women in philosophy quiz #1

Great Chain of Being

A universally ordered, hierarchical, and interdependent structure that laid out specific roles for everyone and everything in early modern Europe. This concept held that from angels to earthworms, and from the cosmos to the family hearth, each entity and element had its place. Crucially, within this structure, the female element was always considered to be below the male. Challenging any part of this system, especially the position of women, was seen as threatening the entire structure and inviting chaos. This order was believed to be ordained by God, making it a law of nature

Institutional Barriers to Female Scholarship

Early modern women faced a formidable array of barriers to intellectual flourishing, primarily from two powerful and interlocked institutions: the family and the Church. These were bolstered by interlocking systems of law, custom, and education. These institutions upheld the concept of a hierarchical structure where women were subordinate to men, actively preserving social order by preventing women from occupying male-only institutional spaces. Specific barriers included legal control by husbands (coverture), restriction to domestic duties, exclusion from formal education, and public ridicule for intellectual pursuits

The Family as an Institution in Early Modern Europe

The family was primarily an economic unit, responsible for producing necessities like food, clothing, and shelter, and contributing to the larger community. Women worked alongside men in fields and workshops, but also had gender-specific duties such as cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, and healing. Most crucially, women's primary role was reproduction, with their intrinsic worth tied to their bodies and life stages. High child mortality rates meant fertile women were expected to be pregnant frequently (7-10 times) to ensure two children survived to adulthood. This placed enormous, burdensome, and unavoidable demands on women's bodies and time, leaving "nowhere" for female scholarship for most

The Church and Female Subordination

Christianity was the pervasive mentalité of early modern Europe, dictating life's rhythms and patterns. The Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, reinforced the subservience of women to men, claiming it was ordained by God. It drew on patriarchal structures of Judaism and Aristotelian scientific reasoning. The Church consistently used the Genesis 2 account (Eve created from Adam's rib) to establish women's secondary status, despite the Genesis 1 account depicting simultaneous creation of male and female in God's image. The writings of Saint Paul, particularly 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ("Let your women keep silence in the churches"), were frequently cited to mandate female silence and obedience.

"Coverture"

A doctrine in English law mandated by the hierarchical resonance of family and religion. Under coverture, a woman ceased to have legal existence upon marriage, becoming a feme covert, literally "covered" by her husband's legal personhood. She could own no property, including her dowry, children, and even herself. This legal status was justified by biblical interpretations, specifically Eve's greater punishment after the Fall for eating the forbidden fruit, which included permanent subservience to her husband

Anna Maria van Schurman (1607–1678)

An illustrative Dutch scholar and a prominent example of women negotiating intellectual space. She was a renowned linguist, rhetorician, poet, classicist, and proficient in mathematics, astronomy, theology, history, and music, mastering twelve languages. Known as "the Star of Utrecht" and "the Tenth Muse," she corresponded with leading scholars like Descartes. Despite her devout modesty and lifelong celibacy, she publicly criticized the University of Utrecht for excluding women in an inaugural ode. She was then permitted to "attend" lectures in a hidden cubicle with a latticed opening, becoming the first woman to attend university in the Netherlands. However, this accommodation was temporary, and her presence was likely discontinued due to being "too much of a presence" for institutional structures. Her case demonstrates the "official prohibition, followed by case-specific accommodation, and then the closing of doors" pattern

Negotiation for Space by Early Modern Female Scholars

Rather than viewing early modern female scholars and institutions as "enemy combatants," understanding their relationship involves seeing it as an ongoing negotiation for space. Women managed to flourish intellectually despite severe barriers by creating alternative scenarios and spaces within existing institutional structures. This process involved a pattern of official prohibition, followed by case-specific accommodation, and then often the closing of those temporary doors. For women, what was at stake was their "scholarly souls"—the need for safe spaces to thrive intellectually without destroying other parts of their lives.

Strategies for "Making Space" (Alternative Scenarios)

Female scholars used various strategies to create room for their intellectual pursuits:

    ◦ Education: This was the essential element. While formal education was denied, women obtained it through home education from attentive fathers or other educators, often alongside their brothers.

    ◦ Singleness: Choosing lifelong celibacy or remaining unmarried allowed women to avoid the demanding roles of wife and mother, which precluded scholarship. Single women are disproportionately prominent among early modern female scholars.

