Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T07:00:45.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contesting Patrilineal Descent in Political Theory: James Mill and Nineteenth-Century Feminism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Jim Jose
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Liberal philosopher James Mill has been understood as being unambiguously antifeminist. However, Terence Ball, supposedly informed by a feminist perspective, has argued for a new interpretation. Ball has reconceptualized Mill as a feminist and the sole source of the feminism of his son (J. S. Mill), suggesting a revision of the received wisdom about their relationship to the development of nineteenth century feminist thought. This paper takes issue with Ball's “new interpretation” and its presumed feminist basis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Winter 2000 , pp. 151 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Annas, Julia. 1977. Mill and the subjection of women. Philosophy 52: 179–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bain, Alexander. 1966. James Mill: a biography. 1882. Reprint, New York: Augustus M. Kelly Publishers.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence.1980a. Bentham no feminist: A reply to Boralevi. The Bentham Newsletter 4 May: 47–48.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence.1980b. Utilitarianism, feminism, and the franchise: James Mill and his critics. History of Political Thought 1(1): 91–115.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1980c. Was Bentham a feminist? The Bentham Newsletter 4 May: 25–32.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1984. The feminist and his father: A true detective story. In The Research process in political science, ed. Shively, W. Phillips. Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock Publishers.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1995a. Reappraising political theory. In Reappraising political theory, ed. Ball, Terence. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1995b. “Utilitarianism, feminism, and the franchise. In Reappraising political theory, ed. Ball, Terence. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence, ed. 1992. James Mill: political writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 1973. On James Mill. In Bentham's political thought, ed. Parekh, Bhikhu. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Boralevi, L. C. 1980. In defence of a myth. The Bentham Newsletter 4 May: 33–46.Google Scholar
Boralevi, L. C. 1984. Bentham and the oppressed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boralevi, L. C. 1987. Utilitarianism and feminism. In Women in western political philosophy: Kant to Nietzsche, ed. Kennedy, Ellen and Mendus, Susan. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1969. Reflections on the revolution in France and on certain societies in London relative to that event. 1790. Reprint, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcokmial history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Lorenne M. G. 1977. Women and John Locke: Or, who owns the apples in the Garden of Eden? Canadian Journal of Philosophy VII (December): 699–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coole, Diana. 1988. Women in political theory: From ancient misogyny to contemporary feminism. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Donner, Wendy. 1993. “John Stuart Mill's liberal feminism. Philosophical Studies 69:155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dooley, Dolores. 1996. Equality and community: Sexual equality in the writings of William Thompson and Anna Doyle Wheeler. Cork, Ireland: Cork University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Moira. 1993. Colonialism and gender relations from Mary Wollstonecraft to Jamaica Kincaid: East Caribbean connections. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourier, Charles. 1996. The theory of the four movements. Ed. Jones, Gareth Stedman and Patterson, Ian. 1808. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gatens, Moira. 1991. Feminism and philosophy: Perspectives on difference. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Leslie.1980. Mill, Marx, and women's liberation. Journal of the History of Philosophy 18 (3): 319–34.Google Scholar
Grewal, J. S. 1970. Muslim rule in India: The assessment of the British historians. India: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haakonsen, Knud. 1985. James Mill and Scottish moral philosophy. Political Studies 33: 628–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halévy, Elie. 1928. The growth of philosophical radicalism. Trans. Mary Morris. Preface by Lindsay, A. D.London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Inden, Ronald. 1992. Imagining India. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, N.J.: Rowan and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Jose, Jim.1992. Notes on theorising the individual. A-Gender: Journal of Feminist Theory 1 (1): 36–42.Google Scholar
