8. “Voltairine de Cleyre: More of an Anarchist than a Feminist?”
by Steve J. Shone
Abstract: The recently rediscovered Michigan-born poet, essayist, and political philosopher, Voltairine de Cleyre (1866-1912) has been celebrated by modern scholars as both an anarchist and a feminist. In this paper, however, it is argued that detailed scrutiny of her writings perhaps suggests de Cleyre, who spent much of her life in Philadelphia, was consistently an anarchist thinker, but that her ideas are not nearly so compatible with feminism as they have been portrayed.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
[...] Papers, Vol. 2 (2010), Art. #8: “Voltairine de Cleyre: More of an Anarchist than a Feminist?,” by Steve J. [...]
After reading the exchanges between Steve Shone and Sharon Presley, I read Shone’s article a couple times. I found parts of it confusing. It has the form of a bibliographic essay, but it was written, apparently, to make a point. And Shone’s basic point, as I understand it, is this:
Although Voltairine de Cleyre de “can legitimately be called a feminist, if the specific context of that term is outlined,” the positions that have caused many commentators to call her a “feminist” are not uniquely feminist positions at all, but are essentially logical spinoffs of her individualist anarchism. Thus — to put it more simply than Shone does — Voltairine should be viewed as an anarchist, first and foremost; and her “feminism” is properly viewed as an aspect of her anarchism, according to which both women and men should enjoy equal freedom.
Although I will not go to the wall to defend my summary — for one thing, Shone hedges many of his statements with qualifiers like “perhaps” and “arguably” — this seems to be the thesis defended in the final section of his essay. But if I am correct, then the section in which Shone discusses different conceptions of feminism (first, second, and third waves, etc.) is irrelevant to his thesis and, in fact, only serves to confuse matters considerably.
In her last reply to Shone, Sharon Presley contends that Voltairine was an authentic feminist, and (by implication) that her feminism was not merely a byproduct of her anarchism. I think Presley is absolutely right here, as illustrated by Voltairine’s article,. “Those Who Marry Do Ill” (1907).
Shone discusses this article, and he characterizes Voltairine’s position, in part, as follows:
“Voltairine de Cleyre was an outstanding political thinker who valued liberty and sought equality for men and women within an anarchist framework of social justice that would watch over the needs of all people, regardless of gender. To that end, she advocated the abolition of marriage, which she considered a repressive and unnecessary institution. Such a program is compatible with many feminist goals, but it is not specifically a feminist approach, and thus the attribution of the adjective “feminist” when de Cleyre is mentioned often substantially distorts the record of her many intellectual achievements….. ”
Although I am by no means an authority on Voltairine de Cleyre it comes as a surprise to hear that she advocated the “abolition of all marriage.” In “Those Who Marry Do Ill,” she offers an ideal conception of marriage that has nothing to do with either state or church — a kind of marriage based solely on mutual consent — and she certainly doesn’t call for the “abolition” of such arrangements. But she does advise against them, based on their supposedly detrimental effects on love.
Now here is my major point: Voltairine does far more than criticize government (or church) involvement in marriages, and she is not specifically concerned with the “sex slavery” that state marriages of her day entailed. As she puts it:
“But it is neither a religious nor a civil ceremony that I refer to now. when I say that ‘those who marry do ill.’ …By marriage I mean the real thing, the permanent relation of a man and a woman, sexual and economical, whereby the present home and family life is maintained. It is of no importance to me… whether it was blessed by a priest, permitted by a magistrate, contracted publicly or privately, or not contracted at all. It is the permanent dependent relationship which, I affirm, is detrimental to the growth of individual character, and to which I am unequivocally opposed. (Presley and Sartwell, “Exquisite Rebel,” pp. 198-99).
Voltairine expressly distinguishes between the “legal and social forms” of marriage; and here, in a manner similar to Wilhelm von Humboldt and J. S. Mill (neither of whom were anarchists), she is primarily concerned with the detrimental effects that even *voluntary* social institutions can have on the development of “individuality.”
So what, for Voltairine, makes the issue of even an ideal marriage — one based on “free contract” with no state involvement whatsoever — of special concern for women? Might it not be said, as Shone suggests, that she was concerned with women and men equally? Well, of course, in a sense — but she specifically (p. 202) notes that the harmful “interdependence” fostered by marriage affects “the man less so [than the woman]. and the woman wretchedly so.” She calls attention to the same imbalance in other respects as well.
The same focus on women is evident is other essays by Voltairine, and in many cases there is nothing specifically “anarchist” about her concerns. Indeed, in “The Woman Question” (1913; Presley and Sartwell, p. 223), Voltairine criticizes a “section of anarchists” who deny that there exists a “Woman Question” per se, apart from he common concerns of anarchists.
In short, a large part of Voltairine’s feminism is not merely a logical corollary of her individualist anarchism. It is psychological and social, not political; and an individualist anarchist could disagree with her arguments (e.g., about voluntary marriage) without sullying his anarchist credentials.
Ghs
George H. Smith characterizes my position correctly. I have long felt that the many similarities between the ideas of Voltairine de Cleyre and those of Benjamin Tucker (including their thoughts on marriage) mean that she is best characterized as an anarchist. That’s what I contend in my paper. In “Those (or They) Who Marry Do Ill, ” de Cleyre declares her hope that society in the future will be peopled by “the free individual,” and that “the object of life should be the development of individuality.”
However, when Smith writes that my discussion of the different waves of feminism “is irrelevant to his thesis,” I think he misses my point. After all, Smith accurately distinguishes my argument as being that “the positions that have caused many commentators to call her a “feminist” are not uniquely feminist positions at all, but are essentially logical spinoffs of her individualist anarchism.” I wanted to show that de Cleyre’s concerns – including her opinions about relationships – differ from those of many feminists of various affiliations, which is why I described what they had written. (That argument, as Smith appreciates, is not to claim that she wasn’t a feminist.)
