by Lauren LaCroix
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s A Discourse on Inequality presents various insights into the different roles developed by humans during their progression from “sauvage” to civilized, with a particular focus on the roles that allowed people to influence each other. In regards to influence and governing, Rousseau focuses on the role of a commonwealth’s magistrates and, interestingly, on the role of women. According to Rousseau, both magistrates and women play a role in using their influence to better society, and therefore hold a seemingly similar power and importance. However, Rousseau’s understanding of their respective roles has several nuances. A woman’s influence is subtle, unacknowledged, and limited to the private home life. The magistrates’ influence is public, and Rousseau insists that magistrates be obeyed and openly praised for their efforts. The determining factor to this private vs public influence is gender, showing a distinctly patriarchal mindset on Rousseau’s part. I conclude that Rousseau, while not considering women tyrannical, does not present himself as a feminist.
The literature presents many competing analyses on Rousseau’s relationship to feminist concepts. For example, Boleslaw Z. Kabala’s “Rousseau and the Qualified Support of Matriarchal Rule” analyzes Rousseau’s works and claims that the philosopher was in fact in support of a potential matriarchal rule. Kabala utilizes not only the Second Discourse, but also Rousseau’s other works. The author defends the claim that Rousseau supported matriarchal power by arguing that the characters of Sophie from Emile and Julie from La Nouvelle Héloïse both are presented as the matriarchs of their respective households, influencing their husbands via “a praxis-oriented religion of charity” (Kabala 2). On the other side of the argument, Emanuele Sacarelli makes the case that Rousseau considered female influence within a marriage to be a form of tyranny. Sacarelli examines Rousseau’s opinion of Machiavelli’s work, arguing that Rousseau believed that Machiavelli was a “virtuous” republican who used irony to criticize tyrants while appearing to flatter them (Rousseau’s The Social Contract and the Discourses 242; cited in Sacarelli’s Rousseau and the Qualified Support of Matriarchal Rule p. 482-483). Sacarelli argues that this ironic Machiavellian tool is also used by Rousseau against women, whom he believes to be tyrannical (483). A close examination of Rousseau’s arguments about the roles of women and magistrates reveals that Rousseau has a profoundly gendered understanding of public vs private influence. While Kabala is correct that Rousseau sees women as powerful, Rousseau clearly distrusts women’s exercise of power and puts significant limits on their sphere of influence. The similarities and differences between the women and magistrates of Geneva therefore reveal significant insights on whether or not Rousseau could be considered a feminist.
An initial examination of the roles of women and magistrates appears to speak in favour of Rousseau’s feminism. For example, both serve as influencers for the benefit of society. In a salutation to the “Lovable and virtuous women of Geneva,”[1] Rousseau explains the importance of the influence of women, whom he deems “that precious half of the commonwealth … whose sweetness and prudence maintain its peace and good morals.” (Rousseau, A Discourse on Inequality, trans. Maurice Cranston, p. 65). By exercising “chaste power” within marriage, “[perpetuating] the love of the laws,” and embodying the traits of the modest and virtuous housewife, women make themselves “the chaste guardians of our morals” and serve to influence virtue among men (65). Rousseau also emphasized their pure influence, which serves to undo that of foreign women whom he deems “loose” and possessive of “purple manners and ridiculous airs,” which they pass on to the “young people” of Geneva (65). In this passage, Rousseau stresses the importance of a woman’s influence “exerted solely within the marriage bond” – wives are destined to govern their husbands because it is their lessons of admiring laws and promoting modesty and virtue that preserve society’s integrity (65). He goes as far as to affirm that women “assure the happiness” of men and states that “the destiny of [women] will always be to govern [men]” (65). Kabala offers commentary on this same passage in his article, suggesting that Rousseau sees woman’s subtle influence as being potentially long-lasting due to the “perennial” vocabulary he uses (16). It is also worth noting that Rousseau’s use of the term “govern” is very indicative of the value he sees in wives’ influence. The word is typically thought of as describing some sort of leader exercising their authority in an official way; one might therefore conclude that Rousseau thinks of housewives as government officials within their own home.
Rousseau describe the magistrates’ influence in a remarkably similar fashion, addressing the citizens of Geneva in a passage worth quoting at length:
Your preservation depends on your perpetual union, your obedience to the law and your respect for its ministers … Who among you knows in the whole universe a body of men more upright, more enlightened, more worthy of respect than your own magistrature? Do not all its members afford you an example of moderation, of simplicity in morals, of respect for the laws, and the most sincere spirit of reconciliation? … when the force of the laws and the authority of their defenders is lost, there can be no security or liberty for anyone … let equity, moderation, and the most respectful firmness of your purpose continue to regulate all your enterprises and display you to the whole world as a model of valiant and modest people as jealous of its glory as of its freedom. (Rousseau 62)
Here Rousseau speaks to Genevans, encouraging their respect for the esteemed influence their leaders bring. The magistrates are the sole cause of “security [and] liberty,” and are said above to be the most “upright,” “enlightened,” and “worthy of respect” (62). They perpetuate a “sincere spirit of reconciliation” and inspire their subjects to become a “valiant and modest people” (62). The language Rousseau uses here resembles that which he uses to describe women’s influence; not only do both descriptions include moderation, modesty, morals, and adherence to laws as encouraged by the influential parties, but the bond between the influencer and the influenced is marked as crucial (Rousseau 62, 65). For women, this is the conjugal bond within which their influence is exerted (Rousseau 65). For the magistrates, this is the “perpetual union” between the government and its subjects which assures their “preservation” (Rousseau 62).
