rebuffed.The rise of women's suffrage deserves special attention. In the United Kingdom and Canada inthe 19th century, married women were under the complete control of their husbands due to the couvertureof common law. A husband had complete control over his wife's property and body. In this context, givingwomen a right to vote would have been only an abstract solution to a significant tangible injustice. In1840, a man won a case in a British court, defending his right to imprison his wife in his house to preventher from living with her mother. The judge wrote in his verdict that the husband had a right to prevent hiswife from seeing people he did not know or of whom he disapproved:"...he has a right to restrain her from the power to frequent such amusements,unprotected by his presence and without his permission ...She has not the right to bringhis honor or her own into possible or even imagined jeopardy."10'Faolain, p.318, 1974 1It is interesting to note that a wife had not the right to risk her husband's honor by making new friends. Awoman's honor depended on her chastity, and a man's honor depended on his wife or daughter's chastity.At this period of time, there were few occupations available for respectable middle-class women, andbecause married women did not own property, a man had to control his wife to prevent her from spendinghis money without permission. Without a husband being autonomous from his wife, the husband had todeny the wife significant rights to safeguard himself. In 1852, a new judicial precedent was set in Britain.The judge ruled that a wife could not be forced to cohabit and could legally run away. I O'Faolain, p. 319 JAny runaway wife would risk violent reprisals or starvation, and if she stayed within the husband's home,the husband had a right to her body, but gradually the law began to recognize increasing gradations ofautonomy between all people and within marriage.In 1857 in Britain the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 transferred divorce from parliament tothe courts, I O'Faolain, p.328, 1974 1 making it more affordable and within reach of the upper middleclass who had now become an essential part of the political establishment. The Matrimonial Act also had8283the effect of ending adultery as a criminal act against the community, an action which [would use to markthe passage of family law from the societal focus of ancient civilizations, to the modern liberalindividualistic framework. It is crucial to note how both men and women lacked autonomy. Sexualmorality was seen as a public matter until the mid twentieth century. In Canada, legislation banning thesale, distribution, and advertisement of contraceptives became illegal as an Offence Against Morality. (5)Similar laws had been enacted in Great Britain in 1889 and in United States in 1873. I Gee, (inHagedorn) p.211, 1990 I It is intriguing to note that the arguments at the time against birth control in thisperiod that women did not have the vote centered on that men feared that women would becomepromiscuous and cheat on their husbands. [ Homans, 1985, p.66 ] The period was not one of unmitigatedprogress towards individualism. Rather, it seems possible that much of the developments that in retrospectseem as victories for modern individualism were actually built upon an effort to strengthen the collectiveobligations of the individual to society, or were at least disguised that way.In the 1880s the Married Women's Property Acts gave women in Britain and Canada the right toown and control their property independently of their husbands. At the time, the rationale for these lawsseemed to have two concerns. A middle-class woman needed to protect her father's inheritance from anirresponsible husband. Intriguingly, this legislation did not protect women's earnings within marriage,only their inheritances. At this time, respectable women did not work for wages, and there were fewopportunities for a woman to earn a significant amount of money. It would have been difficult to justifythe bills as a way for women to earn money and to spend it on their own pleasure, rather it was justifiedthrough women's role in looking after their father's legacy.Women won the vote in Canada through an interesting process which owed as much to collectiverights as to individual rights. As early as 1885, then Prime-Minister John A. MacDonald had been readyto introduce legislation to allow women to vote, but the lack of demand for such a bill from members ofhis own party led to those clauses being omitted from the final versions of voting reform bills. I Cleverdon,p.108, 1974] Middle class women organized Literary Clubs to lobby for suffrage. Women in Canada andthe United States argued that giving the vote to women was necessary to make them better mothers for8384their children and to keep North America civilized and British against the cultural ravages of the newimmigrants. [ Kealey, p.13, 1979 1 Finally, the Liberal Borden granted women the vote as an expedientmethod to gather support for its policy of conscription. Women were seen as supporting conscriptionstronger than men did, and that govenunent belatedly seized upon suffrage for women as a goal. However,significant social changes happened in that time, that made women's suffrage much more practical.Women were increasing their entrance into high school and university, and the industrialization thatoccurred during World War I intensified the size of the wage economy. Women entered the paidworkforce in greater numbers. The work of Canadian women had entered the public sphere for the firsttime in World War One and had been seen as vital for the war effort and worthy of reward. 1 Cleverdon,p. 8 1 After World War 1, women in North America and Europe became liberated in their daily lives, morefree to dress how they wished, to smoke, and to go out without an escort.The Women's Suffrage movement and the Temperance Movement were linked together. This isan interesting combination, because the Temperance movement stressed that an individual owed anobligation to the community not to drink to safeguard public morality, while the Suffrage Movementwould seem to advocate individual rights to give women new rights to end their traditional subordination.Prohibition was aimed against men, and women played the strongest role within that campaign. Drinkingspirits was reserved for men at this time, and women only began to drink liquor during the era ofProhibition when it became glamorous to do so. Women reformers in the Temperance Movement thenadvocated that they had a right to change the social behavior of men, and they also fought for the right tovote to elevate the responsibilities of motherhood and to change the laws passed in the past by an all maleelectorate. Prohibition and women's suffrage became enacted at the same time in North America,following World War One.It is noteworthy that women voters did not change voting patterns appreciably. Conventionalwisdom of feminist theory has it that first wave feminism exhausted itself in the struggle for the vote toexplain the lack of new reforms in politics in Britain, Canada, and the U.S. after women won the vote. Itseems likely that many women voters were less radical than the leaders of the suffrage movement.184Cleverdon, 1974, p.71Where does this leave us in regard to the relationship between democracy and individualautonomy? First, that the causal relationship is that individual autonomy precedes democracy. Womenhad to be aware of themselves as individuals with different interests and opinions than their fathers,brothers, and husbands, in order to want the vote. However, women never voted as a block and have nevervoted only as women. Women may vote differently than their male family members, but neither do theyform strong ties of solidarity with other female voters. Women remain free of any biological essentialismor of a collective conscience and remain individuals. Second, the stability of democracy depends on theeducation and literacy of the public. I Sartori, p.119, 1968 1 Countries that have a higher rate of illiteracyhave the greater risk of coup, vote buying and rigging, and general electoral distortion. With suchhindsight, a public school system mandatory for all children and the opening up of universities forwomen, both of which were accomplished in the 19th century, were necessary prerequisites for universalsuffrage. Thirdly, people need personal autonomy before they can enter the democratic political process.People need rights to their bodies, personal space, property, and to be responsible for themselves withoutguardians. Self-responsibility has to precede responsibility in the public sphere. Fourthly, democracy didaffect people's individualism in that democracy is the best mechanism to safeguard those rights once theyare created and to give them to all members of the population. Winning the right to vote regardless of sexor property qualifications opened up the avenue for social reforms and new social programs in laterdecades. Without women having the right to vote, constitutional equality banning discrimination wouldhave been difficult to achieve. Having the franchise, is society's recognition on a person as a matureperson, self-responsible and able to take upon responsibility in the public sphere for the greater good ofsociety.Individual women will not necessarily make decisions different than individual men. As MaryWollstonecraft argued, intellect is not sexed. (6) As we have seen from the actions of women heads ofstate like GoIda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher, can be just as blood thirsty, andauthoritarian autocrats as men. As women enter politics, the military, the courts, they have to conform to858586past rules, customs, and laws made by men, and if anything, may have to be more competitive andaggressive to succeed. This entrance of women into male dominated institutions is a success of liberalismwhich may have long term radical ramifications that extend beyond equality within the present system totransform society by diminishing gender stereotypes. (7) Political and business institutions may lose theirhyper masculinization and take upon more human characteristics. As women gained