In “Those Who Marry Do Ill, ” de Cleyre says that “Nothing is more disgustingly vulgar to me than the so-called sacrament of marriage.” Though she does concede that some successful marriages exist, she condemns most as being vehicles for the oppression of women. My view is that when de Cleyre states that “The desire for food, shelter, and raiment, it should at all times lie within the individual’s power to furnish for himself,” she indicates a preference for partners living separately, a stance that she shares with Tucker. After all, she warns her readers, “Never allow love to be vulgarized by the indecencies of continuous close communion,” and she expresses the belief that “Children may as well be brought up in an individual home, or in a communal home, as in a dual home.” Of course, a relationship based on physical separation, equality, equal liberty, for no fixed amount of time, without paperwork, might be viewed as a kind of marriage, which would entitle Smith to say that de Cleyre did not advocate the abolition of marriage. It just depends what you mean by “marriage.”
I will comment on Shone’s response a little later. For now, I want to call the attention of readers to the following:
“Social Bliss Considered: In Marriage and Divorce; Cohabiting Unmarried, and Public Whoring” (1749), by “Gideon Archer” (i.e., Peter Annet). Available online at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/socialblissconsi00anne#page/n0/mode/2up
I first discovered this remarkable tract, written by the deist and radical whig Peter Annet, quite by accident in 1976, during one of my many visits to the William Andrews Clarke Library in Los Angeles, which has long been an annex of UCLA (even though it is located miles away).
As indicated by its title, this tract defends divorce, unmarried couples living together, and legalized prostitution. The least original part is the defense of divorce, which relies heavily on the arguments given by John Milton a century earlier. But the other two libertarian positions were virtually unheard of, at least in print, in mid-18th century England, which makes this an extraordinary work.
In addition, Annet attacks the legal power that married men in England had over the property of their wives, and his analysis of romantic love, despite some condescending asides about women, has a strikingly modern ring to it. For these and other reasons, this tract should be viewed as an early exposition of libertarian feminism.
The availability of this tract online gave me the opportunity to read it again for the first time in 35 years.
Btw, this booklet also contains “The Speech of Polly Baker,” which is presented as the libertarian-feminist speech of a woman in Puritan New England. This speech, which was often reprinted in freethought and libertarian periodicals (e.g., Benjamin Tucker’s Liberty), was widely regarded as authentic. In fact, however, it was written by Benjamin Frankin in 1747.
Annet’s first footnote to the Speech indicates that there was some doubt about its authenticity just two years after its initial publication. Annet seems to argue that, whether authentic or not, the Speech nevertheless conveys some important truths. Annet was more astute than the many later commentators who accepted the Speech at face value.
Ghs
Several brief points about Steve Shone’s response to my comments. Some are a bit off-topic, but I regard them as relevant nonetheless.
1) Most contemporary feminists, especially those who adopt a Marxian perspective, see their positions as intimately connected to their political principles (in a broad sense). But this doesn’t necessarily mean that their feminist interests are somehow secondary to their broader political beliefs. Shone’s analysis of the feminism of Voltairine de Cleyre, if consistently applied, would apply with equal force to many of the modern feminists that he discusses in his article.
2) I fail to understand why Shone is so concerned with the views of modern self-proclaimed feminists, many of whom hail from the political left. That their views on feminism often differ from those of Voltairine and other libertarian feminists is irrelevant. Voltairine wrote a great deal on the “Woman Question” — articles that focused on the detrimental effects of various social and political institutions and beliefs on women specifically, and she frequently went beyond calling for equal freedom in a political sense. If there is, in theory, such a thing as an “individualist feminist,” then Voltairine was an individualist feminist. To define this possibility out of existence would serve no useful purpose.
Shone doesn’t go this far, of course, but he does attempt to relegate Voltairine’s feminism to a secondary status, in effect. This doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Many libertarians specialize in a given field by applying their political principles to particular topics. This doesn’t mean that their fields of specialization are somehow secondary to their political principles. There is a philosophical connection, of course, insofar as moral and political principles may be said to be more fundamental than their specific applications, but this is a different issue.
3) As far as I know, many of Voltairine’s views on marriage were first articulated by William Godwin in *Enquiry Concerning Political Justice* (1793). Godwin argued against “cohabitation,” though this didn’t stop him from living with Mary Wollstonecraft and even marrying her. Unfortunately, Godwin could be a bit of a nut, as illustrated by his criticism of the collectivism supposedly inherent in orchestral music. Voltairine’s admiration of Wollstonecraft is well-known, and she was as much of a feminist as Wollstonecraft was.
4) I have never been impressed with Voltairine’s brand of anarchism. It takes the Proudhonian economic fallacies that plagued the Tucker circle and accentuates them, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Moreover, her caterorical rejection of natural rights — which, in opposition to Victor Yarros and other natural-right anarchists, followed the later Tucker — was a disaster of major proportions for the American anarchist movement.
When I first became aware of Voltairine nearly 40 years ago, this was because of her connection to the freethought movement (where she has always been held in high esteem), not because of her anarchism. Generally speaking, I regard her contributions to freethought and feminism as more original and worthwhile than her writings on anarchism specifically.
5) Shone mentions the similarities between the views of Voltairine and Benjamin Tucker, but there was nothing specifically anarchist about many of their shared views about the rights of women. In 1851, for example, Herbert Spencer included a radical defense of equal rights in “The Rights of Women,” a chapter in *Social Statics.* This scathing commentary attacked the English legal system that “permits a man to beat his wife in moderation and to imprison her in any room in his house,” that renders a woman “incapable of holding property,” that permits a husband to “take possession of his wife’s earnings against her will,” etc.
Spencer goes far beyond criticizing these legal atrocities. He also demolishes various arguments that had been used to prove the supposed “mental inferiority of woman.” And he argues that “Despotism in the state is necessarily associated with despotism in the family.” Spencer’s treatment predated J.S. Mill’s similar but much better-known essay, “The Subjection of Women” by nearly twenty years.
For these and other reasons, I see no reason why Spencer should not be hailed as an early libertarian feminist, even though he has been grievously overlooked in this regard. (His influence on the American anarchist movement was considerable.) I therefore agree with the efforts of Presley, McElroy and other modern libertarian feminists to resurrect the grand tradition of libertarian feminism and give it the historical pride of place that it so richly deserves. (I would argue the same point about early libertarian arguments for the rights of children. Spencer’s early views on this topic are remarkable.)