Sacarelli makes many intelligent points about how we might read Rousseau’s description of women as Machiavellian, using many different passages from the Second Discourse to argue that Rousseau believed a wife’s influence over her husband to be unnatural and an opportunity for her to seize power in a tyrannical way. I am, however, inclined to disagree with his argument. By taking into consideration how similarly Rousseau speaks of wives and magistrates, one can see how this Machiavellian lens is incompatible with Rousseau’s values. Sacarelli, with his idea of the Machiavellian ironic model in mind, might have considered these similarities. He argues that Rousseau views women as tyrants. Considering the negative connotation the word “tyrant” brings, it is not unreasonable to assume that Rousseau is against tyranny and inclined toward a republican society. This logic tracks well in accordance with Rousseau’s views; he speaks of Geneva as a nation of liberty which “costs [them] almost nothing to preserve” and bids them to “remember that [the magistrates] are of your own choosing” and that “they have justified your choice” (62). If Rousseau’s dedication to Geneva is indeed ironic, then that would indicate that Geneva was in actuality a tyrannical state in his eyes. Therefore his description of the magistrature would reflect his own republican values. Now consider how similarly Rousseau describes women and magistrates, as I have demonstrated: if his description of the magistrature reflects republican values, and women have a similar way of influencing men, would it not then make sense to assume that Rousseau’s praise toward the women of Geneva reflects his actual values, as opposed to being a hidden accusation of tyranny?
Returning to my analysis, I have established the notion that women and magistrates seemingly have a similar influence and power. However, Rousseau makes it clear that both parties are tied down by strict limitations, which arise due to the crucial nature of their influence. For women to adhere to Rousseau’s criteria for the “[l]ovable and virtuous women of Geneva” and be valued for their influence, they must surrender a great deal of autonomy (Rousseau 65). Rousseau demonstrates this by saying that a woman’s influence can only be expressed in the context of marriage, and that she must embody and encourage a modest and minimalistic existence (which rejects materialism, luxury, and vanity) at all times (Rousseau 65). Women must only act on behalf of “duty and virtue,” and they must do so in a gentle and chaste manner (Rousseau 65). Mimicking these specific traits and behaviours is the key to having any sort of power for women. However, if these behaviours are not a part of a woman’s natural disposition, if her country’s social norms are different, or if she does not devote herself to influencing her husband with her virtue, Rousseau would then dub her a “loose” woman (Rousseau 65). Hence the limitation; women can have power and influence, but only if they live a certain kind of life and have a specific personality. Their one purpose is to serve the community. This is a limitation because it makes power for women accessible only in a very specific context (that of the virtuous housewife). The same is true of the magistrates. The magistrates’ duties outmatch their autonomy, as demonstrated when Rousseau describes the workings of the magistrature: “The magistrate, on his side, binds himself to use the power entrusted to him only in accordance with the intentions of the constituents, to maintain each in the peaceful enjoyment of what belongs to him and at all times to prefer the public interest to his own advantage” (129). While women should focus on influencing their husbands, magistrates make the “public interest” their only priority. Both parties are forbidden to use their influence for anything but service due to the power it holds over others.
Magistrates and women share similar importance in terms of their influence, and are similarly limited in their power. However, there are some key differences in the way the two are permitted to influence others. Magistrates are elected officials chosen by the public and are therefore acknowledged as the main influencers of society and the protectors of their morals (Rousseau 62). Their position allows them to spread their influence directly, by protecting laws and governing the public (Rousseau 62). Wives, as described by Rousseau, influence their men in subtle ways, such as through their “simple and modest dress,” their “kindly and innocent dominion,” and the “grace of [their] conversation” (Rousseau 65). These are the only methods through which women can provide guidance, and each of them are considerably indirect and tenuous.
Additionally, Rousseau has a very different way of directing his praise toward women and magistrates (65, 62). When praising the magistrature, he speaks to their subjects directly, and asks them to acknowledge and respect the magistrates, to remember that they earned the right to lead them through their own merit, and generally encourages them to respect the laws and measures put in place by the magistrature (62). When praising the women of Geneva, however, he speaks directly to them (65). He does not encourage their husbands to respect them, adhere to their influence, or acknowledge their wives’ merit and power. The responsibility does not fall on the influenced, as with the magistrature, but onto the influencers; it is the women that must consistently uphold their influence, whether or not their efforts are directly acknowledged (Rousseau 65). With Rousseau’s praise of the subtlety of a wife’s influence and the way he gives the influenced no responsibility, he demonstrates his ideal form of female power; it must be subtle, unacknowledged, unrewarded, and secretive, as if men should not have the knowledge that they are even being influenced by women in the first place. In contrast, magistrates are recognized by the entire commonwealth as being the prime influencers, and their subjects are expected to put effort into accepting their influence.