representation in theupper echelons of power, men will have to redefine their own roles as men no longer assume a monopolyon positions of prestige and importance. Masculinity will no longer be synonymous with success. The 'OldBoys' networks within institutions will become eroded. Men's behavior may change as the homosocialityof institutions ends, for the men in power will no longer interact with only men as their peers and womenas mothers, sex objects and dependents. The transformation of behavior within institutions andintermediate organizations caused by women's rise in status, may have much greater effect than merelygiving women a greater share of the decision making process in an abstract way. Women will no longerhave to have their needs met, their money received, their political rights protected, solely through men.Issues such as abortion rights will no longer be decided only by men.Durkheim, Tocqueville, and Kornhauser believed that democracy can only be built upon aninfrastructure of intermediate organizations. [ Sartori, p.119, 1968 J The individual must never bejuxtaposed naked and alone against an all powerful state. The underlying structure connecting the twopoles, individual and state, must at first be built out of autonomous, that is separate, building blocks.Democratic government is formed less out of an abstract contract between all individuals than as anevolution of smaller social structures such as the family, guilds, professional associations, literary andpolitical clubs, military units, churches, and political parties. The democratic state now serves to protectthe rights of the individual, but the democratic state in turn depends on the voluntary and regularparticipation of the individual in other groups. Hence, the individualism of a person's daily life, their freeand unfettered voluntary participation in the public sphere remains crucial to any understanding of themore abstract qualities of individualism, as well as for the maintenance of basic civil liberties.8687Footnotes1)The political power of the economic elite remained but the upper class would have to use its economicpower to win influence through the votes of members of the other classes.2) Some countries such as Franco's Spain and Gorbachev's U.S.S.R. moved towards democracy peaceablyfrom dictatorship. In other instances, democratic governments proved quick to take away civil rights inwar time. Several pacifists were executed in Canada for treason during World War One for opposing thewar.3) Personally, 1 choose a more liberal interpretation of Marx's work, and I note how he stressed that ideaswere tied to the material foundations of life and production, and not blindly determined, and coulddevelop an autonomous existence and even influence the material foundation.4) Women have failed to vote as a solid block and thus women have never formed a consensus betweenthemselves about their political interests as women independent of men. In regards to ending classbarriers for suffrage, it would take decades before social-democratic governments were elected in Britainand Canada. Though Ramsay Macdonald won election twice in the 1920s, the Labour Party would have towait for Clement Attlee in 1945 before implementing its own agenda and reforms. In Canada, TommyDouglas was elected premier of Saskatchewan in 1944. Considering the late date of his election, and thatSaskatchewan was one of Canada's least industrialized provinces, that gives little evidence for theformation of a revolutionary class consciousness for the industrial workers in Canada at the time they wonthe vote in the 19th century.5) It is intriguing to note that the arguments at the time against birth control in this period that women didnot have the vote centered on that men feared that women would become promiscuous and cheat on theirhusbands. [ Homans, 1985, p.66 j Women did not gain the legalization of birth control right after theygained the vote, but at least women and men then had equal responsibility for public morality. Thathelped women get their rights for birth control in the 1960s in Canada and the U.S.6) However, there are whole traditions of thought, from Enlightenment philosophy, to radical and culturalfeminism which argues the opposite, that women are innately different mentally than men. However, theredoes not seem to be enough evidence for biological essentialism, which if expanded, could be too easilyexpanded to both sexism and racism. Carol Gilligan may be right that women in general may havedifferent moral processes than men which should be given equal weight, but such differences are mostlikely the product of different life experiences, such as childhood socialization, careers, and child bearing,rather than the inevitable product of having two X chromosomes.7) However, it is too soon to tell to what extent that gender inequality could reduce overall coercion,violence, sexual assault, homophobia, and business aggression. Understandably, there is a lack of evidenceto predict what will happen in the future.87Chapter Nine: Feminism and The Decline of the Patriarchal FamilyThe mid-19th century found women legally dead and without any recognition of self-determination, autonomy, and rights within marriage. Though many working-class women were in thepaid workforce working at lower wages than men earned, the only accepted role for middle-class womenand a growing proportion of women of all classes in general, was to be a wife and mother. Girls wereraised to be demure, to guard their virginity, to wait passively for their prince to come along and sweepthem off their feet, and then change their name and exchange their obedience to their parents forobedience to their husband. Women were to bear their husband's children and then devote the rest of theirtime to care for them. A woman could hope that their husband would be a 'good provider' who was not tooabusive, drunk or violent, but if the marriage failed or her husband beat her she usually had no recourse todivorce; in Britain (1) and Canada divorce was granted only as an Act of Parliament. As the writerCharlotte Gilman pointed out at the end of the 19th century, women were kept physically stunted andencumbered, and mentally impoverished. Women were denied the use of their minds, and the wholehuman race suffered from women's enforced dependency on men, which kept women and men in rigidlyseparate roles and prevented them from having much in common. This dependency kept middle-classwomen in a parasitical relationship with their husbands at the same time it was a prison which could drivewomen mad. I Gilman, (1898) 1966 IIn the industrialized democratic countries of western Europe and North America, men achievedthe last elements of the expanding concepts of freedom and individuality. Universal male suffrage wasimplemented at the end of the 19th century, industrialization gave men the opportunity to specialize theiroccupations, laissez-faire capitalism gave them the responsibility and opportunity to take care ofthemselves in the growing market, there was in general a lack of censorship and a relative freedom ofthought and conscience, and men and women could chose from an expanding array of consumer goods.However, the market and industrialization had led to individuality for men and not for women:888889"The modern world broke radically with this traditional practice in daring to proposethat individual merit and individual choice should govern men's membership incommunities. By the time such individualism had become a viable or even expedientbasis for men's participation in society, the market had begun to erode the materialfoundations of traditional communities, although without immediately releasing womenfrom their constraints. Modern bourgeois states and markets retained severe restrictionson women's mobility and independence, notably by denying married women the right tohold property and frequently even to control their own wages. Even protective laborlegislation, which sought to shield women from the most demanding jobs and thelongest hours, can, from one perspective, be viewed as limiting women's access toeconomic independence and as enforcing their dependence on men. Individualism forwomen lagged far behind individualism for men, as individualism for the dispossessedof all races lagged far behind that for the propertied. ...Women did indeed remainsubject to involuntary community membership long after men had, in principle if notalways in fact, become entitled to self-determination. When women trespassed or werethrown upon the market, the consequences of the ideology of separate spheres followedthem in the form of licensed violence against their persons, lower wages, and exclusionfrom opportunity. [ Fox, p. 43 1It is critical to note that until the success of the Women's Movement in the early twentieth century,women were not persons. Women were mothers, to be kept sheltered in the home, away from thecorrupting influences of politics, away from the sterilizing effects of higher education, and away from thedefeminization and dangers of the workplace. In Canada, women were only recognized as persons by thefederal government in 1929 after five women appealed a Supreme Court of Canada ruling to the JudicialCommittee of the United Kingdom. [ Baker, 1990, p.217 1 Women achieved their due recognition throughpolitical organization and lobbying which finally forced their governments to grant them legal andtheoretical equality with men. This was achieved in different times in different places, and even today,women are often hampered by a lack of freedom of choice and action that would seem ludicrous if appliedto men. (2)The American Woman's Movement issued a Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, NewYork, in 1848. The Declaration of Sentiments was based on liberal Enlightenment theory of natural rightsfor all individuals and it worded the Declaration of Independence as if women mattered:"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; thatthey are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these arelife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments areinstituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [ Donovan. 