Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:39:44.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Women in Hobbes's Economic Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2021

Joanne Boucher Open the ORCID record for Joanne Boucher [Opens in a new window]
Joanne Boucher*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3B 2E9
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the role of women in Hobbes's economic thought. First, I frame Hobbes's economic thought in relation to his philosophical materialism so as to underscore the extent to which Hobbes's materialism entails the insight that human beings are, by definition, productive, economic creatures. I argue that his description of the economy, even without explicit acknowledgment, necessarily positions women as crucial economic actors. I then consider the implications of this in relation to the feminist possibilities of Hobbes's gender politics. I conclude that when deliberating on this question, we face the same conundrum that is evident in all literature considering Hobbes and gender. His radical comments about women in the state of nature are undermined by his seeming indifference to the state of women in commonwealths once they are founded.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine le rôle des femmes dans la pensée économique de Hobbes. Tout d'abord, j'encadre la pensée économique de Hobbes par rapport à son matérialisme philosophique afin de souligner à quel point le matérialisme de Hobbes implique l'idée que les êtres humains sont, par définition, des créatures productives et économiques. Je soutiens que sa description de l'économie, même sans reconnaissance explicite, positionne nécessairement les femmes comme des acteurs économiques cruciaux. J'examine ensuite les implications de ce fait par rapport aux possibilités féministes de la politique de genre de Hobbes. Je conclus qu'en délibérant sur cette question, nous sommes confrontés à la même énigme qui est évidente dans toute la littérature traitant de Hobbes et du genre. Ses commentaires radicaux sur les femmes dans l'état de nature sont sapés par son apparente indifférence à l'égard de la situation des femmes dans les commonwealths une fois ceux-ci fondés.

Keywords

early modern political thoughtearly modern economic thoughtThomas Hobbesfeminist theorypensée politique moderne précoceThomas Hobbesthéorie féministe
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 171 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Canadian Political Science Association (l’Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, J. W. 1928. A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar
Amussen, Susan Dwyer. 1993. An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Best, Michael R. 1986. Introduction to Gervase Markham, The English Housewife, ed. Best, Michael R.. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Boucher, Joanne. 2003. “Male Power and Contract Theory: Hobbes and Locke in Carole Pateman's The Sexual Contract.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, Michael. 2007. “Macpherson Restored? Hobbes and the Question of Social Origins.” History of Political Thought 28 (1): 56–90.Google Scholar
Carmichael, D. J. C. 1983. “C. B. Macpherson's ‘Hobbes’: A Critique.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 16 (1): 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Paul. 1989. “Hobbes and the Physiological Origins of Economic Science.” History of Political Economy 21 (4): 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Alice. 1993. Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century, ed. Erickson, Amy Louise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coole, Diana. 1988. Women in Political Theory: From Ancient Misogyny to Contemporary Feminism. Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
Crawford, Patricia and Gowing, Laura, eds. 2000. Women's Worlds in Seventeenth-Century England: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cressy, David. 1997. Birth, Marriage, and Death: Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Stefano, Christine. 1991. Configurations of Masculinity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eales, Jacqueline. 1998. Women in Early Modern England, 1500–1700. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Erickson, Amy Louise. 1995. Women and Property in Early Modern England. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gowing, Laura. 2012. Gender Relations in Early Modern England. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hillyer, Richard. 2002. “Keith Thomas's ‘Definitive Refutation’ of C. B. Macpherson: Revisiting ‘The Social Origins of Hobbes's Political Thought.’” Hobbes Studies 15 (1): 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy. 2008. Gender, Class, and Freedom in Modern Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, Nancy J. and Wright, Joanne H., eds. 2012. Feminist Interpretations of Thomas Hobbes. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1999a. The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, ed. Gaskin, J. C. A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1999b. De Corpore Politico. Part 2 of The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, ed. Gaskin, J. C. A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 2002. Leviathan, ed. Tuck, Richard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 2006. On the Citizen, ed. Tuck, Richard and Silverthorne, Michael. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, Ann. 1981. Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laslett, Peter. 1965. The World We Have Lost—Further Explored. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C. B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Makus, Ingrid. 1996. Women, Politics and Reproduction: The Liberal Legacy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
McArthur, Neil. 2013. “‘Thrown amongst Many’: Hobbes on Taxation and Fiscal Policy.” In Hobbes Today: Insights for the 21st Century, ed. Lloyd, S. A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mendelson, Sara and Crawford, Patricia. 1998. Women in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Odzuck, Eva. 2019. “‘Not a Woman-Hater,’ ‘No Rapist,’ or Even Inventor of ‘the Sensitive Male’? Feminist Interpretations of Hobbes's Political Theory and Their Relevance for Hobbes Studies.” In Interpreting Hobbes's Political Philosophy, ed. Lloyd, S. A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Odzuck, Eva and Chadwick, Alexandra, eds. 2020. “Feminist Perspectives on Hobbes.” Hobbes Studies 33 (1).Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1979. Women in Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schochet, Gordon. 1988. The Authoritarian Family and Political Attitudes in Seventeenth- Century England. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2008. Hobbes and Republican Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2012. “Hobbes, History, Politics, and Gender: A Conversation with Carole Pateman and Quentin Skinner.” In Feminist Interpretations of Thomas Hobbes, ed. Hirschmann J., Nancy and Wright, Joanne H.. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Sreedhar, Susanne. 2012. “Hobbes on ‘The Woman Question.’” Philosophy Compass 7 (11): 772–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sreedhar, Susanne. 2020. “Hobbes on Sexuality Morality.” Hobbes Studies 33 (1): 54–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Keith. 1965. “The Social Origins of Hobbes’ Political Thought.” In Hobbes Studies, ed. Brown, K. C.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Townshend, Jules. 1999. “Hobbes as Possessive Individualist: Interrogating the C. B. Macpherson Thesis.” Hobbes Studies 12 (1): 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Lise. 2013. Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Towards a Unitary Theory. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wood, Neal. 1994. Foundations of Political Economy: Some Early Tudor Views on State and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Joanne. 2004. Origin Stories in Political Thought. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youings, Joyce. 1988. Sixteenth-Century England. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar