Feminist critique

• Virtually all prominent liberal commentators have a gendered view of citizenship. Thus, Paine believed that
the only natural inequality with humanity was between the sexes, while Locke describes man as the 'master'
of his family. Social liberals like Marshall and Green also either ignore important differences between the
experiences of men and women, or seek to naturalise those differences. For example, T. H. Green attacks the
practice of polygamy as an infringement of the right 'of the wife, who is morally lowered by exclusion from
her proper position in the household and by being used, more or less, as the mere instrument of the husband's
pleasure'. Green assumes that monogamous marriage is a condition of women's morality. Moreover, he
considers men to be the rightful heads of their households and therefore a woman's position within the family,
as well as in the public sphere, is inherently subordinate to that of her husband. It is clear, then, that women
are not considered by Green to be rational political agents, capable of practising citizenship. Such patriarchal
attitudes pervade liberalism.
• Feminists have shown how the idea of citizenship has been especially inimical to women. Feminists of all
strands have criticized the dominant conceptions of citizenship on two counts.

• They argue, first of all, that citizenship is gender-blind. By focusing on uniform and equal application, it fails
to take cognizance of the fact that modern societies are steeped in patriarchal traditions, which make for male
domination and privileges.

• Second, most historical conceptualizations of citizenship have thrived on the division between members and
non-members. The discursive practices surrounding the notion of citizenship have produced dichotomies
where the space for citizenship became increasingly identified with male and public activities. As a
consequence, while the public sphere (associated with men) is politicized and the private sphere is
depoliticised in liberal theory.
• It is the sharp divide between a political public world and a nonpolitical private realm that has been
challenged by feminists. The Feminist commentators have exposed the apparent neutrality of the public-
private divide as a sham. The slogan 'the personal is political' captures nicely the idea that the private realm
does involve power relationships that are deeply political. Moreover, a sharp divide between private and
public is itself a political construct that favours men's interests. Such a divide has the effect, feminists argue,
of hiding from public gaze the violence, particularly towards women and children, that often occurs in family
life. An important aspect of a holistic citizenship is the application of its ideals to this private sphere
• Feminists have argued that both the ancient and modern concepts of citizenship have been inimical to
women. The classical tradition has directly excluded from the sphere of citizenship. Modern citizenship,
while not entirely excluding women, incorporated them on the basis of their socially useful and dependent
roles as mothers and wives, thereby placing them outside the sphere of politics, and distancing them from
resources and opportunities like education, property, etc., which equip individuals for political participation.
• Feminists have taken different routes to overcome their exclusion from the political community. One strand

has focused on political participation, viewing citizenship as an aspect of public/political activity and as

embodying the transformative potential of democracy. They have argued for women’s inclusion in the public

sphere as equals, laying emphasis on revitalizing/democratizing the public sphere through communication,

speech, and action (which are seen as empowering), and through alliances for a shared common objective.

Thus, it is the exercise of rights in the political sphere which is seen as crucial to the full development of

women’s citizenship as part of what Rian Voet (1998) calls ‘an active and sex-equal citizenship’.
• A second major strand of feminism is, however, skeptical of what is felt to be a merely ‘add women’
approach, which while looking for avenues of inclusion into the public sphere, does not question its
‘maleness’. This view approaches citizenship from the vantage point of what women do in the private realm.
Questioning the patriarchal state, it argues for the inclusion of women’s specific functions into the public
realm of citizenship, hoping thereby to promote the suppressed private side of the public/private divide into
the realm of democratic politics.

• maternal citizenship, which advocates that women should value their particular skills and interests, rather
than merely enter the bastions of male-defi ned politics on its terms. By emphasizing the ‘public’ role,
maternalists like Carol Gilligan (1982), Jean Elshtain (1981) and Sara Ruddick (1989) feel that the
degradation of the ‘private’ role, the domestic, becomes unavoidable. They would prefer to see the
dismantling of citizenship based on male personalities, and the development of new notions based on female
characteristics of love and compassion.