1990.p.6 18990Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who wrote the declaration, argued that men built the institutions and laws ofsociety to service themselves on the exploitation of women, to reduce women to nameless shadows whoseonly goal is to raise the children of men and propagate the next generation.:"He has compelled her to submit to laws in the formation of which she has no voice...He has made her, if married, in the eyes of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from herall right to property, even to the wages she earns... In the covenant of marriage, she iscompelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming to all intents and purposesher master -the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administerchastisement... He closes against her all the avenues of wealth and distinction which heconsiders most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine or law, she isnot known. He had denied her the facilities of for obtaining a thorough education, allcolleges being closed against her... He has created a false public sentiment by giving tothe world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencieswhich exclude women from society are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account toman. He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right toassign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.He has endeavored in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her ownpowers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abjectlife. [ Friedan, 1963, p. 84Elizabeth Stanton, though happily married, emphasized repeatedly in her career as a suffragist that thetraditional institution of marriage robbed women of their identity and hindered their opportunity for self-realization:"The contract of marriage is by no means equal... In entering this compact, the mangives up nothing that he before possessed, he is a man still; while the legal existence ofthe woman is suspended during marriage, and hence forth, she is known but in andthrough the husband. She is nameless, purseless, childless -though a woman, anheiress, and a mother. [ Eisenstein, p. 157Feminists fought a long battle for the recognition of women as individuals who have a right to their ownname, their own careers, and a right to their own bodies, which includes the right to refuse to have sexwith their husbands, (3) the right to divorce, and the right to safe forms of birth control and abortion.Gradually feminists in the 19th century won freedom to enter university and own property. After WorldWar One women achieved the right to vote in both Canada and the United States. However, it was notuntil the mid-1960s that feminists were able to end all formal discrimination against women, whichallows society today to seem as if women have all the same freedoms that men do, and the sameopportunities for freedom of choice and self-realization."From the late 1800s to well into the twentieth century, women gradually gained more9091political and legal rights, but only after many years of speeches, protests. and legalbattles. In Britain, the Married Women's Property Act of 1870 was seen as a milestonefor women's rights. Similar laws were introduced into the Canadian provinces within thenext few years. From 1910 to 1923, provincial legislation allowed mothers to gain legalcustody of their children both during marriage and after divorce. In 1918, women gainedthe right to vote in federal elections, but could not vote in Quebec provincial electionsuntil as late as 1940. These legal changes were precipitated by the participation ofwomen in the labour force, by ideologies of equality emanating from other politicalmovements, and by the determined efforts of the women's rights movement." [ Baker,1990, p.334Restrictions on divorce in Canada were loosened in 1968 and 1985, the dissemination and distribution ofbirth control became legal in 1968. Limited legal access to therapeutic abortions became available forwomen in 1968, the access to abortion not becoming widely available until after the Canadian SupremeCourt struck down federal (and not municipal hospital board) restrictions on abortion in January 1988.The progress for women's rights has not been linear and free of backlash. For example, duringWorld War II, women entered the paid labour force in unprecedented numbers in both industrial andservice sector jobs, to feed their families and to enjoy economic independence and self-reliance. But thenin the 1950s the ideology of motherhood and the happy housewife reemerged, and women's role was seento be only wives and helpmeets to their husbands:"Incentives such as free government nurseries and income tax concessions wereprovided to attract married women into the labour force. ...When the war ended, theincentives were withdrawn in an attempt to move married women back into the home.Married women were forced out of government jobs through regulations and legislation.Single women were strongly encouraged to return to their former 'female' jobs. [Hamilton, p.58, 1986 1However, as the economy continued to grow, more employment opportunities for female oriented jobsbecame available in the service sector, and more women entered part-time and full-time work in what hasbeen called 'the pink collar ghetto.' It is vital to note even after the rise of second wave feminism in the1960s when women are legally free to enter the workplace, and discriminatory hiring practices are notlegal, considerable gender segregation still exists in both the paid work force and in domestic work.Working women shoulder a double burden of paid and unpaid work, and women are still more likely to befound in lower paying jobs than men, [ Gunderson, 1990, I though this disparity appears to be easinggradually.9192The equalization of the relationship between the husband and the wife in marriage is central tothe achievement of freedom and individuality in most women's lives. As long as women get battered,raped, threatened, forced to work longer hours than men do by being responsible for domestic housework,[ Hamilton, p.149 1 women will not enjoy the same freedom from violence and the same opportunities forself-realization that men do:"Full individualism for women has increasingly been understood to include equality bothwithin marriage and in the workplace. Initially, the freeing of women from the cripplingaspects of marriage only entailed the removal of legal disabilities. But almost from thestart, the promotion of women's equality in the workplace and such attendant arenas aseducational institutions was taken to necessitate affirmative action. Removing barrierswas not enough; the redistribution of scarce resources had to be promoted. Increasingly,the improvement of women's position within marriage is taken to require positiveintervention. [ Fox, p.66As long as women are the ones expected to drop out of the labour force to care for children, and as long aswomen earn less than men, women will remain at an unnecessarily high risk of wife-battering, spousalrape, and poverty, [ Lewis, p. 1, 1988 J with the poverty rate for single-mothers being particularly high. [Ross, 1990]Despite the real victories of the woman's movement to gain legal equality with men and tohighlight women's oppression, even today many women do not have the same opportunities that men dofrom the double -work day, the threat of rape, on the job sexual harassment, and the gender-segregation ofwork yielding low wages for women. Women may now have legal equality with men, and use the powersof the state to guard their liberty and freedom, but women often do not have the same opportunities forself-realization that men take for granted.9293FootnotesI) In Britain women only gained the right to divorce their husbands on the same ground as the husbandscould divorce them in 1928. 1 Abbott, 1990, P. 77 12) For example, February 1992 was notable for two landmark cases: In Ireland, a pregnant fourteen yearold rape victim was denied the right to leave the country by the courts until such a time had passed thatshe had given birth. This was appealed to the Irish Supreme Court, and she won her appeal on February26, 1991. On February 27, 1992, a change in French law made it possible for French women to work atnight, ending a law prohibiting them from doing so passed in 1892. It is hard to see such restrictionsapplying to men without the situation being called an occupation or oppression.3) Spousal rape cases are rarely tried in court but when they are brought to court they have a higherchance of conviction than other forms of rape. Spousal rape first became a crime in about 1980 in bothCalifornia and Canada, see Diana Russell's Rape in Marriage, 1982.94Chapter Ten: The Housewife and Self-RealizationTo be accurate, housewives across America did not all rebel consciously against the ideology ofmotherhood being women's sole calling that was imposed on them. Rather, married women (1) re-enteredthe workforce in greater numbers because of a variety of factors such as inflation and unemploymentcutting their husband's income, rising expectations of material wealth, to pursue a calling in a professionsuch as medicine or business, to support themselves after divorce or otherwise single-motherhood, to getmore respect within the marriage from their husband to have real bargaining power, or just to pay thebills. This trend has continued so that in 1987 (2) only in 12 percent of Canadian couples did the wife hadnot worked since marriage, Baker, p.70, 1990 1 Most women today in western industrialized countriesexpect to work outside the home after marriage. As greater numbers of women increased theirinvolvement in the paid labour force, it was observed by sociological researchers that married women whodid work reported a greater sense of self-worth, independence, freedom, control over their fate, andmeaning in their lives:Women's access to any wage does mean some increase in power. As two incomesbecome more and more necessary, women's paid jobs must also be taken into account.Moreover, women with paid work seem to be healthier and happier than other women.Eicher (1988; 214) concludes that 'all indications are that in terms of mental health,self-esteem, and marital happiness wives with paying jobs fare better than housewives.' 