This is not to say that I disagree with everything Shone has to say. It’s just that I don’t understand the point of his basic thesis. Did many of Voltairine’s feminist views flow from her anarchistic perspective? Good. This illustrates the feminist undercurrent that has always been present in radical individualist thought, reaching back to the Levellers of the early 17th century. (In some Leveller writings, we see the equal rights of men and woman mentioned specifically, rather than the typical generic reference to the rights of “man.” These are the first such gender references that I know of in the history of political thought. )
Ghs
I agree with George H. Smith that there are many libertarian and individualist feminist historical precedents. The history of feminist thought is very rich, as a number of scholars have pointed out, and includes many variants, though all with the commonality of supporting women’s social and political equality. Libertarian feminism is one of them. However, much less has been written about this strain. Modern writers generally ignore it or fail to identify it as such. Other than Emma Goldman, anarchist and libertarian perspectives are ignored by the vast number of historians. In researching my book in progress on American women resisters to authority in the 19th century, I’ve found almost no references to Voltairine de Cleyre, let alone any of the other anarchist feminists, except in highly specialized histories of anarchists or sex radicals Anarchist thought in general, both past and present, is routinely blanked out by many historians. Yet the influence of anarchism and anarchist feminism was, arguably, greater than these oversights would suggest.
One modern book that does discuss the history of individualist feminist thought is “Reclaiming the Mainstream: Individualist Feminism Rediscovered” by the late libertarian feminist Joan Kennedy Taylor. Taylor discusses, for example, the role of the idea of individual responsibility in feminist thought, both present and past. The scope of her commentary includes individualist suffragists such as Stanton and Mott, individualist writers such as Wollstonecraft , and the early 20th century libertarian Suzanne LaFollette. LaFollette’s book “Concerning Women” is a classic that has been excerpted or discussed in a number of modern commentaries on feminism, though her book is not as well-known as it deserves to be.
Smith says: “Generally speaking, I regard [Voltairine’s] contributions to freethought and feminism as more original and worthwhile than her writings on anarchism specifically.” I tend to agree with Smith on this point. In her highly original essay “Sex Slavery,” Voltairine gives a thoroughly feminist reason to be against the State—because it and the Church collude to enslave and oppress women. She writes with great passion and modernity: “Why am I the slave of Man? Why is my brain said not to be the equal of his brain? Why is my work not paid equally with his? Why must my body be controlled by my husband? Why may he take my children away from me? Will them away while yet unborn? Let every woman ask… There are two reasons why, and these ultimately reducible to a single principle–the authoritarian supreme power God-idea, and its two instruments–the Church–that is, the priests–the Statethat is, the legislators…These two things, the mind domination of the Church and the body domination of the State, are the causes of Sex Slavery.”
Other feminist criticisms of the Church had been made in the 19th century, most notably by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the “Woman’s Bible,” and Matilda Joslyn Gage in “Woman, Church and State,” but they did not bring their focus to bear on the role of the State per se. They objected to the many laws that oppressed women in the 19th century, not only the lack of national suffrage, but the lack of married women’s property rights, no ability to sign contracts, no right to child custody and so on, but failed to see the inevitable nature of the role of government in regulating women (and men) in harmful ways. In other words, they didn’t object to government per se, merely to some of its laws.
Possibly the most original of Voltairine’s contributions is her essay “Sex Slavery,” It is her discussion of what we now call the social construction of gender. In “Sex Slavery,” Voltairine attacks the idea that sex roles are inherent in human nature, seeing them as the result of socialization. She writes: “Women can’t rough it like men? Train any animal, or any plant as you train your girls, and it won’t be able to rough it either.” This may not seem particularly remarkable to modern sensibilities but it was a radical notion in the 19th century. Since many influential male anarchists of the time rejected this idea, e.g., Benjamin Tucker and Victor Yarro, it would be hard to argue that the idea stemmed from her anarchism per se. The idea may also seem to us to be a logical extension of feminism but in the 19th century, it wasn’t seen that way. Few feminists of the 19th c. took this position. Most suffragists, for example, accepted the idea of a special “women’s nature,” they just wanted some say in how they were treated by the law. Even Margaret Fuller who wrote one of the earliest feminist books in the US, “Women in the Nineteenth Century,” couldn’t imagine the day when women would become lawyers. No one besides early 19th century feminist abolitionist Sarah Grimke had written anything like what Voltairine wrote in “Sex Slavery.”
In fact feminist historian Gerda Lerner claims that Sarah Grimke was the main 19th c. proponent of the idea of social construction of gender. Sarah, writes Lerner, understood the difference between [environmental] gender (what she called “female”) and [biological] sex (what she called “woman”) in a way that was not as clearly defined till the 20th century. However, Lerner is not entirely correct in this observation. She, like most scholars, even feminist scholars, is unfamiliar with the American anarchists. Voltairine was every bit as explicit and clear as Sarah in her understanding that gender is socially constructed. This alone makes Voltairine’s feminist writings important and yes, more original, than her anarchist writings, however good they may be.
Astutely and presciently, Voltairine also understood that “science” may work against women as well. Voltairine observed in “The Case of Women vs. Orthodoxy” that men of the “scientific “cloth” can be obstacles to women’s freedom. If women are ever to have rights, she declares, they must not only pitch out the teachings of the priests but also those of the men “who hunt scientific justifications for keeping up the orthodox standard.” Though most modern feminists would agree with Voltairine that gender roles spring more from training than biology, the idea that “anatomy is destiny” keeps resurfacing in many quarters in newer, more sophisticated, and seemingly scientific guises. The observation that science can be misused against women (an idea unrelated to anarchism and anarchist thought and certainly not an outgrowth of her anarchist ideas) alone makes her one of the most original feminist thinkers of the 19th century.
By criticizing gender roles as well as the structure of conventional marriage, what Voltairine called for was a radical restructuring of society, not just in its public institutions but in its private ones too, a step most male anarchists of the time, let alone the mainstream feminists of the 19th c., were not willing to take. This makes her a radical among radicals. To say that such original thought was merely a by-product of her anarchism would be seriously off the mark.