    ◦ Intellectual Genealogy (Diachronic Family): Creating a "noble lineage" of exemplary female scholars (e.g., Laura Cereta's respublica mulierum, Christine de Pisan's City of Ladies) provided historical validation and a sense of belonging.

    ◦ Famille d’alliance (Intellectual Family): Forming informal mentoring relationships and intellectual kinship networks with prominent scholars (e.g., Montaigne and Marie de Gournay).

    ◦ Other: Cloistered environments (all-women spaces), publishing anonymously, and pursuing philosophy through letters, plays, or novels were also methods of creating alternative spaces and subverting hierarchies

Subversive Dimension of Female Scholars' Work

Early modern female scholars were aware their intellectual pursuits were "strange" and often faced ridicule. They frequently published anonymously to circumvent societal disapproval. Their works often contained veiled or direct references to the injustices faced by women denied proper education. They fostered intellectual relationships through correspondence and salons, often addressing their works to other women. This deliberate challenging of prevailing norms and advocating for women's intellectual capabilities, even indirectly, can be seen as a knowing subversion, arguably "feminist" in nature.

Role of Social Rank in Women's Education

While gender was a crucial factor, social rank was the most salient factor determining the shape and scope of women's learning. The demands of survival for the poor, and political/social obligations for the elite, often precluded the pursuit of learning for both men and women. However, for women of higher social standing, particularly those with ample resources or supportive familial environments (e.g., fathers who were educators), there was more opportunity to create "special cases" for education and scholarship. This suggests that while institutional barriers were formidable, the system had a certain flexibility that could be exploited under the "right circumstances" of class and familial support

The Philosophical Canon

The philosophical canon refers to a set of figures and their works considered the "towering figures" or "must-reads" of a period, whose work sets the standard for philosophical discussion. In the early modern period, this typically includes Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. Historically, the term "canon" originates from religious contexts, meaning a sacred, trustworthy, or divinely-inspired set of texts, and in secular use, it signifies a fundamental principle or standard.

What is the contingent nature of a canonical figure's identity?

The identity of a canonical figure is contingent, meaning it shifts with interpretations that are highly sensitive to the contexts in which they are developed. For example, Delphine Antoine-Mahut's work shows how Joseph-Marie Degérando's readings of Descartes changed between editions of his Histoire comparée des systèmes de philosophie (1804 and 1847) based on the evolving vision for philosophy's role in French post-revolutionary education.

How did women become marginalized from the philosophical canon in the 19th century?

In the 19th century, particularly in German histories of philosophy, women became increasingly marginalized until they were largely absent. Justifications for their exclusion included claims that their work was derivative, did not rise to the "same level of greatness" as canonical figures, or was denied to be philosophy at all. These efforts intensified precisely when women were advocating for suffrage and university access, with their exclusion being naturalized by a supposed "natural inaptitude of women for philosophy," aligning with political efforts to suppress their rights. This exclusion was also a function of the rise of textbooks, survey courses, and academia being dominated by men, leading to "glacial inertia" in setting standards.

Were women always excluded from histories of philosophy?

No, women were not always excluded. Histories of philosophy in the 17th and 18th centuries did include women.

• Diogenes Laertius' Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (circulating from 1472, complete in 1533) explicitly recounted the lives of women philosophers like Theano, Themistoclea, Damo, and Hipparchia.

• Following this style, authors involved in the querelle des femmes (a debate on women's rationality) compiled their own catalogs, such as Lucretia Marinella (1601), Marie de Gournay (1622/1641), and Poulain de la Barre (1673).

• Notable works that included women: Thomas Stanley's History of Philosophy (1655) with 24 women, Gilles Ménage's History of Women Philosophers (1690) with 65 women, and 17th-century works by Jean de la Forge (1663) and Marguerite Buffet (1668). This practice continued into the 18th century with works like Mary Hays' Female Biography (1803).

What are some strategies for reintroducing women into the history of philosophy?

The sources outline several strategies:

1. Finding Missing Names and Works (Archaeological Project): This involves retrieving the names and works of women philosophers from intellectual history, often by revisiting older histories that mentioned them. Examples include Mary Ellen Waithe's History of Women Philosophers, the Other Voice in Early Modern Europe series, and Eileen O’Neill's work.

