Abstract
The reception of John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women (1869) has changed considerably during the last half century. In the increasingly positive reading and re‐reading of the book, one criticism persists unchallenged: Mill's argument was universalistic. Not only did his analysis posit a uniform trajectory of both the subjection and the liberation of women, critics argue; also, they add, Mill failed to acknowledge the interrelation of identity and society by adhering to an abstract view of persons. This interpretation does not do justice to Subjection's text and context: Mill's legal prescriptions were not merely a symptom of a liberal theory of progress. He thought the unobstructed participation in the public life of the community the only way out of the vicious circle of habituation and oppression for women. This paper argues that his conclusion was grounded on ethological analyses of English national character, legal history, social institutions, and practices.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.