George H. Smith raises some thoughtful and well-argued points, which I enjoyed reading and thinking about, even though I mostly disagree with him.
With respect to his point (1) and his final paragraph, at a general level, there is an issue about the content of feminism (however defined) and Women’s Studies lurking in the background here. A little more than a century ago, when Sociology first appeared, it was necessary for practitioners to justify the creation of the new discipline, the need for which was not necessarily understood by everyone else. With more recent areas of learning, such as Women’s Studies, Black Studies, and Chicano Studies, the staking out of an academic and therefore subsidized territory of operation is also not unproblematic, particularly in a methodological sense. As far as offering classes is concerned (and I’ve taught Gender and Politics and Ethnic Rights and Politics), talking about Marcus Garvey or Myra Colby Bradwell to students who have never heard of them performs a useful broadening of the curriculum that has no downside.
However, with regard to method, Women’s Studies, Black Studies, and Chicano Studies are caught on the horns of a dilemma. As Alfredo M. Mirandé has pointed out, if these departments use traditional criteria for their publications (such as being scientific and value-free), then despite the fact that the diversity of college personnel has been increased, the research they do will nonetheless continue to impose the values of the dominant society (which, in the case of political science, will include the silly assumption that democracy is a matter of voting). On the other hand, if these disciplines don’t copy mainstream fields, what reasoning can they employ? The subject matter question can be ducked by saying they look at, respectively, women, African-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans. But how do they study them? As Smith notes, many present-day feminists come from the left side of the political spectrum, and the tendency has been for these types of department to write and teach from a pro-women, pro-black people, pro-Hispanic perspective. That’s what Karen Lehrman (Mother Jones, September/October 1993) found when she visited some Women’s Studies classes and concluded that ““Diversity” is the mantra of both students and professors, but it doesn’t apply to political opinions.” Faculty in such sectors tend to close ranks when they encounter ideas that differ in any way from the orthodoxy they have crafted, which was what Gregory Rodriguez, for example, found when he questioned some of the extreme and divisive views he believed emanate from Chicano Studies departments.
At a more specific level, I think not just de Cleyre but also Emma Goldman and Lucy Parsons are better understood as anarchists than as feminists. (I’m not saying they’re not feminists.) So one question raised here is, if a thinker is a woman, or black, or Hispanic, must they become exclusively colonized by areas of study and professors working in those areas at the expense of conventional researchers and of any different field? In other words, I’ve recently written chapters on Benjamin Tucker and Lucy Parsons for a forthcoming book. Because Parsons was a woman, and partially of black and Mexican-American ancestry, have I done something wrong, as a white guy, by trying to understand her? I don’t see why I can’t write about her anarchism, and let others portray her as a feminist, or perhaps as a member of a racial minority group, or as a Texan – in the spirit of shared scholarship, not as a tyranny of shared ideas.
I believe that (2) was asked and answered earlier in our conversation – I talked about modern feminists because I needed to illustrate what they said.
I disagree about (4). I think reading Max Stirner put Tucker’s ideas on a much sounder footing by causing him to reject natural law explanations.
(passim) Smith likes to talk about “libertarian feminists.” What does this phrase mean? How can they be distinguished from “anarchist feminists?”
In response to the question about what “libertarian feminism” means:
Libertarian feminism and anarchist feminism overlap but are not synonymous. You can be a libertarian feminist without being an anarchist. The late Joan Kennedy Taylor, for example, was a libertarian feminist but was not an anarchist because she believed in a minimal state. The same is true for early 20th century libertarian feminist Suzanne LaFollette (see http://www.alf.org/lafollette.php). Though “libertarian” has been used in the past as a synonym for “anarchist,” many contemporary social anarchist feminists or “anarcha-feminists,” such as L Susan Brown (not to be confused with individualist libertarian feminist Susan Love Brown), Howard Ehrlich, Peggy Kornegger, Carol Ehrlich, and others would be wary of the word “libertarian” in its common modern usage as a term describing advocates of capitalism and the free market.
However what both individualist and social anarchist feminists would agree on is what I wrote in my article on Voltairine for Ehrlich’s journal “Social Anarchism”:
“Contemporary anarchist feminists contend that mainstream feminists are unwilling or unable to recognize the authoritarian nature of the modern state as just another form of patriarchy. Mainstream feminists, say the anarchist feminists, would have to give up too much if they acknowledged that the power of the State is no different in essence than the power of patriarchy. “To anarchist feminists” writes Howard Ehrlich, “the state and patriarchy are twin aberrations.” Nor have modern feminists come to grips with the role of the State in perpetuating not only legal inequality but traditional sex roles and power relationships as well. Instead mainstream feminists merely confine themselves to asking for more and more government intervention, more and more laws. Directing their criticisms mainly against conservative Republicans, these feminists insist that if they can just change the administration, they can use the power of the State to remake things in a way that would be better for women. Anarchists see it very differently. In “Government is Women’s Enemy,” the authors write “If we pass laws that force our values on others, we are no better than men who have forced their values on us through legislation.” Power is power and coercion is coercion, whether wielded by an individual man against his family or by a government against its people, say the anarchists. And for the anarchists, coercion is always a moral wrong.”
Libertarian feminists would not disagree with the above. “Government is Women’s Enemy” is in fact one of the major discussion papers for the Association of Libertarian Feminists (see http://alf.org/womensenemy.php). Quoting from that article (which was written by Lynn Kinsky and me):
“Feminism is a proposition that insists that no one exists for anyone else; that government, commerce, technology, education, etc., all exist as tools for people to use as they decide, not the other way around. Feminism rejects any system that keeps people tied to roles that depends on a hierarchical oppressor-oppressed relationship in order to function.
Feminists want women to be free – free of the domination of men, free to control their bodies and psyches as they see fit, free to make their own decisions about their own lives independent of the coercive domination of others.