    ◦ Sub-strategy: Attending to women whose work intersects with canonical philosophers: This focuses on women who addressed canonical thinkers directly, drew on their ideas, or were in conversation with them, such as Princess Elisabeth with Descartes or Damaris Cudworth, Lady Masham with Locke and Leibniz. While this risks positioning women as subordinate, it can be overcome by highlighting women who developed original philosophies as alternatives, like Margaret Cavendish or Anne Conway.

2. Focusing on Overlooked Greatness/Brilliance: This strategy seeks to expand the canon by identifying women philosophers who made original or important contributions to themes already deemed worthy by the canon, such as certain approaches to metaphysics or epistemology.

3. Thinking of Philosophical Questions in Different Ways (Nonideal Theory): This involves recognizing the philosophical value and richness of issues and perspectives that women philosophers traditionally focused on, which may have been neglected by the established canon. This strategy encourages moving away from prioritizing "ideal theory" towards "nonideal theory".

What are the limitations of the first two strategies for inclusion?

• Strategy 1 (Intersecting with Canonical Figures):

    ◦ Positions women as subordinate: Women are primarily read as responding to "great thinkers" rather than putting forward their own original ideas.

    ◦ Selects for the existing canonical agenda: It values women primarily because they focus on "central questions of metaphysics and epistemology," potentially ignoring other important philosophical questions.

• Strategy 2 (Overlooked Greatness):

    ◦ Leaves exclusionary structure in place: Simply expanding the canon in this way means that while a few women might gain recognition, many will remain neglected, as the appearance of the necessity of the canonical philosophical agenda is left intact.

    ◦ Self-reinforcing canon: The canon is substantively self-reinforcing; the philosophical questions become central because canonical figures asked them, validating their greatness, which can then diminish the contributions of women who were not seen as "agenda-setters".

What is "ideal theory" versus "nonideal theory" in ethics and political philosophy, as distinguished by Charles Mills?

• Ideal Theory: This approach privileges developing idealized descriptions that are then deployed as models, often to the exclusion of considering actual cases. It abstracts away from the complexities and "messiness of human life," including contexts of oppression and implicit biases, to articulate norms for decision-making. A classic example is John Rawls' "original position" behind a "veil of ignorance".

• Nonideal Theory: This approach, conversely, recognizes human agents in complex situations, accounting for lived experiences and "messy and inequitable social relations". It aims to articulate general principles and norms that guide human action and interaction while respecting these complexities.

How does the approach of many historical women philosophers relate to "nonideal theory"?

Many historical women's approach to philosophy is akin to nonideal theory. They were concerned with:

• Understanding and addressing the particular challenges they faced as women in social contexts that denigrated their intellectual capacities and limited their life paths.

• Articulating new conceptions of personhood and equality.

• Reflecting on the purpose of education and articulating norms for educational practices.

• Developing normative standards for social interactions, such as distinguishing true friendship or guiding marriage contracts.

• Creating accounts of authentic faith, passions, virtue, and autonomy that reflect and are responsive to social reality. Their work focused on human flourishing and improving human life rather than solely on abstract theories.

What, according to Mogens Laerke, was Martial Gueroult's definition of philosophy, and how did it impact the exclusion of women?

Mogens Laerke states that for Martial Gueroult, an influential 20th-century French historian of philosophy, philosophy ought to be defined as "any systematic concern for a-temporal truth". This conception, rooted in a Kantian transcendental project, emphasizes systematicity and the pursuit of timeless truths. The privileging of this definition effectively excludes the intellectual work of women from being considered philosophical, as their approach often involves contextual, nonideal theory focused on elements of lived experience rather than explaining the totality of things.

What are the advantages of having a philosophical canon?

Despite its exclusionary nature, a canon offers several advantages:

• It sets an agenda of philosophical questions, providing a background for contemporary discussions and connecting the philosophical present with the past, thereby justifying current philosophical interests.

• It allows philosophers with different specialized interests to share a common background, fostering a broader philosophical community.

• In teaching, it helps in structuring curriculum and provides a degree of continuity across different institutions.

What is a key insight about the true "cohesion" of the philosophical community, beyond specific authors or texts?

The true cohesion of the philosophical community comes not just from a set of common authors or texts, but from a common interest in the philosophical questions that structure the canonical agenda. It is the shared "philosophical instinct" or "motivation to understand ourselves and our place in the world" that grips us, leading us to engage with these questions. Philosophy cultivates a reflective stance, asking us to identify and evaluate assumptions, seek consistency, and address pressure points, all of which is believed to improve lives.