A History of Feminist and Gender Economics

Giandomenica Becchio

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781351592406
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This book offers a historical exploration of the genesis of feminist economics and gender economics, as well as their theoretical and methodological differences. Its narrative also serves to embed both within a broader cultural context.

Although both feminist economics and gender neoclassical economics belong to the cultural process related to the central role of the political economy in promoting women's emancipation and empowerment, they differ in many aspects. Feminist economics, mainly influenced by women's studies and feminism, rejected neoclassical economics, while gender neoclassical economics, mainly influenced by home economics and the new home economics, adopted the neoclassical economics' approach to gender issues. The book includes diverse case studies, which also highlight the continuity between the story of women's emancipation and the more recent developments of feminist and gender studies.

This volume will be of great interest to researchers and academia in the fields of feminist economics, gender studies, and the history of economic thought.

1
The woman question and political economy

The woman question arose dramatically in the 19th century as an application of the principle of the supremacy of individual freedom, which was a milestone within the tradition of classical liberalism, to the conditions of women, who have been traditionally subject to men from a cultural, social, economic, legal, and political point of view. A few scholars, including some women, had previously dealt with the virtuous role of women in the household as a key tenet in the development of a wealthy society. Differently from the French and the British protofeminists, who were much more involved in a vindication of juridical and political rights for women, the Italian protofeminists pointed out the importance of the role of women in economic matters (Ross 2009). Three Italian ladies, Christine de Pizan (1365–1430), Moderata Fonte (1555–1592), and Lucrezia Marinella (1571–1653) were forerunners in focusing their attention on the importance of women’s ability to handle the economy of the household as a major achievement for society as a whole. In 1405, de Pizan published a pamphlet, Livre de la Cité des Dames (De Pizan 1405 [1999]), to advocate in favor of education for women and to urge women to manage their household in order to get an active role in economic life that would allow them to get some independence in their private life.

During the 17th century, the battle for the equality between sexes was grounded on the debate around the nature of virtues. Supporters of the equality between sexes claimed that virtues were not gender-differentiated: a brave man and a brave woman are equally brave; they actually share the same virtues and they can be equally virtuous in any domain. The scholars who were involved in this debate included Mary de Gournay ([1622] 2002), who was deeply influenced by Montaigne, and the (male) French philosopher Poullain de la Barre (1673). They both insisted on the fact that there were no neurological differences between men and women that would determine different behavior between sexes. Hence, any differentiation between sexes was grounded on an unfair subjection of women. The argument around the nature of virtues was directly linked with the battle for equal education for women, which became the most important goal for the scholars who were engaged in promoting the equality between men and women. The urgency for an equal education between the sexes was directly linked with the request to overcome the pink ghetto of belles lettres, which was the only scholarly field women might aspire to become enrolled in if they ever had a chance to get some education.

John Locke was a promoter of gender equality and equal education for both boys and girls (Locke 1693). Locke strongly fought against a long tradition of authors, from Knox to Filmer, who claimed that the subjection of women was natural and in accordance with God’s will. John Knox, a Scottish leading Protestant reformer exiled in Geneva, had argued that women were incapable of ruling a kingdom: his pamphlet was directed against the three Catholic queens in charge during his time (Mary I of England; Mary of Guise, Queen Dowager and regent of Scotland; and Mary Queen of Scots [Knox 1558]). A century later, Robert Filmer wrote Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings (1680 [1969]). He insisted on the divine origin of monarchical power directly derived from God’s will to Adam, who represented the Man and the King. According to Filmer, men being the perpetual symbols of Adam means that husbands are the only legitimate heads of family and that kings are the only legitimate heads of a state. Therefore, women may not have any role in political matters (Butler 1978). Arguing against the detractors of women’s ability to be good leaders, Locke underlined that the ability of ruling either a family or a country depends exclusively on intelligence: given that differences between men and women are only physical, Locke denied any differences of mind between the sexes and advocated an identical program of education (Nyland 1993).