1Baker, p.75, 1990 ITo be sure, because women are often segregated into lower paying, nonunionized, 'pink collar ghetto' jobsin the workplace, [ Baker,p.74 1 women are more likely to have uninteresting jobs with lower materialrewards than men, but nevertheless, paid employment in itself for married women is a necessary conditionfor their self-realization, independence, and for equality within marriage with their husbands.Women writers Charlotte Gilman Women and Economics (1898) and Betty Friedan TheFeminine Mystique(1963) were both crucial in their times for high-lighting the positive advantages forboth the individual woman and society at large for women and men to be equal in the paid labour force.94Gilman emphasized that the world had become over-sexed, with the workplace overly masculinized withonly male values, and women's lives in the home over-feminized as they concentrated all their identityand efforts on childrearing, beauty, and their sexuality Gilman foresaw a massive positive social changewith women's entry into the paid workforce. Men and women would have more in common and morelikely to be friends with each other, as men did not have to fear women latching like parasites onto them,could meet each day at work, could discuss more things they had in common than children, earned eachother's respect, and could have a relationship together that was not merely sexual. If women and men wereequal partners in the workplace, this could change how work was done, and de-emphasize the overlymasculine, competitive, ruthless character of work, and end the violent sexual euphemisms in businesssuch as 'screwing your opponents.' With the separation of gender specific spheres of work ended, the twodichotomous value systems, which depended on each other for support and definition, I Fox, 1991, p. 57]the male being competitive and autonomous, the female being nurturing and caring, would merge intoone. The result would be a humanization and de-sexualization of modern life to the benefit of all. IGilman, (1898), 1966 ] Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique focused more on the benefits toindividual women and housewives, that paid work would end the cycle of ceaseless boring work that theydid in their prison-like home, and give them intellectual and social stimulation, and a sense ofindependence and self-reliance. Critically, both Gilman and Friedan noted that society's deprivation ofpaid and meaningful work for the housewife contributed to her experiencing depression and confusion,and increased the chance of her being diagnosed as having a mental disorder. (3)Conventional individualism may be problematic for women within the traditional marriage. Theconcepts of marriage in western society have often included the merging of identity, as tycefied by thewoman changing her name to that of her husband, and an acknowledged loss of control by the womanover her body by giving permanent sexual consent. Traditionally, the man gained a guarantee of sexualaccess to the woman, and the woman nearly always changed her life plans to accommodate the man'scareer. This systemic sexism built within conventional forms of marriage prevents women's individualismfrom necessarily arising from living in a liberal democratic industrialized consumer society:9)96Like racism, sexism testified to and guarded against a particular group's access to fullparticipation in individualism. But the condition of women within households,notwithstanding rhetorically strong analogies, had not been identical to that of slaves.For if more women than we like to think had suffered various forms of domesticviolence and sexual abuse, more women than we like to admit had accepted theirposition within marriage as their natural condition. Marriage did subject women,including their property and their wages, to the authority of a man, upon whom theydepended for support. Marriage did expose women to private forms of abuse againstwhich they had little or no recourse. But, in many instances, marriage also offeredwomen protection against the uncertainties of single life -offered them economic supportand a social and personal identity that enhanced their self-respect. The residualcorporatism of marriage excluded women from individualism, but at least for a time italso offered them important benefits in return. For many women, in short, marriageconstituted a viable career, a more promising source of security than anything theindividualism of the public sphere could offer. [ Fox, 1991, p.63 1Therefore, not only it is quite possible to have women denied individualism in a free society, it is quiteprobable, providing the institution of marriage which regulates and maintains traditional narrow genderroles for women is not reformed.Betty Friedan wrote extensively in The Feminine Mystique  how the limited role for the housewifedenied her full humanity and identity:"We have made woman a sex creature," said a psychiatrist at the Margaret Sangermarriage counseling clinic. "She has no identity except as a wife and mother. She doesnot know who she is herself. She waits all day for her husband to come home at night tomake her feel alive. [ Friedan, p. 29, 1963 1Educated middle-class housewives were suffering from the "problem with no name," as they foundthemselves without much purpose, and succumbed easily to depression and anxiety. The repetitive,isolated, and interminable nature of housework prevents it from being what Marxists would call praxis, orfree creative engagement in the world in which the best qualities of the individual emerge. Housework, tothe contrary, though it does offer some control over the timing of tasks, is usually undervalued andrestricts personal growth and freedom. The results from housework are usually intangible, the house isalways slowly getting dirty, and a meal, once made and served, becomes more garbage to be disposed of.Traditionally until the 1960s, sociologists such as Talcott Parsons, [ Abbott, p. 74, 1990 1 andFreudian psychiatrists were quite convinced that the women's place was in the home and should not even'try to compete (why not cooperate?) with men in the public sphere. As the neo-Freudians Marynia9697Farnham and the sociologist Ferdinand Lundberg were quoted in the Modern Woman: The Lost Sex(1947):"It is not in the capacity of the female organism to attain feelings of well-being by theroute of male achievement... It was the error of the feminists that they attempted to putwomen on the essentially male road of exploit, off the female road of nurture...Friedan, 1963, P. 120Guidance counselors, teachers, legislators, and business executives from the nineteenth century to pastthe middle of the twentieth century were all generally unanimous that women and men were different, andthat women's lives should revolve around their sex and genitals, that is women would only have a sexualidentity rather than be normal individuals. Betty Friedan quotes an educational study from the journal TheAmerican College:"The identity issue for the boy is primarily an occupational -vocational question, whileself-definition for the girl depends more directly on marriage. A number of differencesfollow from this distinction. The girl's identity centers more exclusively on her sex-role -whose wife will I be, what kind of a family will we have, while the boy's self-definitionforms about two nuclei; he will be a husband and father (his sex-role identity ) but hewill also and centrally be a worker... The boy can begin to think and plan for this aspectof identity early... The sexual identity, so critical for feminine development, permits nosuch conscious or orderly effort. It is a mysterious and romantic issue, freighted withfiction, mystique, illusion. [ Friedan, p. 164, 1963] As we can see from this excerpt, the career specialization of the boy coupled with the girl's self-identitythrough her sexuality, leads the boy to ask 'what will 1 be'?' while the girl asks 'whose shall I be'?' As longas women are brainwashed or otherwise coerced into only being housewives, they will not have self-reliance, independence, and an identity separate from that of their marriage. It does not matter how manyfreedoms society offers, the freedom of privacy, equality, to be left alone, free speech, and the freedom tochose consumer goods, as long as marriage remained untransformed the attainment of individualism andself-identity by women remained difficult and tenuous.The modern conceptualization of the individual, male or female, has progressed in the twentiethcentury, notably under the influence of the psychologist Abraham Maslow, to include the necessaryconditions of self-realization, the expression of creativity, intellect, and the need to be esteemed andcapable of controlling one's fate in a manner of meaningful independence. 