Unfortunately, inconsistency has crept into the modern women’s movement. While rejecting patriarchal attitudes and dominating ways of interacting on a personal level, some parts of the women’s movement will too often ask for government favors and handouts such as free child-care centers or free abortions. Yet turning to the government just changes the sort of oppression women face, not the fact. Instead of being overburdened as mothers or wives we become overburdened as taxpayers since child-care workers, doctors, etc., have to be paid by someone unless they are to be enslaved also! Turning to the government to solve our problems just replaces oppression by patriarchs we know – father, husband, boss – with oppression by patriarchs we don’t know – the hordes of legislators and bureaucrats who are increasingly prying into every nook and cranny of our lives!
The essence of libertarianism is the belief that all social interactions should be voluntary, that no one has the right to rule another, that individuals have the right to live their lives in any manner they see fit as long as they don’t initiate force or fraud against others.
Libertarians want to repeal laws, not pass them. They are not interested in stopping people from smoking pot, having abortions, or from spending their own money as they see fit. Libertarians just want to leave people alone. They believe that there are voluntary nonauthoritarian alternatives to coercive government services and institutions that will work, even in our modern complex society.
Libertarian feminists believe that we can’t achieve a non-authoritarian society by authoritarian methods. If our goals are personal autonomy and individual freedom, we can’t achieve these goals by taking away individuals’ rights to choose for themselves. If we pass laws that force our values on others, we are no better than men who have forced their values on us through legislation. We merely substitute our tyranny for the tyranny of men. Feminist Catherine MacKinnon advocating anti-pornography laws is no better than Republican Henry Hyde advocating anti-abortion laws.”
While there is no position in this essay that an anarchist feminist of any stripe would disagree with, ALF itself includes both limited-state libertarians and anarchists (and men as well as women, and people of any sexual orientation). ALF does not take a position on the issue of minarchism vs. anarchism.
ALF was founded in 1973 by Tonie Nathan, the first woman (and first Jewish person) in US history to receive an electoral vote. She was the vice-presidential candidate of the new Libertarian Party in 1972, along with John Hospers. Roger MacBride, a Republican elector from Virginia who had written a book on voting your conscience as an elector, cast his vote for them. I was the first National Coordinator, followed by Lee Nason, then Joan Kennedy Taylor, and now back to me. For more on the history of ALF, its statement of purpose, and articles, see http://www.alf.org.
The idea that Voltairine was not a feminist is silly on the face of it. I have written a long essay on her feminism for Social Anarchism (archived at http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SA/en/display/338). The shorter version is in “Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre” which I co-edited.
Since I have not read and am not able to find a copy of the article above, I can’t comment on it directly. But I can only assume that this bit of sleight-of-hand is based on a misunderstanding of what feminism means now and what it meant then. I will be happy to comment further if I can ever get a copy of the article.
I have a copy of the article now and will reply to it shortly.
The idea that Voltairine was not a feminist can only be maintained by those who misrepresent feminism, as this article does. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines feminism as “1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. 2: organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests. By this definition, she was most definitely a feminist. The fact that some feminists today are statists does not change the definition. Words are defined by their “essential nature” not by what some advocates say and do. The word “feminism” goes back to the late 19th century so today’s statist feminists don’t get to define it not does Steve Shone. Even if he were to claim that all feminists today are statists–which is NOT true–it still would not change the definition. However since there are many self-described anarchist and libertarian feminists today (e.g. the Association of Libertarian Feminists See http://www.alf.org) Shone is just simply wrong. Voltairine was a feminist and no amount of anti-feminist sophistry will change that.
I am a committed feminist, and Voltairine de Cleyre is one of the political thinkers I most admire and agree with. I believe these sentiments are echoed throughout my Libertarian Papers article. Consequently, I was amazed to see Sharon Presley say that I “misrepresent feminism” and engage in “anti-feminist sophistry.”
In my article, I did not provide a distorted definition of feminism, or, indeed, any designation of my own. Rather, I spent a dozen pages reviewing the feminist literature and showing how, given the diversity of perspectives, some feminist writers have noted the difficulty involved in crafting a single definition.
It’s hard for me believe that the “Sharon Presley” who posted above is actually the distinguished scholar, Sharon Presley, whose work I value highly, and whom I cite in my paper. While I allowed a range of feminist thinkers to provide insight into the question of how feminism might be defined, “Sharon Presley” prefers to rely on the Merriam Webster Dictionary for a “correct” classification. Is she kidding? If a lazy beginning freshman student took that route, I would cover the page in red ink. Can a serious academic researcher really think that looking something up in a standard dictionary can decide philosophical debates? If so, then what can be the fate of political theory?
Nowhere did I say that de Cleyre “was not a feminist,” as Presley asserts. In fact, I concluded: “She can legitimately be called a feminist, if the specific context of that term is outlined.” My most important purpose was to show that she was a first-rate anarchist thinker. Nowhere in her condemnation of my scholarship does Presley reveal any familiarity with what I wrote, and it’s difficult for me to believe that she perused anything more than the title before commencing to trash what she thought I might have said. Such self-satisfied intolerance contrasts with the fair-minded commitment of those who set up Libertarian Papers, a site that has speedily become an excellent resource for informed debate.
I would be happy to argue the significance of de Cleyre with Sharon Presley, if she would first do me the honor of reading my article. Just as there is no one “correct” definition of feminism, and certainly none that can be found in a dictionary, there should never be a single “correct” interpretation of Voltairine de Cleyre.
My one comment about “anti-feminist sophistry” was in fact uncalled for and I apologize, but I do not apologize for the other remarks nor for having a negative view of Shone’s article. I had not read it in some time and didn’t have the particulars at hand but remembered that I did not like the article. It would have been wiser to wait till I reread it. Now I have done so and can detail the particulars (see below). However, first, I would like to comment on the snideness of Shone’s general tone, especially in regard to my use of the dictionary definition. [Did he think that was my final word? I deal with that point in my comments below.] I will say here that the fact that I was rude does not give Shone license to do the same. His comment about “self-satisfied intolerance” is beyond rude, it is despicable and is every bit as nasty and uncalled for, if not more so, than my original remark. I only attacked the article; Shone attacks me personally–and does so several times. In fact his whole tone is one of petulance and meanness. I also note that I never said there was only one “correct” definition of feminism so, in addition to several ad hominems, Shone has introduced a strawman here. So much for “fair-minded commitment.”