The debate around the woman question became central during the Enlightenment, when the promotion of the emancipation of women and equality between the sexes became essential amongst many scholars. In the sixth volume of the Encyclopedia, the subjection of women has been depicted as a constructed result of the patriarchy. Women’s disadvantages within families and society were publicly recognized, especially within the legal framework and the economic realm, because access to education was denied to women. The debate around the subjection of women led in different directions. First, the emancipation of women was urged in the name of individual natural rights that are equal for both sexes. Second, the peculiarity of some values that were supposed to be feminine, because they were grounded on the emotional sphere, was considered complementary and not inferior to masculine values based on rationality. Third, the role of women as mothers and wives was recognized as fundamental to the development of public utility. In this threefold dimension we can find the roots of what later became the liberal– individualistic version of feminism (grounded on the equality of individuals) as well as the broader version of feminism (based on the specificity of the role of women in society).

During the French Revolution, several associations were founded, such as the Société fraternelle de l’un et l’autre sexe as well as the Société des républicaines révolutionnaires, and counted more than 200 members, exclusively women. In 1791, the French feminist Olympe de Gouges (1748–1793) published her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen, and, in 1792, the British writer Mary Wollstonecraft (1757–1797) published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. These two books can be regarded as the first feminist publications in the modern time: their aim was to fight for the juridical and political status of women. They both were milestones in the history of women’s emancipation. Fifty years later, John Stuart Mill published The Subjection of Women (Mill 1869) for the perfect equality between sexes. Between Wollstonecraft and Mill, the woman question was embedded in political economy: in fact, the battle for women’s education started to focus on the necessity to include economic studies. The interconnection between the woman question and political economy spread through two different traditions (classical liberalism and socialism) and specifically in three distinct areas (England; German-speaking countries like Germany and the Austrian Empire; and the United States). Liberal feminism, grounded in the tradition of classical liberalism, was focused on the principle of providing equal opportunities for human beings, indifferently, whether they were men or women: the provision of equal opportunities requires a specific economic and legal framework based on private property intended as a natural right (along with life and liberty).

The literature on feminism has traditionally identified the roots of liberal feminism in the suffragettes’ movement in Great Britain and in the abolitionist movement in the United States, while the roots of socialist feminism have been depicted in continental Europe, especially in Germany and Austria, where Marx and his followers mostly influenced cultural elites. This dichotomy is partially misleading. Liberal feminism had a central role everywhere in Europe of the 19th century: from fin de siècle Vienna (where a Jewish component with its strong assimilationist tendency strengthened this thread) to Victorian England; from the Second Empire in France to the German Gründerzeit. Early feminism was a matter of liberal middle-class women, embedded in their moral and cultural bourgeoisie values, under which both individual rights and social order were incorporated.

The connection between the woman question and socialism mainly arose during the late 19th century, when many feminist activists, influenced either by social democracy or by Marxism, embedded the woman question in a deep criticism of capitalism. Socialist feminism, rooted on the contribution of Saint-Simon and Fourier, was focused on the idea that of the emancipation of humanity from capitalistic structures would have eradicated women’s subjection in both private and public life.

1.1 Women economists in Great Britain between classical liberalism and Fabianism

Regardless of their political identity, both classical liberal feminists and socialist feminists intended the role of education on political economy and economic matters to be central in the process of women’s emancipation. During the 18th century, women started to join the debate around the nature of political economy, a new discipline that was emerging from moral philosophy. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1689–1762) exchanged some thoughts with James Steuart about his book, An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (Steuart 1767), and she invited him to admit the possibility that women could be active in economic matters and useful to the prosperity of their country. Priscilla Wakefield (1751–1832) wrote several books to promote women’s economic emancipation as a benefit to both women and society as a whole. Wakefield’s Reflection on the Present Condition of the Female Sex; with Suggestions for its Improvement (Wakefield [1798] 2015) aimed to promote women’s education and financial independence and was directly and explicitly inspired by Adam Smith (Dimand 2003).