The implications of these contrasting roles shows how much Rousseau’s perception is affected by gender norms. His description of a magistrate tells us that nothing is out of the ordinary about a man openly leading a society (62). His description of women tells us that a woman holding any power over a man is unconventional and unnatural, as he affirms when discussing the progression of gender roles and emotional love: “[I]t is easy to see that the moral part of love is an artificial sentiment, born of usage in society, and cultivated by women with much skill and care in order to establish their empire over men, and so make dominant the sex that ought to obey” (103). Here Rousseau affirms that emotional love, which is what allows women to influence their husbands, is inherently unnatural and makes vulnerable the sex that ought to command. Therefore women’s power must be expressed discreetly and carefully so that they do not become autonomous leaders who can openly direct their influence and be acknowledged for their efforts. Furthermore, Rousseau shows that he does not see these limitations as being capable of change; he mentions the magistrates’ ability to abdicate their leadership (129), but states that the servitude of an influential housewife will always be the destiny of women (65). His view of women’s roles is rigid and does not allow them to exercise any autonomy as leaders.
This conclusion contradicts Kabala’s interpretation of Rousseau’s views on the matter. With regards to Rousseau’s statements about women’s indirect influence, Kabala states that “[his] thought can actually be taken to support matriarchy” (16). His article makes many compelling cases for hidden matriarchal encouragement in Rousseau’s work. The author’s conclusion that Rousseau respects the housewife’s influence and power is a solid one. It must be acknowledged, however, that while Rousseau can be argued to support a matriarchy, as Kabala suggests, my analysis makes it clear that the notions of a woman’s power outside that of the gentle, chaste housewife is unacceptable in Rousseau’s eyes. His appreciation of a woman’s effect on her husband could be called matriarchal, but to him, matriarchy in the context of public power, with female government officials, is impossible. Additionally, the only option for a woman to be powerful and still respected is that she fit the model of the virtuous, chaste wife. It follows then that while Rousseau may support his own version of matriarchy, he does not support the general idea of a matriarch (a woman with power who could make powerful choices, for example).
What essentially differentiates women and magistrates overall is their private versus public influence. Women exert influence from the confines of the home (and the confines of her sex), while magistrates do so through their official public position. This idea of women being confined to the home is, as Sacarelli states, “conventional” and “unpleasant … to the modern reader” (485-486). This private setting within which Rousseau permits women to have power is revealed as the product of gender bias. One can see how this misogyny limits the possibilities of the idealized version of Geneva that Rousseau presents. If, like magistrates, women have the power to influence others to be more peaceful and virtuous, why is it that women have no opportunity for a public position of rule? Why are women who work and exist outside the home scorned? Rousseau’s misogynistic viewpoint does not allow for questions such as these. He even states in the dedication that governing men in an indirect, housewifely way will always be their destiny (65). This demonstrates that his gendered idea of what a powerful woman should look like is inflexible and not easily subject to change.
The gendered constraints placed upon women’s power in Rousseau’s dedication confirms that while Rousseau could be argued to hold some feminist views under specific circumstances, the fact that his social and political views are clouded by misogyny is unquestionable. Rousseau views both wives and magistrates as being vital influential figures in society, as well as being severely limited by their positions. However, the differences in their methods of influence show clear signs of gender bias on Rousseau’s part. This is due to his gendered notion of public and private influence: women are naturally meant to be obedient, and should only influence men in ways that do not overtly let their power be acknowledged. Their virtuous influence can come only through the marital bond and the domestic lifestyle. Meanwhile, the magistrates can be publicly recognized as leaders, have the freedom to cease their leadership at will, and unabashedly influence others directly. Rousseau’s gendered understanding of society and the people that influence it creates some tension; the fact that while writing his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau seems not to notice his misogynistic outlook, is worth noting. His own biases created inequality in his own views.
Endnotes
[1] While the chapter addressed to the Republic of Geneva which includes this passage is commonly thought to have been written with deliberate irony, many scholars believe it does in fact represent Rousseau’s true values (See Kabala, “Rousseau and the Qualified Support of Matriarchal Rule,” 16; see also Rousseau, Confessions, vol. II: 46, cited in Sacarelli, “The Machiavellian Rousseau: Gender and Family Relations in The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” 485)
Works Cited
Kabala, Boleslaw Z. “Rousseau and the Qualified Support of Matriarchal Rule.” Humanities, Aug 30th, 2020, pp. 2-16, MDPI, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/h9030099
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. A Discourse on Inequality, trans. Maurice Cranston, Penguin Classics, 1984, pp. 62-129.
Saccarelli, Emanuele. “The Machiavellian Rousseau: Gender and Family Relations in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.” Political Theory, vol. 37, no. 4, 2009, pp. 482-499. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25655496.