Kramnick, Miriam. 1978. Introduction to A vindication of the rights of woman, by Mary Wollstonecraft, ed. Kramnick, Miriam. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lively, Jac., and Rees, John 1978. Introduction to Utilitarian logic and politics: James Mill's ‘Essay on government’, Macaulay's critique and the ensuing debate, ed. Lively, Jack and Rees, John. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1967. Two treatises of government. 2d ed. Ed Laslett, Petet. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Thomas. 1992. Mill on government. In James Mill: political writings, ed. Ball, Terence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Majeed, J. 1990. James Mill's “The history” and utilitarianism as a rhetoric of reform. Modern Asian Studies 24 (2): 209–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1975. Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844. In Karl Marx: early writings, trans. Livingstone, Rodney and Benton, Gregor. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Marx, Kar., and Engels, Friedrich 1975. The holy family, or critique of critical criticism against Bruno Bauer and company. Trans. Dixon, Richard and Dutt, Clemens. 1844. Reprint, Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
McClintock, Anne. 1995. Imperial leather: Race, gender and sexuality in the colonial context. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McFadden, Margaret.1989. Anna Doyle Wheeler (1785–1848): Philosopher, socialist, feminist. Hypatia 4 (1): 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, James. 1817. A history of British India. In three vols. London: Baldwin, Craddock, and Joy.Google Scholar
Mill, James. 1826. History of British India. 3d ed. In six vols. London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy.Google Scholar
Mill, James. 1972. A history of British India. In three vols. 1820. Reprint, New Delhi: Associated Publishing House.Google Scholar
Mill, James. 1992. Essay on government. In Selected political writings, ed. Ball, Terence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1969. Autobiography. 1873. Reprint, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1983. The subjection of women. In The subjection of women (John Stuart Mill) and enfranchisement of women (Harriet Taylor), ed. Soper, Kate. London: Virago Press.Google Scholar
Millar, John. 1771. Observations concerning the distinction of ranks in society. London: W. & J. Richardson for John Murray.Google Scholar
Nye, Andrea. 1988. Feminist theory and the philosophies of man. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1979. Women in western political thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Paine, Thomas. 1969. Rights of man. Ed. Collins, Henry. 1792. Reprint, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Pankhurst, Richard. 1954a. Anna Wheeler: A pioneer socialist and feminist. The Political Quarterly 25: 132–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankhurst, Richard. 1954b. William Thompson (1775–1833): Britain's pioneer socialist, feminist and co‐operator. London: Watts & Co.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1986. Introduction: The theoretical subversiveness of feminism. In Feminist challenges: Social and political theory, ed. Pateman, Carole and Gross, Elizabeth. Sydney: Allen &Unwin.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual. contract. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Plato, 1955. The Republic. Trans. Lee, H. P. D.Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Rossi, Alice. 1970. Sentiment and intellect: The story of John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor. In Essays on sex equality, ed. Rossi, Alice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon. 1991. On Mill. In Feminist interpretations and political theory, ed. Shanley, Mary Lyndon and Pateman, Carole. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon. 1997. The subjection of women. In The Cambridge companion to Mill, ed. Skorupski, John. New York: Cambridge University Press: 396–422.Google Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon, and Pateman, Carole, eds. 1991. Feminist interpretations and political theory. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Soper, Kate. 1983. New introduction. In The subjection of women (John Stuart Mill) and enfranchisement of women (Harriet Taylor), ed Soper, Kate. London: Virago Press.Google Scholar
Suleri, Sara. 1992. The rhetoric of English India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Barbara. 1979. The Philosophic radicals: Nine studies in theory and practice 1817–1841. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Barbara. 1984. Eve and the new Jerusalem. London: Virago.Google Scholar
Thompson, William [and Anna Wheeler] 1970. Appeal of one half the human race, women, against the pretensions of the other half, men, to retain them in political, and thence in civil and domestic slavery, in reply to a paragraph of Mr Mill's celebrated “Article on Government.” 1825. Reprint, New York: Burt Franklin.Google Scholar
Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Ware, Vron. 1991. Beyond the pale: White women, race and history. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Williford, Miriam.1975. Bentham on the rights of women. Journal of the History of Ideas XXXVI (1): 167–76.Google Scholar
Wollstonecraft, Mary. 1978. A vindication of the rights of woman. Ed. Kramnick, Miriam. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar