Introduction
This essay explores the political subordination of women in the theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a key thinker in the development of modern political philosophy. Rousseau’s works, particularly *The Social Contract* (1762) and *Emile, or On Education* (1762), present a complex interplay of ideas about human nature, society, and gender roles. The central question under examination is whether the subordination of women is an explicit and essential feature of Rousseau’s political theory or merely an unexamined concession to the conventional gender norms of his time. This analysis will argue that while Rousseau explicitly endorses gendered subordination, it is not a fundamental pillar of his political framework but rather a reflection of eighteenth-century societal assumptions. The essay will first outline Rousseau’s views on gender within his broader political theory, then assess the extent to which these ideas are integral to his thought, and finally consider whether they reveal a deeper ideological commitment or a passive acceptance of prevailing norms.
Rousseau’s Political Theory and Gender Roles
Rousseau’s political philosophy, as articulated in *The Social Contract*, centres on the concept of the general will, whereby individuals surrender certain natural freedoms to form a collective sovereign that ensures equality and mutual protection (Rousseau, 1762a). His vision of a just society is rooted in the idea of moral equality among citizens, yet this equality does not extend to women in the same manner. In *Emile*, Rousseau elaborates on his views regarding the natural differences between men and women, arguing that women are inherently suited to domestic roles due to their supposed physical and emotional disposition (Rousseau, 1762b). He contends that a woman’s primary purpose is to support her husband and nurture children, thereby maintaining the moral fabric of the family, which he sees as the foundation of society.
This gendered division of labour is explicitly stated in Rousseau’s writing. He asserts that women should be educated differently from men, focusing on modesty and obedience rather than intellectual or political engagement. For instance, in Emile, he writes that a woman “must learn early to submit to injustice and to suffer the wrongs inflicted on her by her husband without complaint” (Rousseau, 1762b, p. 370). Such statements suggest a deliberate endorsement of female subordination, positioning women outside the public sphere of political participation that Rousseau reserves for men. However, to fully evaluate the significance of this stance, it is necessary to consider whether this gendered framework is indispensable to his political theory or an ancillary assumption.
Is Gendered Subordination Essential to Rousseau’s Theory?
A critical examination of Rousseau’s broader political ideas reveals that the subordination of women is not a cornerstone of his conceptual framework. His primary focus in *The Social Contract* is the establishment of a legitimate political order based on the general will, a concept that, in principle, does not necessitate a gendered hierarchy. The general will is concerned with the collective good and the equality of citizens, and while Rousseau limits citizenship effectively to men, there is no explicit theoretical requirement for this exclusion. Indeed, his arguments about natural inequality—based on physical strength or temperament—could be seen as supplementary rather than foundational to his political system.
Moreover, Rousseau’s idealised vision of the state does not hinge on women’s domesticity as a structural necessity. The stability of the family unit, which he sees as vital to societal order, could arguably be achieved through different configurations of gender roles, as later feminist critiques have suggested (Okin, 1979). Susan Moller Okin, for example, argues that Rousseau’s insistence on traditional gender roles reflects a failure to apply his egalitarian principles consistently across gender lines, rather than an inherent requirement of his theory. This indicates that while subordination is explicit in his writing, it is not necessarily essential to the functioning of his proposed social contract.
Concession to Conventional Norms or Ideological Commitment?
The question remains whether Rousseau’s views on women represent a deeper ideological commitment to patriarchy or merely an unexamined reflection of the norms of his era. During the eighteenth century, European society was deeply patriarchal, with legal and cultural systems overwhelmingly positioning women as subordinate to men. Rousseau, writing in this context, may have simply accepted these conventions without critically engaging with them. His emphasis on natural differences between the sexes aligns with common Enlightenment ideas about biology and gender, which often portrayed women as naturally suited to domesticity (Schiebinger, 1993). Thus, his statements on women can be seen, at least in part, as a product of his historical milieu rather than a deliberate attempt to construct a political theory rooted in gendered oppression.
However, Rousseau’s language and the specificity of his prescriptions for women’s education and behaviour in Emile suggest a more active reinforcement of patriarchal norms. He does not merely describe existing gender roles but advocates for their perpetuation through education and socialisation, presenting them as natural and necessary. This implies a degree of ideological investment, even if it may not be the central thrust of his political philosophy. Furthermore, as Weiss (1990) notes, Rousseau’s idealisation of the family as a microcosm of societal order reveals a tension in his thought: while he champions individual freedom and equality, he simultaneous restricts these principles when applied to women, arguably revealing a selective application of his own ideals.
Implications for Understanding Rousseau’s Theory
The analysis thus far suggests that while Rousseau explicitly endorses the political subordination of women, it is not an essential feature of his broader political theory. Rather, it appears as a concession to the conventional gender relations of his time, albeit one that he actively reinforces through his prescriptive writings on education and family life. This duality raises important questions about the coherence of Rousseau’s thought. If his principles of equality and freedom are to be taken seriously, as many scholars argue they should be, then his exclusion of women from political life represents a notable inconsistency (Cohen, 2010). On the other hand, it could be argued that his views on gender are a logical extension of his belief in natural differences, showing a commitment to a hierarchical social order that underpins even his political egalitarianism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the political subordination of women in Rousseau’s theory is explicit but not essential to his core political framework. His ideas in *The Social Contract* about the general will and collective sovereignty do not inherently require gendered hierarchies, suggesting that his views on women are more reflective of eighteenth-century conventions than a fundamental component of his philosophy. However, the active manner in which he advocates for women’s domesticity and subordination indicates a degree of ideological reinforcement, rather than mere passive acceptance of norms. This tension highlights the limitations of Rousseau’s egalitarianism and invites further reflection on how historical context shapes political thought. Ultimately, understanding Rousseau’s treatment of gender not only illuminates the contradictions in his work but also underscores the broader challenge of applying Enlightenment ideals to all members of society, a concern that remains relevant in contemporary political theory.
References
- Cohen, J. (2010) Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals. Oxford University Press.
- Okin, S. M. (1979) Women in Western Political Thought. Princeton University Press.
- Rousseau, J.-J. (1762a) The Social Contract. Project Gutenberg.
- Rousseau, J.-J. (1762b) Emile, or On Education. Project Gutenberg.
- Schiebinger, L. (1993) Nature’s Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science. Harvard University Press.
- Weiss, P. A. (1990) ‘Gendered Community: Rousseau, Sex, and Politics’, New York University Press.
