Martina Pons Grau NIU: 1633385

Political Thought – Essay 2 (2022-2023)

Word count: 2014

Video link: https://youtu.be/y-9jxWG4oYw

“The autonomy legacy of Mary Wollstonecraft”.

This essay aims to demonstrate the significant influence of Mary Wollstonecraft's

conception of autonomy on contemporary feminism, focusing on the themes of self-

determination and self-governance. The argument will be presented in two parts. Firstly,

we will explore Wollstonecraft's advocacy for women's independence of thought and

action, underscoring the role of reason and education in achieving self-governance.

Secondly, we will delve into her recognition that women's oppression extends beyond

legal equality, necessitating societal transformation for self-determination. These

discussions will touch on autonomy theorists and more closely some examples about

Adaptative Preference theories. Additionally, the essay will address the tension between

self-determination and self-governance in Wollstonecraft's concept of autonomy.

We’ll dive deeper into self-governance itself and its repercussions in creating women

community structures and in some understandings of today's feminism, like

intersectionality. Given the scope of the essay, it is important to acknowledge that not all

aspects of Wollstonecraft's work can be covered and that certain limitations will be

present. Since this dissertation will focus on the concept of autonomy and its components,

other aspects of her literature relevant in contemporary feminism, such as her vision of

love, marriage, or politics (republicanism), will not appear specifically in this essay.
Starting with the subject matter, one of the key concepts around contemporary feminism

can be found around "autonomy." In this new context, there have been different autonomy

theories that have received different interpretations. While it’s obvious that

Wollstonecraft's literature has never advocated for ideas such as choice feminism, on the

contrary, it must be said that some of her texts could be misinterpreted by some autonomy

theorists, leading to condescending feminist conceptions towards different groups of

women. I believe this can be connected due to her autopsy of autonomous action.

As Catriona Mackenzie points out in one of her articles about Wollstonecraft’s autonomy

conception, in order for women to emancipate, the author advocates for a need for

independence of thought and action with a rational process of thinking behind it

(Mackenzie, 2016: 67). What she means for women as dependent beings is, then, their

limited position as an amusement for men, a simple decoration without an aim or access

to developing anything but "pursuit little vanities of the day" (Wollstonecraft, 1995: 98).

Moreover, she situates reason as what women must achieve in order to act critically and

be owners of their actions; this conceptualization emerges into self-determination

(Mackenzie, 2016: 70–71).

Nonetheless, there’s an even more ground-breaking idea in this regard. Wollstonecraft

connects autonomy and social and political context (Wollstonecraft, 1995: 132, 317),

understanding that the oppression women suffered was not just a matter of legal

inequality, but it needed a historical process in which this was erased from the pure

structure of institutions and society (Wollstonecraft, 1995: 171–2). This understanding of

one’s context and sensibility within it is manifested as self-governance (Wollstonecraft,

1995: 132, 317). She recognizes, then, how the norms that guide one’s actions are always

constituted socially, and these usually reach before morals (Wollstonecraft, 1995: 93).

Given these two keys of Wollstonecraft’s conception of autonomy, it has to be remarked

that they’re, indeed, not what contemporary literature manifests, or at least not entirely

(MacKenzie, 1993: 36–37). As Mackenzie remarks in her text, to be autonomous

nowadays is related to acting aligned with one’s morals, values, or reasons; to have a

mind of "one’s own", leaving aside, then, the need for the reflexive exercise behind it that

Wollstonecraft talks about (Mackenzie, 2016: 79).

Once in this dichotomy, it is essential to return to Mary’s analysis of autonomy. As

Mackenzie argues in her article about this same issue, the dissection of the concept

between self-determination and self-governance can be helpful to detach external

structure from internal conditions in order to act for oneself, even if it is difficult to

distinguish (MacKenzie, 1993: 82–85). Now, considering the importance of external

conditions in order to form one’s self-governance, different autonomy theories have

emerged.

Some Adaptative Preference theories have used this argument in order to deny autonomy

to women, usually in third-world countries, who “aren’t able to think for themselves

because of internalized patriarchy”. Martha Nussbaum, for example, claims that

Bangladeshi women have much lower participation rates in education because of their

internalized belief that education is not important for women (Khader, 2012: 305). It’s

true that when people are born into unjust systems, they are not given conceptual tools to

understand their unequal situation, as Wollstonecraft mentions indirectly when talking

about the importance of education (Wollstonecraft, 1995: 89). Nevertheless, one cannot

assume that there hasn’t been any critical thinking behind an action; they can be aware of

their limited options, so they could actually be operating in these limited spaces because

of this awareness. Women can experience internal conflict about the acceptability of the

cultural norms they follow. More often than not, they gain major benefits from complying
with patriarchy (Khader, 2012: 312). These can be rational processes of deliberation, and

women can reflect on their own situations and choices. It’s important not to join in

paternalistic discourses about third-world women and colonial stereotypes in order not to

perpetuate Western feminism as the "good one" and expand the imperialistic idea that

women from other cultures have to be "saved". It must be acknowledged that

Wollstonecraft understood that the norms under which women participate are oppressive

and have opened a rich debate about women’s autonomy, even if there’s still a question

mark around the reason for women to be accomplices of patriarchal rules.

Given the previous problematic, I wanted to get in-depth into self-governance’s concept

and its tension with more contemporary feminism perspectives (MacKenzie, 1993: 36-

37). The initial problem arises from the reading that Wollstonecraft posits self-governance

as solely rational, and antagonistic to passion. This can be understood from the

presentation of motherhood and domestic duties as natural to women (Wollstonecraft,

1995: 98, 110). But even if it’s true that the author exposes natural differences between

genders, she frequently gives more importance to the external socialization and

internalization of manners before acquiring autonomous morals, which in the case of

women, is nearly impossible without education (Wollstonecraft, 1995: 98).