1 Maslow, p.27-35, 1970 19798After a person is free from violence and has their physiological needs of food and shelter met, the personusually seeks comfort and a sense of place and belonging in their relationships with other people. Then,the final step the person seeks self-expression, esteem, and to discover and be all that they can be:"Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may still often (if not always) expect that a newdiscontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what he isfitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he isto be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization." [ Maslow, p. 33, 1970 JBut because western women have traditionally been forced to see their responsibilities to their family astheir main if not only calling, then the endless housework, coupled by the deskilled work in the labourforce that they may end up doing because they did not foresee to train for a career or because of jobsegregation, usually prevents them from being all they can be to the same extent their husbands or ex-husbands can. (4)Betty Friedan emphasizes the point that individuality is not something that is granted people byeconomic and legal factors, such as laissez-faire capitalism and the constitution, but that individuality isachieved through the person's own active struggle for self-definition, provided they are not crushed andoverwhelmed by legalized oppression:American housewives have not had their brains shot away, nor are they schizophrenic inthe clinical sense. But if this new thinking is right, and the fundamental human drive isnot the urge for pleasure or the satisfaction of biological needs, but the need to grow andto realize one's full potential, their comfortable, empty, purposeless days are indeedcause for a nameless terror. In the name of femininity, they have evaded the choices thatwould have given them a personal purpose, a sense of their own being. For, as theexistentialists say, the values of human life never come about automatically. "Thehuman being can lose his own being by his own choices, as a tree or stone cannot." [Friedan, p. 314, 1963 1Ensconced numbly in the home, a woman loses all individuality if she passively accepts her fate andidentifies herself as only her husband's wife and her children's mother. Individuality is something thatneeds to be constantly maintained. This praxis involves an individual making a positive and tangibledifference to the sphere of production as well as the family, and transforming and evolving that individualfor the better through their relationship to the world around them. And as Georg Sinunel stated989 9"Individnality in being and action generally increases to the degree that the social circle encompassing theindividual expands." I Simmel, 1971, p.252 I Praxis and individualism requires active involvement in theworld without letting one's horizon's constrict.Betty Friedan fully embraces Maslow's psychological theory that the human being intrinsicallyyearns to develop its full potential, and to improve and to develop its own distinct qualities. This andsimilar theories that emerged after World War II and later in the 1960s modified the notion of theindividual to be more than just a recognized separate person by law, but as a consciously blossomingunique person, who after being free from constraint then consciously strives for self-development and tofulfill more abstract and artistic goals than just survival and duty:"In a sense, this evolving hierarchy of needs moves further and further away from thephysiological level which depends on the material environment, and tends toward alevel relatively independent of the environment, more and more self-determined. But aman can be fixated on a lower need level; higher needs can be confused or channeledinto the old avenues and may never emerge.The progress leading finally to the highesthuman level is easily blocked -blocked by deprivation of a lower need, as the need forfood or sex; blocked also by the channeling all existence into these lower needs andrefusing to recognize that higher needs exist. In our culture, the development of womenhas been blocked at the physiological level with, in many cases, no need recognizedhigher than the need for love or sexual satisfaction. Even the need for self-respect, forself-esteem and for the esteem of others -"the desire for strength, for achievement, foradequacy, for mastery and competence, for confidence in the face of the world and forindependence and freedom" - is not clearly recognized for women. ...If a woman's needsfor identity, for self-esteem, for achievement, and finally for expression of her uniquehuman individuality are not recognized by herself or others in our culture, she is forcedto seek identity and self-esteem in the only channels open to her: the pursuit of sexualfulfillment, motherhood, and the possession of material things. And, chained to thesepursuits, she is stunted at a lower level of living, blocked from the realization of herhigher human needs. I Friedan, p. 3161Motherhood in itself, though it may be a large part of self-fulfillment for many individual women, is not asufficient condition for individuality. In fact as Georg Simmel mentioned, because motherhood issomething that is generic and happens to most women, strictly speaking we cannot speak of motherhoodin itself as being a factor in individualization. Though birth certainly may be a major experience in awoman's life, it does not make her unique, and it certainly makes her less autonomous. Fox, 1991, p .61-66 I Confining women to the home, and making them focus all their human energies into what is a sexualrole of being a lover and mother, stunts women's growth as human beings. As Charlotte Gilman100pointed out in Women and Economics (1898), the individual members of the human race had unrealizedpotential in becoming more human as they rejected narrowly rigid and dichotomous sexually definedgender roles.Footnotes1) Lower class married women, and often unmarried women, had been always in the workforce. Also,official statistics regarding women's participation in the labour force are distorted because until recentlythe wives of farmers were not counted as active members of the labour force. Also, another traditionalsource of income for women because they faced such discrimination in the labour market was to take inboarders, and as women have re-entered the labour force, the boarding-houses have declined in number.2) It may seem confusing to some readers to skip from the turn of the century industrial revolution to thelate post-industrial economy, but in terms of labour force participation and the ideology of motherhoodimposed on them, women in the 1950s resembled women of the late Victorian Age in the limits to theiropportunities. In the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, labour force participation rates for women in allindustrialized countries rose continuously. Today, most women do not expect not to work after marriage,and so plan and make allowances for a career, and so are much more prepared than women of theprevious generation who often entered the labour force unexpectedly after many years of marriage,without job experience and significantly marketable skills.3) For another reference to the inverse correlation between women's participation in the paid work-forceand mental illness, see Jessie Bernard's article "His Marriage and Hers." Or read Charlotte Gilman's story"The Yellow Wallpaper" of her own experiences as her family doctor tried to prevent her from readingand encouraged her to devote her whole life solely to care for her child.4) "The combination of higher male wages, female segregation, and traditional attitudes toward men'slabour force work means that men's jobs in the market take precedence over those of women. Whenfamilies have to decide who will leave the market in order to care for children or elderly relatives, tohandle emergencies, or to do the regular domestic work, they usually choose to forgo the earnings of theperson with the lowest wage and least interesting work." [ Baker, p.75, 1990100101Chapter Eleven: Concluding CommentsWomen have had to struggle against men to achieve recognition as both persons and individuals.However, women's individualism must not end with mere equality with men as men. That is, it iscompletely insufficient for individual women to achieve access to the public sphere and skilled paid labourby being granted status as 'honorary men' and being rewarded only by men and men's values on how theyconform to the behavior of men, a goal unattainable by women as a whole:"To claim women's humanity only insofar as women can show themselves to be like (asgood as) men is to challenge men's definition of women but not their definition ofhumanity... because man has been identical with humanity in male-dominated society,and female-identified activity has been devalued and marginalized, the overall directionof political struggle must be primarily to feminize the world and man and the concept ofhumanity. This is to provide concrete content for values and goals, such as 'non-alienated man,' which have remained abstractions in male-dominated radical politics. Itis also to bring together the psychological and the social, the individual and thecollective, the personal and the political, in a far more effective and sustained way thanmale radicals have been able to do." [ Miles, 1982, p.218Real equality between men and women needs recognition of difference, not of supposed sociobiologicaldifferences between men and women, but the recognition that institutions in our society have beenovermasculinized and overabstracted, and that women continue to face a double burden of paid andunpaid work, are still primarily responsible for childraising, and are uniquely vulnerable to sexual assaultand rape. Men must change their own behavior somewhat, for example in ridding themselves of sexualstereotypes and in taking an equal share of the work of childraising, it is insufficient to demand that onlywomen change their behavior. It would be impossible for women to attain true individualism if themethod was for them to deny their womanhood, and to try to act as masculine, aggressive, and boorish, asmen, and to be judged by men by male standards. Women ultimately have to judge themselves rather thancontinuing to live their lives around men which would deny them their identity.The sociologist Edwin Schur (1984) who helped found Labeling Theory argued that womencontinue to have their gender being more important in their daily lives than men do:Stigma can accrue to what a person is as well as to what she does. Schur argued thatfemaleness is socially a master status, and a stigmatized one at that. Master status meansthat 'women are perceived and reacted to at least initially, and often primarily, in terms101102of their femaleness. Only secondarily, if at all, do their other identities and qualitiesdetermine responses to them." In responding to a female on the basis of her masterstatus, others tend to selectively perceive and depict that person in terms of stereotypesabout that type of person. Contradictions to the stereotype go unnoticed or are defined asexceptions. Moreover, since behavior is interpreted by other on the basis of gender-basedstereotypes, the same behavior by a man and a woman may be labeled very differently,being stigmatized for one but not the other. In particular, Schur argued that gendernorm deviance, and even female victimization by males, are likely to be labeled byauthorities as mental illness for men. Because women are responded to on the basis