If I am willing to apologize, I expect the same courtesy from Shone. I certainly deserve one.
A partial reply to Stephen Shone’s essay “Voltairine de Cleyre: More of an Anarchist than a Feminist?” by Sharon Presley
Almost the entirety of Shone’s argument rests on two assumptions that I think are inappropriate. The first is that because some writers fail to call her a feminist that maybe she isn’t one.
First of all, I think that it is important to note that the words “feminism” and “feminist” were not even in use in the United States till two years before Voltairine’s death. According to Karen Offen, writing in the “Encyclopedia of Social History,” “[t]he terms “feminism” and “feminist”…were not commonly used in the United States much before 1910.” The terms were first used in 1882 by the French suffragist Hubertine Auclert but did not make it to the US till after the turn of the century. But the bulk of Voltairine’s writings about what was then called “the woman question,” not feminism, were well before 1910 and in fact mostly in the 1890s. So, to clarify for the record, Voltairine would not have called herself a feminist nor would her colleagues have done so.
The fact that some modern writers did not call her a feminist means essentially nothing unless they were writing about her views on women. If they were primarily focused on her anarchist writings or they just mentioned her in passing, it would not be unusual for them to merely call her an anarchist. A number count of citations out of context means doesn’t prove a case. As far as I can tell, most of the writers who did not call her a feminist that Shone cites were not talking about women’s issues. What do the writers who were actually analyzing her views on women call her? They call her an anarchist and a feminist. Here is a sampling of scholars who, in discussing her views about the condition of women, refer to her as a feminist: Margaret Marsh in her book “Anarchist Women” (e.g., p. 103); Avrich in his bio of her (e.g., p.161); Sartwell (e.g., p.12) and Presley (e.g., p. 191) in the biographical essay and again in her introduction to Voltairine’s writing on women in “Exquisite Rebel”; DeLamotte in her anthology that focuses primarily on Voltairine’s writings about women (as well as her literary works); and Wendy McElroy. To say that Voltairine was not really a feminist because not everyone writing about her called her one would be like saying that Sharon Presley is not an anarchist because she is sometimes referred to as simply a libertarian feminist. (Gosh, my anarchist friends are going to be so unhappy that I just got bumped out of the fold…) Or that Sharon Presley is not a feminist because she sometimes only referred to as an anarchist activist, as for example, in the current speakers list at Libertopia (my colleagues at the Association of Libertarian Feminists would find this somewhat distressing…) Counting up quotes is not how one decides on what are appropriate descriptions of historical figures.
Which brings me to another, though minor, point. Shone writes that “Russo Grace…coins the term “anarcha-feminist…” Coins? As in originates? Wow, that would sure come as a surprise to writers like Susan Brown, Howard Ehrlich and others who were referring to themselves as “anarcho-feminist” as early as 1979 [in "Reinventing Anarchy," and by 1994, as “anarcha-feminists [in "Reinventing Anarchy, Again"].” Since Grace’s book was published in 2007, I’m guessing that he would have to have had Dr. Who’s Tardis to have been able to actually “coin” the term. I frankly don’t understand why Shone would make such a comment since less than a minute’s research on Google would have produced pages and pages of references to “anarcha-feminism,” many of which considerably pre-date Grace’s book. If he did not mean that Grace originated the term, he should not have used the word “coin.” I might also add that the 1994 anarcha-feminist reference above appears in the reference section of my introduction to Part IV of “Exquisite Rebel”: “No Authority But Oneself: The Anarchist Feminist Philosophy of Autonomy and Freedom.” (Oddly enough, even though this essay is entirely about Voltairine’s feminism, as are all the selections, it is not cited nor mentioned in Shone’s essay. Instead he cites other places where I simply refer to her as a feminist without arguing for that contention.)
I will also comment on several other annoying, though minor, points before moving on to the second assumption Shone makes. On p. 13, in commenting on Voltairine’s lack of interest in being a mother, he makes a thoroughly uncalled remark when he says: “Alternatively, perhaps it constitutes evidence that she was a feminist of some kind.” I understand that Shone was saying this tongue-in-cheek, but it is still offensive and out of place in a scholarly work. This just feeds into the still abundant and untrue stereotypes about feminists a tad too much to find amusing.
I also found his remarks about Crispin Sartwell, my co-editor, uncalled for and inaccurate. In criticizing Sartwell’s use of the word “nunnery,” Shone says “De Cleyre spent no time as a nunnery novice.” This is another strawman since nowhere does Sartwell actually claim that she was a novice. He merely says she was sent to a convent. It is clear in the context that he is referring to her education. [see, for example, p.5 of “Exquisite Rebel”] Sartwell quotes Voltairine herself as writing that “I spent four years in a convent…” So why can’t Sartwell refer to her as living in a “nunnery.”? Even Goldman referred to Voltairine’s years “in the Convent” [p. 43, ER]. Shone’s attempt in the same paragraph to refute the idea that Voltairine was “ascetic,” as Sartwell call her, is also stretching, to say the least. The fact that Voltairine had lovers is hardly proof that she did not otherwise live in an ascetic way. Goldman and Avrich are among those who comment on her spare way of living and her drab way of dressing, which is certainly a kind of self-denial. Shone is being both petty and pedantic to make such points.
The second major (and questionable) assumption that Shone makes has two parts. First he seems to assume that feminism can’t really be defined and quotes a few scholars who struggle with defining it. Secondly, he then proceeds to implicitly define feminism by reference only to the actions of certain major groups of feminists (first, second and third wave feminism) rather than any shared essence of feminism. This allows him to virtually read Voltairine out of the feminist movement because she does not fit into any of these categories. I guess that means that libertarian feminists aren’t really feminists either because our views don’t really fit into the second or third wave. That sure would come as a surprise to those of us who have been members of the Association of Libertarian Feminists since 1975.
