Advertisement

Is Citizenship Gender-Specific?

  • Ursula Vogel

Abstract

The statements quoted above range across a period of nearly two centuries. Despite their very different historical contexts, they share a common perception: that the domain of citizenship is properly the preserve of men. They also suggest, however, that women, without being citizens themselves, are somewhere present and, indeed, assumed in the understanding of citizenship. And it is the peculiar form of their presence — as ‘indirect citizens’ — that rules out any simple and unequivocal answer to the title question of this chapter. The first example will remind us that even the most egalitarian visions among the classical formulations of democratic participation conferred citizen status not upon individuals as such, but upon men in their capacity as members and representatives of a family (i.e. a group of non-citizens). The second statement invokes the indivisible unity of marriage — a magic formula which still in the twentieth century served as the most common justification for opposing women’s suffrage: women did not need the formal affirmation of political rights since they exercised them already — through men. To concede to such demands would, in fact, give them two votes and disenfranchise men! It is a general observation that in the case of women numbers, i.e. simple numerical accuracy, never seem to have counted for much.

Keywords

Married Woman Political Participation Citizen Participation Democratic Citizenship Marriage Contract 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Quoted in W. Schubert, Französisches Recht in Deutschland zu Beginn des 19. Jahrunderts (Köln & Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 1977), p. 66.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quoted in C. Rover, Women’s Suffrage and Party Politics in Britain 1866–1914 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), p. 40.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Cf. V. Randall, Women and Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1987), p. 3.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    A. V. Dicey, Letters to a Friend on Votes for Women London, 1909, quoted in Rover, Women’s Suffrage p. 45.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Cf. D. King, The New Right. Politics, Markets and Citizenship (London: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 192 ff.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Cf. D. Held, Models of Democracy (Oxford: Polity Press, 1987), passim.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    S. Moller Okin, ‘Justice and Gender’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, XVI (1) (Winter 1987), p. 64.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    Susan B. Anthony who had to stand trial in the United States in 1873 — for having, illegally, voted. Quoted in A. Sachs and J. H. Wilson, Sexism and the Law (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1978), p. 86.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Cf. L. Kerber, Women of the Republic. Intellect and Ideology in the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of South Carolina Press, 1980), p. 133.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Cf. Condorcet, ‘On the Admission of Women to the Rights of Citizenship’ (1790), in K. M. Baker (ed.), Concdorcet, Selected Writings (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976), pp. 97–104.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    M. Walzer, Spheres of Justice. A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), pp. 53–68,.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    R. A. Dahl,A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1956), p. 4.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    R. A. Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985), p. 11.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    T. H. Marshall, ‘Citizenship and Social Class’, in T. H. Marshall, Class, Citizenship and Social Development (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1976), pp. 65–122.Google Scholar
  15. 20.
    Cf. S. Atkins and B. Hoggett, Women and the Law (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), Chs 9 and 10.Google Scholar
  16. 22.
    Cf. S. Moller Okin, Women in Western Political Thought (London: Virago, 1980), Part II.Google Scholar
  17. 23.
    Cf. J. Rendall, The Origins of Modern Feminism. Women in Britain, France and the United States (London: Macmillan, 1985), Chs. 1and 2.Google Scholar
  18. 24.
    Rousseau, Emile, trans. B. Foxley (London, Melbourne and Toronto: Everyman, 1911), p. 326.Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    Cf. Mary Wollstonecraft,A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975), pp. 100, 109.Google Scholar