Mary Wollstonecraft opened up the feminist tradition within British classical liberalism: she was rightly defined as “the first feminist republican” (Halldenius 2016). Unlike other thinkers such as the already-mentioned moralists Priscilla Wakefield and Hannah More (1745–1833), she addressed the inequality between sexes not simply as a matter of morality but as a matter of political and legal rights. In A Vindication of the Rights of Women ([1792] 1994), Wollstone-craft replied to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Emile. In his novel, Rousseau proposed that a girl’s education should aim to make her supportive of her well-educated husband. According to Wollstonecraft, Rousseau’s attitude, grounded on the fact that privileged and educated men systematically denied education and autonomy to women, may be regarded as the major enemy of women’s emancipation. Wollstonecraft wanted to destroy the traditional complementarity between the stereotype of an emotional, intuitive, and tender woman and the stereotype of a rational, ambitious, and strong man (Todd 2014; Botting 2016).

Wollstonecraft’s legacy was central in Jane Austen (1775–1817): in Austen’s Persuasion, the author perceived feminine traits (emotions, feelings, and so forth) not as natural, but as the inevitable effects of social constraints. Furthermore, in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, the role of education for girls was a central vindication of women’s emancipation (Brown 1973). Furthermore, Wollstonecraft influenced 19th-century popularizers of political economy, like Jane Marcet (1769–1858) and Harriet Martineau (1802–1876), who strategically highlighted the fact that gender norms had constantly and systematically reinforced women’s subjection by influencing social institutions and had affected the traditional ideals of femininity. For instance, marriage was the only way for women to get access to any kind of resources, but married women were completely subject to their husbands. Following the earlier suggestions by Marcet and Martineau, women economists during the 19th century were specifically focused on the economics of marriage and domestic economy and on women’s access to the labor market and professions.

1.1.1 The classical liberal tradition during Victorianism

During Queen Victoria’s reign (1837–1901), British women were traditionally forced within the rhetoric of marriage and family as the only way for their fulfilment and were subject to men from any legal and material perspective. The major obstacle to women’s economic emancipation was the unequal access to education between the sexes. Women were barred from universities, clubs, and scholarly societies involved in the formation of leadership. Their education was only focused on female accomplishments, which included foreign languages, literature, and art. These topics aimed to prepare future middle-class and upper-class wives and mothers, but had the effect of marginalizing women from public debates on economic and political matters (Rostek 2014; 2019).

The relationship between Victorian feminism and educational reform was very complex: education was a central point in the woman question’s agenda before the organization of any official women’s movement, but the foundation of girls’ school and women’s colleges involved individuals who not necessarily claimed the feminist stance. The classical liberal elite was the main promoter of equal education for girls and boys, but in many cases, the battle for higher education did not involve women’s political emancipation. The case of Emily Davies (1830–1921) was emblematic: Davies founded the first residential women’s college, but she was against female suffrage. However, if not all educational promoters were feminists, all feminists claimed that women need to get a higher education in order to improve society as a whole, by challenging the traditional model of the bourgeois family, which included the stereotypical role of wives who were engaged neither in household nor in professional jobs (Schwartz 2011).

A major aim of women activists during Victorianism was the proposal of a significant reform of young women’s education, which included the introduction of boarding schools, the training of women teachers, and the gradual access to university education for women (Mallett 2016a, 2016b). In 1870, the Married Women’s Property Act created a major change in 19th-century British property law. The act granted British women the right to own and control personal property and dramatically increased the bargaining power and the amount of properties of married women (Combs 2006). This legal change in married women’s property rights facilitated a growing female role in investment. As Robb (1992) pointed out, in England during the 19th century, a consistent group of women made relevant investments in income, capital growth, or a share in the family business. Mostly ignored by scholars, women as investors were especially active in the stock market (Rutterford and Maltby 2006).

Sophie de Grouchy (1764–1822), Jane Haldimand Marcet (1769–1858), and Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) were the first women to explicitly write about political economy. Mainly inspired by Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus, they were engaged in the popularization of the economic principles of the classical school.

De Grouchy, Condorcet’s wife, ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 The woman question and political economy
• 2 Home economics, household economics, and new home economics in the United States
• 3 The genesis and development of feminist economics within academia
• 4 Latest developments of gender studies in economics
• Appendix: Timeline
• Index