Mary Wollstonecraft on Monstrous Men, Greek Beauty, and Contemporary Deformity:
Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) was an early campaigner for the rights of women and was sympathetic to radical ideas current at the time of the American and French revolution. Her critique of male prerogative and power, ranging from male monarchs to husbands and fathers as domestic tyrants is elegantly argued. She provides a devastating account of a society dominated by men.
Today, tyrants are still ruling many countries such as Syria, and women's rights (if they exist at all) are everywhere under threat. Accordingly, Wollstonecraft's plea for the liberation of women remains a highly relevant project.
There is a strand in her thought (developed further in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in 1818) that I am calling monstrous feminism. On this view, men comprise a system of teratology; they operate a monstrous economy in which their power circulates and supports their privileges.
Here are some quotations and comments which I have selected from her book most famous book A Vindicaton of the the Rights of Woman (1792)
In the first, she discusses the notion that the ideal expressed in art is not a reflection of an observed reality, but rather a selection of parts that compose the whole:
I do not forget the popular opinion, that the Grecian statues were not modelled after nature. I mean, not according to the proportions of a particular man; but that beautiful limbs and features were selected from various bodies to form an harmonious whole. This might, in some degree, be true. The fine ideal picture of an exalted imagination might be superior to the materials which the painter found in nature, and thus it might with propriety be termed rather the model of mankind than of a man. It was not, however, the mechanical selection of limbs and features, but the ebullition of an heated fancy that burst forth; and the fine senses and enlarged understanding of the artist selected the solid matter, which he drew into this glowing focus.
It is the conditions of society that lead to deformity, and which corrupt an original source:
I observed that it was not mechanical, because a whole was produced—a model of that grand simplicity, of those concurring energies, which arrest our attention and command our reverence. For only insipid lifeless beauty is produced by a servile copy of even beautiful nature. Yet, independent of these observations, I believe, that the human form must have been far more beautiful than it is at present, because extreme indolence, barbarous ligatures, and many causes, which forcibly act on it, in our luxurious state of society, did not retard its expansion, or render it deformed.
---
Civilization is presented as a male mode that conceals the underlying monstrosity at its core:
Besides, nothing can be so prejudicial to the morals of the inhabitants of country towns, as the occasional residence of a set of idle superficial young men, whose only occupation is gallantry, and whose polished manners render vice more dangerous, by concealing its deformity under gay ornamental drapery. An air of fashion, which is but a badge of slavery, and proves that the soul has not a strong individual character, awes simple country people into an imitation of the vices, when they cannot catch the slippery graces of politeness.
---
In traditional terms vice and corruption also correspond to a type of deformity
Going back to first principles, vice skulks, with all its native deformity, from close investigation; but a set of shallow reasoners are always exclaiming that these arguments prove too much, and that a measure rotten at the core may be expedient. Thus expediency is continually contrasted with simple principles, till truth is lost in a mist of words, virtue in forms, and knowledge rendered a sounding nothing, by the specious prejudices that assume its name.
---
In this example, freak means 'whim' - with an underlying sense of frivolity:
A man of rank or fortune, sure of rising by interest, has nothing to do but to pursue some extravagant freak; whilst the needy GENTLEMAN, who is to rise, as the phrase turns, by his merit, becomes a servile parasite or vile pander.
---
Thus, as wars, agriculture, commerce, and literature, expands the mind, despots are compelled, to make covert corruption hold fast the power which was formerly snatched by open force.* And this baneful lurking gangrene is most quickly spread by luxury and superstition, the sure dregs of ambition. The indolent puppet of a court first becomes a luxurious monster, or fastidious sensualist, and then makes the contagion which his unnatural state spreads, the instrument of tyranny.
* Men of abilities scatter seeds that grow up, and have a great influence on the forming opinion; and when once the public opinion preponderates, through the exertion of reason, the overthrow of arbitrary power is not very distant.
This argument branches into various ramifications. Birth, riches, and every intrinsic advantage that exalt a man above his fellows, without any mental exertion, sink him in reality below them. In proportion to his weakness, he is played upon by designing men, till the bloated monster has lost all traces of humanity. And that tribes of men, like flocks of sheep, should quietly follow such a leader, is a solecism that only a desire of present enjoyment and narrowness of understanding can solve. Educated in slavish dependence, and enervated by luxury and sloth, where shall we find men who will stand forth to assert the rights of man; or claim the privilege of moral beings, who should have but one road to excellence? Slavery to monarchs and ministers, which the world will be long in freeing itself from, and whose deadly grasp stops the progress of the human mind, is not yet abolished.
Let not men then in the pride of power, use the same arguments that tyrannic kings and venal ministers have used, and fallaciously assert, that woman ought to be subjected because she has always been so
---
As to the argument respecting the subjection in which the sex has ever been held, it retorts on man. The many have always been enthralled by the few; and, monsters who have scarcely shown any discernment of human excellence, have tyrannized over thousands of their fellow creatures. Why have men of superior endowments submitted to such degradation? For, is it not universally acknowledged that kings, viewed collectively, have ever been inferior, in abilities and virtue, to the same number of men taken from the common mass of mankind—yet, have they not, and are they not still treated with a degree of reverence, that is an insult to reason?
---
Such a woman is not a more irrational monster than some of the
Roman emperors, who were depraved by lawless power. Yet, since
kings have been more under the restraint of law, and the curb,
however weak, of honour, the records of history are not filled with
such unnatural instances of folly and cruelty, nor does the
despotism that kills virtue and genius in the bud, hover over
Europe with that destructive blast which desolates Turkey, and
renders the men, as well as the soil unfruitful.
---
In life, on the contrary, as we gradually discover the imperfections of our nature, we discover virtues, and various circumstances attach us to our fellow creatures, when we mix with them, and view the same objects, that are never thought of in acquiring a hasty unnatural knowledge of the world. We see a folly swell into a vice, by almost imperceptible degrees, and pity while we blame; but, if the hideous monster burst suddenly on our sight, fear and disgust rendering us more severe than man ought to be, might lead us with blind zeal to usurp the character of omnipotence, and denounce damnation on our fellow mortals, forgetting that we cannot read the heart, and that we have seeds of the same vices lurking in our own.
Intriguing. When the title of this post was drawn to my attention, I must confess I sighed: another person mistaking mother for daughter, or vice versa. But no, 'twas not to be. I haven't come across this interpretation before, and I have collated a lot of academic and artistic projects at A Vindication of the Rights of Mary. Would you care to write a few words about Wollstonecraft there?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Roberta, for your comments. I also enjoyed visiting your website. The news of a Shelley production in Leeds UK (where I was born) was also of interest. I'll write up a short piece based on the entry above and send it to you. Ian
ReplyDelete