oftheir membership in a devalued category, they are objectified. Schur claimed that theyare not seen as unique individuals but rather as part of the category women.Objectification allows others to treat the stigmatized individuals in exploitative anddegrading ways. In response, women often feel like they are being treated like a thingrather than a person." [ Chafetz, 1988, p.111 ]Women are more self-reflective than men because women are less powerful. In unequal relationships, thedominated groups need to define themselves in relation to the dominant partner. [ Rhode, 1990, p.93 1Women's individuality cannot be divorced from their status vis-a-vis men. Women have had to organizethemselves against men for recognition as human beings and for the freedoms and opportunities for thedevelopment of their self-development.Ultimately it is the Marxist concept of praxis which emerges to replace stigmatization, alienationand coercion as women achieve individualism. Praxis is the measurement of individualism. Praxis is thefree, creative, and voluntary engagement of a person in the world which then maintains and transformsboth the person and the world for the better. True individualism brings empowerment and praxis for theindividual. Praxis comes from the word 'practice'. It is only when the practice of our mundane everydaylife is free, meaningful and productive that we truly have achieve the full benefits of individualism. Hencewe see the unification of materialist and idealist elements: a legal recognition of autonomy and equality aswell as protection against discrimination is a necessary but insufficient condition, but the process ofwomen's liberation did not stop with legal equality (as obtained after World War One) but is an effort totransform everyday life for women and men for the better. Consciousness does not exist before being, for aperson to be an individual they have to be an individual in practice and praxis. Consciousness of one'sindividuality is essential, but must be matched by corresponding engagement in the world. As long aswomen are restricted to the roles they can take part in, either in the home or the labour force, thoughindividual women may feel distinguished or fulfilled, women as a whole have not achieved their full102103potential. Individualism for women remains tenuous and often fleeting. Legal recognition as equalindividuals by the state is insufficient, a transformation of women's everyday life to a state of praxis is thefinal criteria for complete individualism.The liberal paradigm for social change, as well as for the law, is unable to grant women fullindividuality. Women have used the liberal concept of equal rights for all people to successfully lobby thestate to grant them legal equality with men. In doing so, women have won the right to vote, own property,enter university, to work without being handicapped by discriminatory and sexist regulations, and to enterpolitics. However, there are serious limits to how far this approach can aid the Woman's Movement. Thestate must not remain as the sole safeguard of women's rights, as women's guardian against patriarchy,because the state in itself is patriarchal. Women cannot count on the state to continue to strive for theirindividualism, because at present the state is part of the problem. The legal bulwark and component ofwomen's individualism, the fact that it is necessary for the state to delineate women's rights, maintainswomen in a paternalistic relationship. The patriarchal family has declined the western nations, and as oftoday, the absolute power of the father over their (female) offspring and wife is generally found only insmall pockets of ethnic and immigrant families. The state protects women from being dominated by menwithin the family, by giving them the right to divorce, the right to work, the right to use birth control, andthe right to call the police to arrest their husbands or fathers for violent actions. However, this has been ashift from private patriarchy to public patriarchy:As capitalism has developed further, there has been a shift from private patriarchywithin the family to public patriarchy centered in industry and government. (Brown,1981). Although individual men may still hold power in families where they are present,the patriarchal state ensures that all women are subject to a patriarchal order. Thus, incontemporary society, social welfare systems, education, family courts, and reproductivepolicies are all controlled by men, even though their primary effect is upon women andchildren. [ Andersen, 1988, p.152The issue of abortion makes this very. clear. If a woman is considering not carrying a child to term, shemay talk to her local religious leader, who is a man, talk to her impregnator, who is a man, talk with herdoctor, who is usually a man, then her social worker perhaps, and if the male legislators in Parliament andthe male justices on the Supreme Court manage to concur that under these circumstances she is allowed to103104have an abortion, she may then go ahead. In fact, though it is nice that the male legislators of westernindustrialized countries have legislated women's equality with men and legislated women's access to somebirth control measures (and not to others), this obscures the vital fact that it remains men who havecontrol, who believe it is their right, to decide on the choices women may make. The fact that malepoliticians give women rights still implies that male politicians have the right to take the same rightsaway. Individualism for women is not something that women can have the state give to them like a fatherto a daughter, rather individualism is something that has to be consciously and actively maintained. Itremains fully possible for a person to lose their identity and still have all the legal rights that would allowa person to be an individual. The fact that the law allows women to be individuals does not mean that thelaw makes sure all women are able to overcome the structural behaviors that men have placed in theirway, to be self-realized individuals to their ftill potential.Ultimately, individualism may have to be reconsidered. For the 19th and most of the 20thcenturies, men found it relatively easy to get a feeling of individual identity and autonomy, for they hadsexual rights over their wives within marriage and with the professions essentially closed to women andracial minorities, white men reserved for themselves the best jobs. If women were treated as generic, as acategory of 'Other,' that they could be used without being respected as fully human, the autonomousidentities of men became more apparent in contrast. The introduction of equality for all makes traditionalindividualism no longer tenable. High unemployment for men reduces their economic security as women'sentrance into the professions gives men increased competition to get ahead. The unemployed lack controlover their fates that the employed take for granted, and unemployment encourages passivity anddependency. [ Lane, p.73, 1981 1 Chronic unemployment threatens to create a multi-tiered society withineven highly industrialized nations. Equality becomes problematic. Political and moral equality becomedifficult to sustain when there is no equality in the labour market. All employed people are relatively equalperhaps, but we cannot say that the chronically unemployed have the same opportunities and positivefreedoms, as well as self-worth and dignity, as those who are able to find meaningful or steady work. Theunemployed experience feelings of helplessness, a condition not congruous with individualism. Lane.1041 051981 IIn contemporary society in the industrialized western nations we have a ruling ideology ofanarchic individualism, the social obligations to other people, outside of refraining from criminal acts, nolonger exist. The rewards for investing in the group or in a marriage decline, while the rewards for self-investment rise, creating a vicious cycle as the family and marriage become insecure and individuals arebecoming truly alone even within their relationships with other people. Certain groups in our society, suchas certain ethnic minorities and religious groups such as the Amish, Mennonites, Latter-Day-Saints,retain the use of mutual obligation for the basis of their daily life. Life in these subcultures may be seen aslacking some of the elements of individualism of our broader society, but the human relationships aremuch more stable and secure.Atomic individualism can either exist in the form of one group (white men) being equal andautonomous by standing on the backs of the other members who are not free and autonomous in theirrelationships with the ruling caste, or in the form of every group having such atomic individualism, inwhich case informal social bonds are diminished. If social bonds, such as investment in the extendedfamily, are no longer obligatory, the individual can no longer depend on their security as well. Severaldifferent options are possible if atomic individualism creates too much isolation, alienation, and anomiebetween people. A collectively oriented society can exist in a number of ways: 1) A totalitarian method inwhich all people are equally enslaved to a central authority, be it a communist or theological leader. 2) Acommunal society in which decisions are made by the group. The group would have freedom ofdetermination but individuals would be identified primarily by their bonds to each other before theircommitments to themselves. 