Shone even contemptuously disparages me for using the dictionary definition. Silly me, I always thought words were defined by their basic essence, by what the particulars have in common rather than merely subsets of different particulars. I thought that’s what a definition means. But Elizabeth Cady Stanton doesn’t get to define feminism; Gloria Steinem doesn’t get to define it, nor does Camille Paglia. (Relatively) objective scholars get to define words. That’s what dictionaries (and textbooks) are for. Furthermore, many scholars contend that feminism includes more than just the people identified with those three waves. It always has been and still is richer than just that. Offen, who Shone mentions several times, wrote about historical women that she calls “feminist” in the very same article that Shone cites. They weren’t part of any wave either. And in spite of the quotes from some people presumably having trouble defining the word feminism, many activists and scholars alike seem to accomplish the task. Let’s look at some examples:
Activist Amy Richards, writing at feminist.com writes:
“In the most basic sense, feminism is exactly what the dictionary says it is: the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women. Public opinion polls confirm that when people are given this definition, 67 percent say they agree with feminism. We prefer to add to that seemingly uncontroversial statement the following: feminism means that women have the right to enough information to make informed choices about their lives…Some sort of allegiance between women and men is also an important component of equality. After all, equality is a balance between the male and female with the intention of liberating the individual.”
Guess we better give Amy an F for using the dictionary definition. After all what does that have to do with anything and what does she know? After all, she only writes regularly for one of the top feminist websites.
Or let’s try the National Organization for Women. Would anyone argue that NOW is not a major feminist group? Here’s an excerpt from the original 1966 Statement of Purpose written by Betty Friedan:
“We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.
The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.”
The current NOW SoP states: “Our purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society—sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination.”
But what about scholars? What do the textbooks say? Do they count or are they suspect because they are “merely” textbooks that only have zillions of citations, are peer-reviewed before being published, and are written by PhDs with impressive credentials?
Hilary M. Lips, in “Towards A New Psychology of Women,” 3rd Edition (in the glossary) writes: “feminist [is a] person characterized by a broad set of attitudes that share certain premises: the notion that inequalities between women and men should be challenged, that women’s experiences and concerns are important, and that women’s ideas, behaviors, and feelings are worthy of study in their own right.”
Jane Shibley Hyde, a past president of the American Psychological Association, in “Half the Human Experience,” 7th edition: “Feminist: A person who favors political, economic and social equality of women and men, and therefore favors the legal and social changes necessary to achieve that equality.” (p.6)
Florence Denmark, Vita Rabinovitz and Jeri Sechzer in “Engendering Psychology: Bringing Women Into Focus. From the Glossary: Feminism The belief that women and men are equal, should be equally valued, and equal rights.”
Hunter College Women’s Studies Collective: “Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices: An Introduction to Women’s Studies”: “Feminism has been defined in various ways, but it is agreed that it encompasses a set of beliefs, values, and attitudes centered on the high valuation of women as human beings…As feminists, we reject negative cultural images of women and affirm our strength, capability, and intelligence. We value autonomy, and we work for conditions that favor our independent control of our destinies.”
These are just a sampling from my own library. I could find many more scholars who had no trouble defining feminism separate from any reference to particular “waves.” Where is it written that if one is not part of a major feminist set of activities that one is not a feminist? Why are not the above good enough for a general description of feminism?
Call me foolish but it seems to me that there is in fact a common ground in all these definitions, primarily the advocating of the equality of women and men; secondarily, challenging stereotypes and advocating actions to change the inequalities. Why does Shone treat the commonalities like a secondary unimportant secondary definition?
:
By all the definitions above, Voltairine is unequivocally a feminist. She thought all people, including women, should have economic, social and political equality and many of her essays about women say exactly this. Her writings on women are passionate calls to personal action and social change. She wrote about the stereotypes that enslave women and how they should change in “Sex Slavery.”
“Sex Slavery” is possibly her most original piece of writing and one of her most important. Shone writes as if only her anarchist writings are important, a contention that I dispute. In shrugging off her possible feminism, he writes: “Nevertheless, the *greater truth* is that she was an anarchist of the first rank, and is well worth reading for that reason, and *that reason alone.*” [emphasis added] In my view, her writings on the “woman question,” what we would today call feminism, rank her as one of the most original feminists of her time. Few women, even feminists of that time, believed that gender is socially constructed, as Voltairine discusses in “Sex Slavery.” Only Sarah Grimke, the early abolitionist, is as systematically daring in the 19th century. Furthermore, Voltairine’s writings remain important for feminists to consider today. As I said in the longer version of my essay on Voltairine’s feminist thought that was published by “Social Anarchism” magazine and can be found online: “Voltairine de Cleyre’s feminist writings are a rich source of thoughtful analysis which raises provocative questions that need to be seriously considered by contemporary feminists. Voltairine and the 19th century anarchist feminists, unlike most feminists today, never failed to understand that the State is inherently hierarchical and authoritarian. The recognition that the State is the enemy of women is [an important part of] the political legacy of Voltairine de Cleyre. The questioning of the authority relationship in traditional marriage and the insistence on individual autonomy of women is her feminist social and psychological legacy. It is a legacy that deserves to be both read and seriously explored.” It’s too bad that Shone apparently thinks her feminist contributions are not really worth much. By implication, he seems to be saying that she was and is not significant as a feminist. If this is not Shone’s position, then why does he make the above remarks? He is entitled to his opinion but I could not disagree more. I seriously doubt that Marsh would agree with him nor would Avrich and DeLamotte, were they still alive. I also have no doubt that most anarcha-feminists would disagree with Shone. Arguments are not settled by a number count (though that appears to me as if that was what Shone used in his recitation of all the people who failed to call Voltairine a feminist) but it does suggest that Shone’s views are in the distinct minority.
That Voltairine de Cleyre was a feminist was self-evident to me (and apparently to Margaret Marsh, Paul Avrich, Eugenia DeLaMotte, Crispin Sartwell, Wendy McElroy and many others). That anyone should claim otherwise or even say, as Shone begrudgingly concedes– well, maybe just a little tiny bit of a feminist if we stretch the definiton… can only be done, if not by sophistry, then by highly selective use of quotes and citations and twisting concepts around in inappropriate ways.
