CLAIMING RIGHTS AND TAKING NAMES

CLAIMING RIGHTS AND TAKING NAMES 

Re: ‘The Origins of Rights’ readings. 

On De Gouges

Out of this week’s readings, Olympe De Gouges’ writings really stood out for me. I actually thought it was awesome and my margins are full of comments like “Damn!!!”. The first thing to strike me was the language; the confrontational, direct language in which her letter to the queen was written. While the other readings for the week were written in a more abstract, philosophical plane, De Gouges speaks her mind rather than expounding on societal models based on divine rights and natural laws. I believe the difference I felt was that De Gouges’ readings seemed to me to be the expression of a perceived oppression, while the others seemed to be philosophical constructs designed to justify or delineate particular social structures. 

Here are some of the things that I enjoyed from her writings: 

In her letter to the queen, De Gouges builds a case for the royal to support the cause of women’s rights and equality. Cloaked in praise and respect, the author manages to appeal to the queen’s own ‘sex’, makes her aware of the numbers (political support) involved (“soon you will have half the realm on your side, and at least one-third of the other half”) and did anyone read “Believe me, Madame, our life is a pretty small thing, especially for a Queen, when it is not embellished by people’s affection and by the eternal delights of good deeds” as a nicely veiled death threat?!? Perhaps I’m reading too much into her sharp, almost-sarcastic tone. 

In The Rights of Woman, she strikes brilliantly at her rival, the enlightened men of the revolution (and presumably 2/3s of the male population, according to the letter to the queen), knowing just where she can hurt them most. She calls into question their ability to be just (their capacity for Justice!) right off the bat. She then attacks their most precious weapon, reason, asking them in very empirical terms to survey creation (appealing to their alleged reverence to nature and to their scientific identity) and point out an example of such sexual imbalance anywhere on the planet. 

“Bizarre, blind, bloated with science and degenerated - in  a century of enlightenment and wisdom - into the crassest ignorance...” No words minced before she goes on to declare the Rights of Woman. I was also interested by the way in which she framed womanhood in the preamble around the notion of family (176), the claim of female superiority in beauty and courage (177), and the notion of the imagined nation not as a Father nor Mother Land, but as a marriage (Article IV). Also powerful was her call for a democratically drafted constitution (Article XVI), which is a topic we have discussed more than once in class. 

On the other readings:

On a quick comment on some of the other readings, I found Hobbes’ distinction of law as obligation and right as liberty was of use for the class. I was confounded by the section titled Covenants exhorted by fear are valid. Did this legalize theft and kidnapping?

At this moment I also remember Locke’s idea of one’s ownership of self as having interested me a lot (Chapter V, point 27). In general so far the readings for Monday have clarified many of the concepts present in the discourse of rights, although the fact that the definitions vary almost from author to author, also convoluted things at the same time. Looking forward to the class’ insights.