As Mackenzie’s mentions in other of her articles, Wollstonecraft herself was having

trouble in articulating this concept of self-governance not in contraposition of passion and

affectivity (MacKenzie, 1993: 37). In her attempt to explain the importance of reason, the

intention is to make it clear that for an action to be free, there can be no arbitrary authority

behind it but its own (MacKenzie, 1993: 42-43). In this sense, she could have been more

focused on discussing other enlightenment male authors about whether women were able

to be rational beings and not just passional creatures (MacKenzie, 1993: 45).
Wollstonecraft, indeed, had given several examples of claims for the right of sexual

desire, expressing feelings and others after writing Vindication of the rights of woman

(MacKenzie, 1993: 42-43). Even in it, she had expressed the importance of reciprocity,

respect, and love as crucial for developing self-governance (Wollstonecraft, 1995: 215).

Within this statement, I dare say that she also understood the importance of community

as a part of moving forward for women, even more so since their seclusion in the private

sphere had left them with no opportunity to connect with each other.

‘Yet, true voluptuousness must proceed from the mind - for what can equal the

sensations produced by mutual affection, supported by mutual respect? What are the

cold, or feverish caresses of appetite, but sin embracing death, compared with the

modest overflowings of a pure heart and exalted imagination?’ (Wollstonecraft, 1995:

291)

Even if the takes contemporary feminists have made into Wollstonecraft's work aren’t

pointless entirely, it’s key to consider the author’s context. As Mackenzie states, given the

dependent relationship women have with men, funded by unequal gender hierarchy,

women had most potentially affective links with children (MacKenzie, 1993: 49).

Understanding this, it’s no surprise that different visions of motherhood could not arise

from the author’s perspective at the time. Not even today it’s clear to have a conclusion

of what self-governance is or may be, and this, I believe, is one of the most important

debates Mary Wollstonecraft has bequeathed to the new feminism. Even if she hasn’t

detangled the idea of binarism and gender itself while linking motherhood and women

very closely, she has indeed cherished a “revolution in female manners” (Wollstonecraft,

1995: 292). There could be many readings about this, but what seems more truthful given

the rest of Vindication is that she had an abolitionist view on gender prejudices and

preconditions. She introduced a complex vision of all internal and external structures that
establish cannons for each gender’s thought and action frameworks. Moreover, her

concept of self-governance as this balance of both reason and sensibility, I believe, has

been one of the foundations of what feminism has become today. Being able to glance at

all the aspects involved in the process of achieving autonomy can be found nowadays in,

for example, intersectionality. In this way, it is easy to understand the capacity to dissect

a person's drivers of action, be they moral, political or social, as a starting point for other

understandings such as the intersection of oppressions coexisting at the same time.

In order to answer the initial question, then, it’s necessary to conclude with those aspects

to which this dissection of Mary Wollstonecraft's work has led us. This paper has focused

mainly on the influence of the author's conception of autonomy and those derived from

the study of the concept. Particularly, it is her emphasis on self-determination and self-

governance that has had a significant impact on contemporary feminism. While

Wollstonecraft argued for women's independence of thought and action, emphasizing the

importance of reason and education in achieving autonomy (self-governance), she

recognized that the oppression women faced went beyond legal equality and required a

transformation of societal structures (self-determination). This dichotomy has opened

various debates around autonomy theorists and what is, if is there to be one, the reason

for women to be participants in their own oppression.

Likewise, the tension between self-determination and self-governance is a central aspect

of Wollstonecraft's concept of autonomy. While she presented self-governance as rational

and in opposition to passion, she also acknowledged the significance of passion. The

author has not been able to articulate this balance between the two, but no one in the

present has either, which can be significant. In her writings, she emphasized the

importance of reciprocity, respect, and love in developing self-governance. Within this

argument, she establishes, then, how community structure is needed to move forward with

women’s rights. Although her views on motherhood may differ from present-day

perspectives, her work called for a transformation not only that confronted gender biases

and preconceptions, but external power structures as well. Wollstonecraft possessed a

profound comprehension of the internal and external forces that shape gender norms and

behaviours, leaving a lasting impact on feminist thinking and contributing to the

development of concepts like intersectionality.

In essence, Wollstonecraft's concept of autonomy, with its emphasis on self-

determination, self-governance, reason, and sensibility, continues to be relevant in

contemporary feminism. Her ideas have paved the way for a deeper understanding of the

factors that influence individuals' actions and morals and the oppressions they face. While

questions and debates surrounding autonomy and gender continue to evolve,

Wollstonecraft's legacy remains a foundation for feminist discourse and the pursuit of

equality and freedom.

References:

Khader, S. J. (2012). Must Theorising about Adaptive Preferences Deny Women’s

Agency? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(4), 302-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

5930.2012.00575.x

MacKenzie, C. (1993). Reason and Sensibility: The Ideal of Women’s Self-Governance

in the Writings of Mary Wollstonecraft. Hypatia, 8(4), 35-55.

Mackenzie, C. (2016). Mary Wollstonecraft: An Early Relational Autonomy Theorist? In

S. Bergès & A. M. S. J. Coffee (Eds.), The Social and Political Philosophy of Mary

Wollstonecraft (p. 0). Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198766841.003.0005

Wollstonecraft, M., & Tomaselli, S. (Eds.). (1995). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

In Wollstonecraft: A Vindication of the Rights of Men and a Vindication of the Rights of

Woman and Hints (pp. 65-66). Cambridge University Press.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/wollstonecraft-a-vindication-of-the-rights-of-

men-and-a-vindication-of-the-rights-of-woman-and-hints/vindication-of-the-rights-of-

woman/F028C17FB3C39A24F198A6448EC477FB