[I will have more to say about Shone’s essay at a later point. I found other troubling comments that I have not yet discussed. I will provide the Reference section as well. I will also be glad to make the expanded version into a formal rebuttal to be published at The Libertarian Papers –after taking out the sarcastic remarks of course. I allowed myself the luxury of including them because of Shone’s unspeakably rude, vicious, and snotty rejoinder]
Question for Sharon Presley:
In a lengthy introduction to some essays by Voltairine de Cleyre, reprinted in the anthology *Women Without Superstition* (1997), editor Annie Laurie Gaylor writes:
“Voltaire repudiated her early individualism….
“In her last few years, Voltairine began to doubt the worth of anarchism, confessing in a letter to Alexander Berkman: “I cannot preach anarchism now, because I do not believe it with any great force or strength.” (Feb 17, 1910, cited by Avrich: 215.)
Do you agree with these claims?
Ghs
“Voltaire repudiated her early individualism….
“In her last few years, Voltairine began to doubt the worth of anarchism, confessing in a letter to Alexander Berkman: “I cannot preach anarchism now, because I do not believe it with any great force or strength.” (Feb 17, 1910, cited by Avrich: 215.)
Do you agree with these claims?”
There are a number of things wrong with Gaylor’s description of Voltairine as described above.
The idea that Voltairine repudiated her early individualism depends on what ones means by the term. She was at first an individualist anarchist of the Tucker mold, then became a mutualist but finally called herself an “anarchist without adjectives.” In fact she said “I am an Anarchist, simply, without economic labels attached.” So for starters, Gaylor is not quite accurate in labeling her a mutualist.
Furthermore, “individualism” is not an economic doctrine, it is a philosophical one. “Individualist anarchist” has an economic meaning but “individualist” per se does not. I found an interesting definition of the term at blackcrayon.com (not an individualist anarchist site!) that is arguably a reasonable definition of philosophical individualism:
“As a moral philosophy, individualism holds that only individual persons can be moral agents. It holds that rights and responsibilities are only relevant to individuals. Individualism denies that there are any collective moral agents, and therefore denies rights or responsibilities to groups (but not to the individuals within those groups).”
Other definitions may include the idea of emphasis on independence and self-reliance, or focus on the primacy of individual goals that are not sacrificed to the group (psychology’s view of it). By any of these standards, Voltairine was a philosophical individualist so Gaylor is playing fast and loose with her terms. It’s not really OK to interchange terms that have different meanings.
By way of example, one way that Voltairine’s individualist sentiments manifested themselves was in her attitudes about feminism. I write in “Exquisite Rebel” [p. 24] “Voltairine took her anarchist feminist views beyond the realm of politics and into the realm of individual behavior as well. Insisting on a direct link between anarchism and feminism, she called for a new code of ethics that would recognize the “complete individuality of woman.” Women must free themselves through individual acts of rebellion against prevailing attitudes and behaviors. “
Even Emma Goldman wrote a famous essay on the place of the individual in society. William Reichert said of her “It has not been clearly understood in the past that Emma Goldman, far from being the advocate of a stultifying collectivism, was as staunch a champion of individualism as any of the native-born American anarchists.” [chapter 2, “Partisans of Freedom: A Study in American Anarchism,” 1976). This point further emphasizes the difference between philosophical individualism and the particular economic tenets of individualist anarchism. Emma was certainly not in agree with the economic beliefs of Tucker and his colleagues!
Re: “In her last few years, Voltairine began to doubt the worth of anarchism, confessing in a letter to Alexander Berkman: ‘I cannot preach anarchism now, because I do not believe it with any great force or strength."’ Gaylor takes this quote out of context in Voltairine’s life. As Crispin Sartwell, my co-editor, points out in his essay on Voltairine, she was “grindingly ill, both in body and spirit” with terrible headaches and roaring in her ears. [“Exquisite Rebel” p. 10] She had fits of depression all her life, tried to commit suicide several times, so a lapse like this is hardly surprising. To take this commentary literally, as Gaylor apparently does, shows that she does not really understand Voltairine’s transcendent spirit nor her passion for justice. Voltairine never gave up on the idea of justice nor on anarchism. Her essay on “Direct Action” written in 1912, two years after the above comment, as well as her support of the Mexican revolution in the last years of her life, are testimony to that.
Sharon Presley’s latest outburst (or upburst?) concerning my paper on Voltairine de Cleyre adds more personal insults to those accumulated in her prior missives. So far, she has called me silly, offensive, petty, pedantic, troubling, unspeakably rude, vicious, snotty, contemptuous, a committer of sleight-of hand who misrepresents feminism and engages in anti-feminist sophistry, and a purveyor of misunderstanding, snideness, petulance, and meanness. All these barbs, none of which can be justified by reference to anything I have said, are hurled at me apparently because I commit the thoughtcrime of writing an article with which Presley does not think she will eventually agree. If ever there were a perfect example of what I earlier called self-satisfied intolerance, Presley’s most recent diatribe is it. Ironically, there is probably not that much difference between her views and mine, but Presley does not apprehend this because, as far as I can tell, she has still not yet sat down and slowly read my piece, even though now she has evidently figured out how to download it, and skim through the pages searching for statements to misconstrue.
For the record, I have never stated “that because some writers fail to call her a feminist that maybe she isn’t one.” Let me reiterate, too, that I’ve never claimed that de Cleyre was not a feminist. Additionally, for some reason Sharon Presley has “corrected” not only my personal qualities but also my name, an action that, in most contexts, I would assume to be just an error, but given the tenor of her posts, I wonder if it constitutes an additional attempt to demonize me, to obliterate any contribution I might make to scholarly debate, simply because I adopt a standpoint to which Presley believes she will one day be opposed. As indicated on the Liberation Papers web-site, I am “Steve J. Shone,” which is the name on my other publications, and indeed is also my legal name that is on my driver’s license and other documents, and under which I am registered to vote.
On the other hand, perhaps I should be happy that Sharon Presley directs her venom at a phantom author, since the attitudes she attributes to me are likewise specters conjured up from the depths of her imagination, which tells her also that only she and those who concur with her absolutely may be permitted to utter an opinion about Voltairine de Cleyre. Certainly, De Cleyre would not approve of Presley’s tactics.