  20. 26.
    Cf. U. Vogel, ‘Rationalism and Romanticism: Two Strategies for Women’s Liberation’, in J. Evans et al (eds), Feminism and Political Theory (London: Sage, 1986), pp. 17–46.Google Scholar
  21. 27.
    Cf. Rousseau, Politics and the Arts ed, A. Bloom (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1960), Chs 5, 8, 9.:Google Scholar
  22. J. Schwartz, The Sexual Politics of Jean Jacques Rousseau (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1984), Ch. 3.Google Scholar
  23. 28.
    Cf. D. H. Coole, Women in Political Theory (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1988), pp. 116–19.Google Scholar
  24. 29.
    Portalis, quoted in H. Conrad, ‘Die Rechtsstellung der Ehefrau in der Privatrechtsgesetezgebung der Aufklärungszeit’, in J. Engel (ed.), Aus Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Bonn: Hanstein, 1957), p. 83;Google Scholar
  25. cf. also Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (New York: Hafner, 1949), p. 101.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    Cf. U. Vogel, ‘Patriarchale Herrschaft, bürgerliches Recht, bürgeliche Utopie’, in J. Kocka (ed.), Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt: Deutscher Taschenburch Verlag, 1988), Vol. II, pp. 778, 780.Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    A. De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. J. P. Mayer and M. Lerner (London and Glasgow: Collins, 1968), Vol. II, pp. 778, 780.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    Cf. U. Vogel, ‘Equality and Herrschaft in the Marriage Contract: The Dual Legacy of Enlightenment Rationalism’, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American German Studies Association, Philadelphia, Sept. 1988.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Locke, Two Treatises of Civil Government ed. P. Laslett (New York: Mentor, 1965), II, section 142.Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Cf. D. Schwab, ‘Die Familie als Vertragsgesellschaft im Naturrecht der Aufkärung’, Quaderni Fiorentini per la Storia del Pensiero Giuridico Moderno, I (1972), 357–76.Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    Christian Wolff, Grundsätze des Natur-und Völkerrechts, Worin alle Verbindlichkeiten und all Reche aus der Natur des Menschen in einem beständigen Zusammenhange hergeleitet werden (Halle: Rengerische Buchhandlung, 1754), III, I, 2, 870.Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (Darien, Conn: Hafner, 1970), p. 259, n.l.Google Scholar
  33. 39.
    Samuel Pufendorf, Acht Bücher vom Natur—und Völkerrechte (Frankfurt: Friedrich Knochen, 1711), VI; I, 15.Google Scholar
  34. 41.
    Cf. C. Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Oxford: Polity Press, 1988), Ch. 6.Google Scholar
  35. 42.
    Cf. D. Schwab, Familienrecht 4th ed. (München: Beck Verlag, 1986), Ch. 6.Google Scholar
  36. Gernhuber, Lehrburch des Familienrechts 3rd ed. (München: Beck Verlag, 1980), pp. 148–72; Atkins and Hoggett, Women and the Law passim.Google Scholar
  37. 43.
    Cf. A. V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century (London: Macmillan, 1905), pp. 360–396.Google Scholar
  38. 44.
    Cf. G. Beitzke, ‘Gleichheit von Mann und Frau’ in U. Neumann, T. Nipperdey, U. Scheuner (eds), Die Grundrechte (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1954), Vol. II, pp. 199–242.Google Scholar
  39. For another example of the explicit exemption of marriage and family life from the enforcement of Equal Status Law, cf. the case of Norway, in T. S. Dahl, Women’s Law. An Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1987), p. 116.Google Scholar
  40. 45.
    Cf. H. Land & H. Rose, ‘Compulsory altruism for some or an altruistic society for all?’, in P. Bean, J. Ferris, D. Whyness (eds), In Defence of Welfare (London and New York: Tavistock Publications, 1985), pp. 74–98.Google Scholar
  41. 48.
    Cf. C. Pateman, ‘Women’s Citizenship: Equality, Difference, Subordination’, Paper prepared for the Workshop on “‘Equality” and “Difference”: Gender Dimensions in Political Thought, Justice and Morality’, European University Institute, Florence, Dec. 1988;Google Scholar
  42. K. B. Jones, ‘Towards a Revision of Politics’, in K. Jones and A. Jonasdottir (eds), The Political Interests of Gender (London: Sage, 1988), pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
  43. 51.
    Cf. C. Offe, ‘New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics’, Social Research LII, 4 (Winter 1985), pp. 816–868.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ursula Vogel and Michael Moran 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ursula Vogel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations