Overview
Early feminist thinkers, notably Mary Astell and Catharine Macaulay, deliberately diverged from the prevailing societal expectations that women, particularly those engaging in intellectual discourse, should maintain politeness and civility. Their historical approach involved a strategic embrace of a more 'zealous' style in their arguments, which functioned as a direct challenge to the established patriarchal structures and the intellectual norms of their eras.
Research Context
The essay explores the historical conditions that necessitated a particular argumentative stance from early feminists. During the 17th and 18th centuries, women seeking to contribute to intellectual and public debate faced a dilemma: either conform to the prescribed norms of polite discourse, often defined by male peers, or adopt a more assertive, potentially confrontational approach. The prevailing advice, often originating from male contemporaries, suggested that women writers should prioritize modesty, humility, and 'politeness' in their expressions. This politeness was not merely an aesthetic preference; it was interwoven with broader societal structures that sought to maintain the status quo concerning women's roles and intellectual authority.
For individuals like Astell and Macaulay, the context was one where their very participation in intellectual life was often viewed as anomalous or even transgressive. Their arguments were not just about specific points of contention but about the right of women to participate in public reason and to question deeply ingrained gender inequalities. The historical expectation of 'politeness' for women in intellectual settings functioned as a mechanism to control their voices and to dismiss their arguments if they deviated from prescribed decorum. The essay posits that the refusal to adhere to these norms was a considered tactical choice rather than a mere temperamental failing.
Approach
The essay analyzes the writings and public personas of Mary Astell and Catharine Macaulay to illustrate their rejection of 'polite' discourse. It examines how these historical figures articulated their arguments and responded to criticisms, focusing on their explicit and implicit justifications for their zealous approach. The analysis traces how their choice of rhetoric and argumentative style was intrinsically linked to their goals of challenging gendered power imbalances. By highlighting their specific responses to advice on 'politeness', the essay demonstrates a deliberate intellectual and rhetorical strategy. It juxtaposes their methods against the backdrop of contemporary male-authored advice literature, which often prescribed a restrained and deferential tone for women in public discourse. This comparative approach reveals the calculated nature of their 'impolite' interventions.
Findings
Mary Astell's Strategic Use of Irony and Vehemence
Mary Astell, in her 1694 work A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, and particularly in its second part (1697), exhibited a rhetorical approach characterized by irony and vehemence. She was advised by male friends to soften her tone, particularly concerning her critiques of gender inequality and women's education. Astell explicitly rejected this counsel. She argued that a mild approach would be ineffective, stating that if she were to 'smoothe and soften the matter', her writing would be 'ridiculous' and that she would be seen as an 'impertinent' writer. Her rationale was that the severity of the issues she addressed – the subordination and limited education of women – demanded a strong, direct, and unyielding style. Astell believed that politeness would dilute her message and allow readers, particularly men, to dismiss her arguments as trivial or merely passionate outbursts. Her chosen method was to meet the entrenched resistance to women's intellectual advancement with an equally firm and unyielding intellectual stance.
Catharine Macaulay's Rejection of Self-Censorship
Catharine Macaulay, an 18th-century republican historian, similarly faced pressure to temper her expressions, especially when engaging with powerful male figures like Edmund Burke. She received counsel to avoid offending those in power and to present her arguments with greater deference. Macaulay, however, refused to self-censor. Her response to such advice was that any deviation from what she perceived as 'truth' would compromise her integrity as an historian and intellectual. She considered 'politeness' in this context to be a form of intellectual dishonesty, a compromise that would undermine the very foundations of rational discourse and historical inquiry. Macaulay understood that a 'polite' approach often served to maintain existing power differentials, and she actively resisted this subtle form of intellectual subjugation. Her work, including her eight-volume History of England, was known for its unvarnished criticisms of corruption and tyranny, reflecting her steadfast commitment to speaking her mind without rhetorical mitigation.
Justification for Zealotry: An Epistemic Necessity
The essay argues that Astell and Macaulay's rejection of politeness was not merely an act of defiance but a considered epistemic strategy. For these early feminists, 'zealotry' – defined as passionate and unwavering commitment to their arguments – was a necessary tool to expose and challenge biases embedded within the existing intellectual and social frameworks. They recognized that the demand for 'politeness' was often a veiled attempt to silence dissent or to frame women's intellectual contributions as emotional rather than rational. By adopting a zealous approach, they aimed to:
- Counter dismissal: Their directness made it harder for their arguments to be dismissed as mere feminine passion or trivial concerns.
- Establish authority: It asserted their intellectual authority in spaces traditionally dominated by men, who often used politeness as a gatekeeping mechanism.
- Force engagement: Their strong language compelled readers to grapple with the substance of their arguments, rather than focusing on their manner of presentation.
Why This Matters
The historical analysis of Astell and Macaulay's approach provides insight into the strategic choices made by marginalized voices in challenging established power structures. Their refusal to conform to prescribed norms of 'politeness' in intellectual debate highlights how rhetorical choices can be integral to broader struggles for social and intellectual equality.