Conclusion

Abstract

Charles Fourier, the Saint-Simonians and Flora Tristan all emphasised the separate natures and distinct social roles of women and men. Sexual differentiation was central to their ideal patterns of social relations, and to their attempts to define the principles and values which should govern the new society. They all agreed upon the ‘sentimental’ superiority of female nature but there was no consensus on the way in which this should be interpreted, so the concept of separate natures did not create a unitary model of female potential. Rather, the belief that women’s biology determined their special nature gave rise to a range of views on women’s ‘natural’ traits, and in particular, to a range of opinions on the relative importance of sexuality and maternity for women. Fourier emphasised female sexuality, defining women as ‘the sex’. In his view, women’s powerful libido was a hallmark of their biological type as sensory beings. By contrast, Tristan’s image of women’s nature focused on its maternal character, and placed little emphasis on its sexual aspects. She did not regard sexuality as a ‘female’ characteristic, and her belief in women’s capacity to overcome their ‘baser’ drives contrasted sharply with Fourier’s scepticism about female sexual self-control. Saint-Simonian opinion encompassed the views of both Fourier and Tristan, and a range of intermediary positions. Some Saint-Simonians emphasised women’s highly-developed sexual responsiveness; others interpreted women’s sensitivity primarily in terms of nurturing qualities; still others combined these images and produced the concept of women’s ‘maternal’ sexuality.