3) A society in which all members have definite and relatively bindingobligations to each other as individuals. Such a society would be interlocking, that people would have toobey each other in different ways, with no one being able to control any other person in all ways or able toescape obligations to other people. A person opting out of their obligations would automatically lose allbenefits, though there would be a way to appeal unrealistic orders. Instead of people merely having rightsfor their own autonomy, they would have rights within their social relationships with other people. This105I 0:latter option would seem to be impractical for a large scale. Ultimately, every constitution or plan ofsociety seeks to find a solution based on different divisions between collective and individual rights, andlike points on the perimeter of a curve, there might be many equally efficient or equally livablealternatives or solutions.The increase of individualism in modern society has put a greater responsibility on the state.People look to the government for security in their normal relationships. A person no longer expectsmarriage or the family to give them economic security, but will depend instead on the state to make surechild support is paid, and when necessary to protect them from their family members. However, the stateis ultimately also a potential threat to individuals' rights and freedoms, and the powers of the state, thoughformidable, are difficult to be used by the individual when they most need help. The state may outlawrape, discrimination, and murder, and declare a war on poverty, but unless a person can make a case tostand up in court, the state will not intervene on their behalf. The state is in principle, more reactive thanproactive. Real benefits for women will rise when women do not have to wonry about walking down a darkstreet, or having to make the decision to press charges against abusive partners. Legal equality on paper isnot always liberating if it fails to take into account very real social inequality. Ultimately, women have tofeel free as human beings in the practice of their daily lives. A woman will need to feel that she is beingevaluated in a job solely on the basis on her qualifications and not by her looks, and to have her moralauthority and autonomy unchallenged by the fact she is a woman. A woman will have to be able to gothrough a day without being constantly made aware that she a female or without men retaining the notionthat they are objective individuals and women are 'Other.'I 06p.107Thesis BibliographyAbbott, Pamela, & Wallace, Clair, An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives, Routledge Press, New York, 1990Adams, George, Civilization During the Middle Ages, New York, 1913Andersen, Margaret, L., Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectiveson Sex and Gender, Macmillan Publishing, New York, 1988Aries, Philippe, Western Sexuality, Blackwood Press, 1985Baker, Maureen, Families: Changing Trends in Canada, 2nd Edition, McGrawHill, Toronto, 1990Berlin, Isaiah, Four Essays on Liberty, pages 118-172, 1969Bendin, Reinhard, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, Doubleday Inc,New York, New York, 1960Birke, Lynda, Women, Feminism and Biology: The Feminist Challenge,Methuen, New York, 1986Brehm, Sharon S., Seeing Female: Social Roles and Personal Lives,Greenwood Press, New York, 1989Bridenthal, Renate, & Konz, Claudia, Becoming Visible: Women in EuropeanHistory, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1977Bridenthal, Renate, & Konz, Claudia, Becoming Visible: Women in EuropeanHistory, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1987Carmody, Denise Lardner, Women in World Religions, Second Edition,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1985Carr, E.H., The New Society, pages 19-39, 1951Carrithers, Michael, Collins, Steven, Lukes, Steven (editors), TheCategory of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, 1985Chafetz, Janet Saltzman, Feminist Sociology: An Overview of ContemporaryTheories, Peacock Publishers, Illinois, 1988Chang, Yun-Shik, "The Personalist Ethic and the Market in Korea," inComparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 33, No.1, January 1991,Pages 106-129Chesler, W.M. Phyllis, Women and Madness, Doubleday, New York, 1972Cleverdon, Catherine, The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada, Universityof Toronto, Toronto, 1974page 108Code, Lorraine, What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Constructionof Knowledge, Cornell University Press, London, 1991Cook, Ramsay, & Mitchinson, Wendy (editors), The Proper Sphere: Woman's Place in Canadian Society, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1976Coole, Diana, Women in Political Thought: From Ancient Misogyny toContemporary Feminism, Wheatsheaf Books, Boulder, 1988Corea, Gena, The Hidden Malpractice: How American Medicine Treats Womenas Patients and Professionals, William Morrow & Co., New York, 1977Currie, Dawn, & Raoul, Valerie, Anatomy of Gender: Women's Struggle forthe Body, Carleton University Press, Ottawa, 1992Daly, Mary, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, Boston,1978D'Haucourt, Genevieve, Life in the Middle Ages, Walker and Company, NewYork, 1963Donovan, Josephine, Feminist Theory: The Intellectual Traditions ofAmerican Feminism, Continuum, New York, 1990Doyle, James, & Paludi, Michele, Sex & Gender: The Human Experience,Brown Publishers, Dubruque, 1991Durkheim, Emile, "On Mechanical and Organic Solidarity," in TalcottParsons (editor) Theories of Society, p. 208-213, 1961Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor in Society, translator GeorgeSimpson, 1949Dworkin, Andrea, Right Wing Women, Coward & McCanan, Inc, New York, 1983Ehrenreich, Barabara, & English, Deirdre, For Her Own Good: 150 Years ofthe Experts Advice to Women, Anchor Press, Doubleday, New York, 1978,Eisenstein, Zillah, The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism, Longman, NewYork, 1981Elias, Norbert, The Society of Individuals, Basil Blackwell, 1991Elshtain, Jean Bethke, Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought, Princeton University Press, 1981Encyclopedia Brittanica, Micropaedia, Volume 5, University of Chicago,Encyclopedia Brittanica Publishing, Toronto, 1976Faulkner, Wendy, & Arnold, Erik, Smothered by Invention: Technology in Women's Lives page 109Firestone, Shulamith, The Dialectic of Sex, William Morrow & Co., NewYork, 1970Fisher, Sue, In the Patient's Best Interest: Women and the Politics ofMedical Decisions, 1986Fisher, Sue, & Todd, Alexandra, Gender and Discourse: The Power of Talk,Volume XXX, Ablex Press, NorwoodForbes, Ian, Marx and the New Individual, Unwin Hyman, London, 1990Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth, Feminisn without Illusions: A Critique ofIndividualism, The University of North Carolina Press, Chappel Hill &London, 1991Freedman, Rita, Beauty Bound, Lexington Books, Toronto, 1986Giddens, Anthony, "The 'Individual' in the Writings of Emile Durkheim,"in European Journal of Sociology, Tome 12, Numero 1, 1971, pages 210-228Gilman, Charlo.Ete, Women and Economics, (1898), 1966Girvetz, Harry, Democracy and Elitism, Charles Scribner's Sons, NewYork, 1967Goff, Jacques Le, Medieval Callings, The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, 1990Gunderson, Morley, & Riddell, Craig, "Economics of Women's Wages inCanada," Department of Economics U.B.C. discussion paper, 1990Guttentag, Marcia, & Secord, Paul, Too Many Women? The Sex RatioQuestion, Sage Publicatiions, London, 1983Hagedorn, Robert, Sociology, Fourth Edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winstonof Canada, Limited, Toronto, 1990Hamilton, Linda, The Liberation of Women: A study of Patriarchy andCapitalism, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1978Hamilton, Linda, & Barrett, Michele, The Politics of Diversity, Verso,Montreal, 1986Hanmer, Jalna, & Maynard, Mary, Women, Violence and Social Control,Humanities Press, New Jersey, 1987Harding, Sandra, Sex & Scientific Inquiry, the University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, 1987Held, David, Models of Democracy, Stanford University Press, Stanford,1987Lardner, Denise, Women & World Religions, Prentice-Hall, Englewoodpage 110Herlihy, David,^Medieval^Households, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, 1985Hirst, Paul, Durkheim, Bernard and Epistemology, Routledge, London, 1975Homans, Hilary, The Sexual Politics of Reproduction, Gower Press,Brookfield, 1985Hubbard, Ruth, The Politics of Women's Biology, Rutgers UniversityPress, 1989Jaggar, Alison M., & Rothenberg, Paula S., Feminist^Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations Between Women and Men Kealey, Linda, A Not Unreasonable Claim: Women and Reform in Canada, 1880s -1920, The Women's Press, Toronto, 1979Knoff, Alfred, A History of the Middle Ages 284-1500, New York, 1958.Labarge, Margaret Wade, Women in Medieval Life: A Small Sound of the Trumpet, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1986LaCapra, Dominick, Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher, CornellUniversity, 1972Lane, Robert, "Personal Freedom in a Market Society," in Society, Vol.18, No. 3, March 1981, pages 63-76Lane, Robert, "Individualism and the Market Society," in J.R. Pennock(editor) Liberal Democracy, pages 374-407, 1983Cliffs, New Jersey,LeMoncheck, Linda, Dehumanizing Women: Treating Persons as Sex Objects,Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, New Jersey, 1985Lewis, Debra, Just Give Us the Money, 1988Lips, Hilary, Women, Men and the Psychology of Power, Prentice-Hall,Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy,Lloyd, Genevieve, The Man of Reason: 'Male' and 'Female' in WesternPhilosophy, Methuen Press, 1984Loewith, Karl, "Weber's Interpretation of the Bourgeois-Capitalist Worldin Terms of 'Rationalisation,'" in Max Weber and Karl Marx, pages 28-67,1960Lukes, Steven, Individualism, Oxford, 1990Lukes, Steven, "Durkheim's 'Individualism and the Intellectuals',"Political Studies Vol.17, No.1, 1969page 111Macfarlane, Alan, The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property, and Social Transition, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1978Margolis, Maxine, Mothers and Such: Views of American Women and why TheyChanged, University of California Press, Berkely, 1984Maslow, Abraham, "A Theory of Human Motivation," (Victor Vroom editor)in Management and Motivation, pages 27-41, 1970McElroy, Wendy, (editor) Freedom, Feminism, and the State: An overviewof Individualist Feminism, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 1982Mestrovic, Stjepan, Emile Durkheim and the Reformation of Sociology,Rowman & Littlefield, 1988Miles, Engala, & Finn, Geraldine, Feminism in Canada: From Pressure toPolitics, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1982Miller, James, History and Human Existence: From Marx to Merleau -Ponty,University of California Press, London,1979Mills, C. Wright, "Work," in White Collar, 1956Mills, C., Wright, "Herbert Spencer," in Images of Man, 1960Nisbet, Robert, & Bottomore, Tom, A History of Sociological Analysis,Basic Books, New York, 1978O'Faolain, Julia, Not in God's Image, Harper & Row, New York, 1974011enbuger, Jane, & Moore, Helen, A Sociology of Women: The Intersectionof Patriarchy, Capitalism & Colonizationz, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey, 1992Painter, Sidney, A History of the Middle Ages 284-1500, The John HopkinsUniversity, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1958Parsons, Talcott, "Max Weber: Religion and Modern Capitalism," in TheStructure of Social Action, pages 501-533, 1937Pearce, Frank, The Radical Durkheim, Unwin Hyman, London, 1989Rabuzzi, Kathryn, The Sacred and the Feminine: Toward a Theology of Housework, Seabury Press, New York, 1982Ramazanoglu, Caroline, Feminism and the Contradictions of Oppression,Routledge Press, New York, 1989Rhode, Deborah, Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference, YaleUniversity Press, London, 1989page 112Richards, Jeffrey, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages, Routledge Press, New York, 1990Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory, Second Edition, Alfred KnopfPublishing, New York, 1988Ross, David, & E. Shillington, The Canadian Fact Book on Poverty -1989,The Canadian Council on Social Development, Ottawa, 1990Ruether, Rosemary (editor), Religion & Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish & Christian Traditions, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1974Russell, Diana, Rape in Marriage, McMillan Press, New York, 1982Ruth, Sheila, Issues in Feminism: An Introduction to Women's Studies,Mayfield Publishing, Toronto, 1990Sartori, Giovanni, "Democracy," in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume Four, the Free Press, 1968Schur, Edwin, Labeling Women Deviant,^Temple University Press,Philadelphia, 1984Seccombe, Wally, A Millenium of Family Change: Feudalism to Capitalismin Northwestern Europe, Verso, New York, 1992Shahar, Shulamith, The Fourth Estate, Methuen, New York, 1983Sharma, Arvind (editor), Women in World Religions, State University ofNew York Press, Albany, New York, 1987Simmel, Georg, George Simmel: On Women, Sexuality, and Love, YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, 1984Simmel, Georg, "Individual and Society in Eighteenth and NineteenthCentury Views of Life," in Kurt Wolff (editor) The Sociology of GeorgSimmel, pages 58-84, 1950Simmel, Georg, "The Metropolis and Mental Life," in Kurt Wolff (editor)The Sociology of Georg Simnel, pages 409-424, 1950Simmel, Georg, (editor Donald Levine) George Simmel: On Individualityand Social Forms, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971Spencer, Samia, French Women and the Age of Enlightenment, IndianaUniversity Press, Bloomington, 1984Storkey, Elaine, What's Right With Feminism, SPCK, London, 1985Stuard, Susan, Women in Medieval Society, University of Pennsylvania,1976page 113Sydie, R.A., Natural Women, Cultured Men, Methuen, Toronto, 1987Thrupp, Sylvia, Society & History, University of Michigan Press, 1977Tilly, Charles, As Sociology Meets History, Academic Press, Toronto,1981,Unger, Rhoda, & Crawford, Mary, Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology,McGraw-Hill Inc., Toronto, 1992Vuuren, Nancy von, The Subversion of Women: As Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and other Sexists,  The Westminster Press, Philadelphia,1973Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of^Capitalism,translator Talcott Parsons, 1958Williams, Juanta, Psychology of Women: Behavior in a Biosocial Context,Norton & Company, New York, 1987Families & Work, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited,Toronto, 1991Wiltshire, David, Thepages 165-191, OxfordSocial and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer,University Press, 1978Witherington, Ben, Women in the Earliest Churches, Cambridge UniversityPress, 1988Wilson, S.J., Women, 114APPENDIXIndividualism, political and social philosophy that places high value on the freedom ofthe individual and generally stresses the self-directed, self-contained, and comparativelyunrestrained individual or ego. The French political commentator Alexis de Tocqueville,who coined the word, described it in terms of a kind of moderate selfishness, disposinghuman beings to be concerned only with their own small circle of family and friends.As a philosophy, individualism involves a value system, a theory of human nature,a general attitude or temper, and belief in certain political, economic, social, and religiousarrangements. The value system may be described in terms of three propositions: all valuesare man-centered --that is, they are experienced (but not necessarily created) by humanbeings; the individual is an end in himself and is of supreme value, society being only ameans to individual ends; and all individuals are in some sense morally equal, this equalitybeing best expressed by the proposition that no one should ever be treated solely as ameans to the well-being of another person.The individualistic theory of human nature holds that the interests of the normaladult are best served by allowing him maximum freedom and responsibility for choosinghis objectives and the means for obtaining them, and acting accordingly. This belieffollows from the conviction that each person is the best judge of his own interests and,granted, educational opportunities, can discover how to advance them. It is also basedupon the assumption that the act of making these choices contributes to the developmentof the individual and to the welfare of society -- the latter because individualism is thoughtto provide the most effective incentive to productive endeavour. Society, from this pointof view, is seen as only a collection of individuals, each of which is a self-contained andideally almost self-sufficient entity.As a general attitude, then, individualism embraces a high valuation on self-reliance, on privacy, and on respect for other individuals. Negatively, it embodiesopposition to authority and to all manner of controls over the individual, especially whenthey are exercised by the state. It also anticipates and values "progress" and, as a means tothis end, subscribes to the right of the individual to be different from, to compete with, andto get ahead of (or fall behind) others.The institutional embodiment of individualism follows from these principles. Onlythe most extreme individualists believe in anarchy, but all believe that government shouldkeep its interference with human lives at a minimum and that it should confine itself largelyto maintaining law and order, preventing individuals from interfering with others, andenforcing agreements (contracts) voluntarily arrived at. The states tends to be viewed as anecessary evil and the slogan "The government that governs least governs best" isapplauded.Individualism also implies a property system according to which each person (orfamily) enjoys the maximum of opportunity to acquire property and to manage anddispose of it as he sees fit. Freedom of association extends to the right to join (or to refuseto join) any organization.Although instances of individualism have occurred thought history in manycultures and times, full-fledged individualism, as it is usually conceived to be, seems tohave emerged first in England, especially after the publication of the ideas of Adam Smith114115and Jeremy Bentham and their followers in economic and political theory. Smith's doctrineof laissez-faire, based upon a profound belief in the natural harmony of individual wills andBentham's utilitarianism, with the basic rule of "each to count for one and none for morethan one," set the stage for these developments. On the economic side, Smith's "obviousand simple system of natural liberty" pictured exchange of goods and services in free andcompetitive markets as the ideal system of cooperation for mutual advantage. Such anorganization should maximize efficiency as well as freedom, secure for each participant thelargest yield from his resources to be had without injury to others, and achieve a justdistribution, meaning a sharing of the social product in proportion to individualcontributions.Although economic individualism and political individualism in the form ofdemocracy advanced together for a while, eventually they proved incompatible as newlyenfranchised voters increasingly came to demand, in the course of the 19th century,governmental intervention in the economic process. In point of fact, the reasons for thegrowing demand for intervention were inherent in the attempt to adhere rigorously to aneconomic theory based almost solely on individualistic assumptions. In economics as in allother phases of life these assumptions are inadequate. Man is a social animal. His nature,his wants, and his capacities are to a great extent the product of society and itsinstitutions. His most effective behavior is often through groups and organizations,running the gamut from the family through all manner of voluntary social andeconomically motivated associations to the state and international organizations. Theseunits in varying ways interfere with the individualistic ideals of perfectly free associationand of atomistic competition. Problems of monopoly and of technology, seasonal andcyclical unemployment, frequently associated in the public mind with individualisticeconomic theory, cased widespread dissatisfaction.The prestige of individualistic ideas declined during the latter part of the 19thcentury and the first part of the 20th with the rise of large-scale social organization. Oneconsequence of this was the emergence of theories calling for the organization of societyon principles diametrically opposed to those of individualism (see collectivism). In liberaldemocracies, however, the notion of the importance of the individual has survived,providing a check on the tendency toward depersonalizing that, some say, is aconsequence of collectivist trends. [ Encyclopedia Brittanica Micropedia Volume 5, 1976I115


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items