(This is the title page of Rousseau's work Emile, printed in 1792.)
This week I really wanted to
discuss one of our readings, Emile by
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Since we are very limited in our fifty-minute classes, I
decided that by delving into it for a blog post would get most of my reactions and
feelings out about the reading. Obviously, the introduction gives some warning
of the misogyny apparent in the text, but even I was surprised. In the
beginning it sounds very similar to many other readings we have had from male
authors concerning women, yet it gets worse quickly. Rousseau writes, “It
follows that woman was specifically made to please man. If man ought to please
her in turn, the necessity is less direct. His merit lies in his power; he pleases
simply because he is strong,” (Emile).
Now the first part of this quote is similar to most male authors, it is the
second part that I read and actually laughed at. Apparently all men need to do
in life is be strong and that pleases women, interesting.
As he continues in his analysis
of what education is appropriate for women, he argues that women are stupid. Specifically,
because of their desire to learn and “become like men” for if they were to do
that, then men can resist women and truly rule over them. Also seemingly
obvious, there is nothing in existence that is preventing these women from
teaching their daughters to become men; it is obviously the fault of the
mothers from not giving their daughters the education. In his conclusion, he
sums up his stance completely by writing, “Thus, the whole education of women
ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make
themselves loved and honored by them, to educate them when young, to care for
them when grown, to council them, to console them, and to make life agreeable
and sweet to them,” (Emile). So for young women looking to get an education
in anything related to real subjects instead of just being a good tool for a
husband, Rousseau believes this is not an appropriate desire, for women are
just meant to be shiny objects that husbands can parade around as another
trophy they collected.
2 comments:
Jenn, I enjoyed reading and hearing your critique of Rousseau's work Emile today. This topic helps justify the need for women's history courses because it highlights how women have been left out of the master narrative of history, and how misogynistic many "great thinker" actually were. If you Google Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a series of short biographies appear which describe how great a philosopher and how important he was to the French Revolution. I found no critique of him being a misogynist, and on the Wikipedia entry, Emile is described as Rousseau's argument for the education of all people. Clearly the creator of the page has not actually read Emile. I guess on the positive side, Rousseau wrote that women were at least capable of being educated the same as men. He also apparently thought that men were literally "God's gift to women" just because they exist. I think that probably many men shared his views in the 18th century, they did think women could learn but thought that educating women would endanger the "order" of society and how things had been for centuries in Europe.
Jenn, I agree with you, Rousseau is fairly misogynistic. Yet, at the same time, I think you have to consider that this guy was promoting education of women. Yes, it was for the ulterior motive to please man, but the education aspect is still there. From your last quote: "Thus, the whole education of women ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honored by them, to educate them when young, to care for them when grown, to council them, to console them, and to make life agreeable and sweet to them," I agree that this guy is trying to broadcast a demeaning message. But it's also pretty vague. If the ultimate goal for a woman's education is to please man, who is to say that learning the hard sciences, mathematics, or even politics could not have potentially pleased a man? Being able to hold an intelligent conversation with your wife may have been something that some husbands wanted. So while on the surface level, Rousseau is promoting the same stuff as his predecessors in the Middle Ages did, I think women could have manipulated this system in order to get the education they desired (all in the name of better pleasing their husbands). It's obviously not a perfect system, but it's not a hellish one either.
Post a Comment