Let them Think!

I am such a fan! Even in the writings of women, we have not seen such a proponent for equality as we have with this text. Essentially, she says that women should be free to study anything that it "concerns them to know" (50... Sorry.. My actual text is in my car and it's far too cold outside to go out and get it. Any page citations refer to the original text, an online copy of which can be found here: https://archive.org/stream/seriousproposalt00aste#page/n6/mode/1up )

Women: "How can you be content to be in the World like Tulips in a Garden, to make a fine show and be good for nothing." (9) She admonishes the notion that women should be pretty and eloquent and let the men do all of the Making of the world, suggesting rather that the Women make as much of themselves as they choose and create a name for themselves that will outlast their earthly lives and transcend into History.

I always enjoy the grand style that we see in work of this time period. Every word that Astell writes is dripping with enthusiasm, like every syllable is a chance to persuade and to rally the forces of Women to her cause. And so she should!

Pleasing and Appeasing

In the introduction to A Serious Proposal, we learn that Mary Astell's "writings are filled with a genuine love of women and concern for their welfare" (846), establishing her ethos to the max. It seems to be less of projecting one's knowledge for the sake of self-recognition, as seems to be the method of some of our previous rhetoricians, and more of enlightening a group to help them become capable of much more. "for Human Nature is for the most part much alike in all, and that which has a good effect on us, will generally speaking have the same on others. So that to guess what success we are like to have, we need only suppose our selves in the place of those we Address to, and consider how such a Discourse wou'd operate on us, if we had their Infirmities and Thoughts about us" (854: 2nd column). Walk a mile in someone's shoes, says Astell, and you'll learn how best to write something to appeal to them. She understands the kairos of the situation, the context being of utmost importance in her case, and does well to mold her ideas around who she's writing to, rather than pushing for others to try to wrap their heads around and fully grasp everything she could simply drop on the page.

I particularly enjoyed Astell's thoughts on page 854, starting with the second to last paragraph on the left.  She writes of individual style, but goes on to specify certain universal elements: "One is for Easiness, a second for Plainness, a third for Strength, and a fourth for Politeness. And perhaps the great secret of Writing is the mixing all these in so just a proportion that every one may tast what he likes without being disgusted by its contrary." This metaphor of writing as cooking presents a wonderful visual, and still seems to be in play today: carefully scooping and measuring just enough of each ingredient to satisfy our hungry customers. Do we sacrifice voice/individuality, though, when we are too careful to please everyone? And must we always be conscious of these four elements when writing to be as successful as possible? I could play devil's advocate and name authors who aren't quite as cautious as Astell would prefer, but perhaps in an era of newly emerging feminism, a slight timidity is the best method of making one's name known.

Sociology and Mary

     In my Sociology of Gender class we read an article about the feminist movement actually harming gender stereotypes and other genders. And while reading Astell, it's all I could think of. Let's look at some passages.
"How much better are you entertain'd now your Conversations are pertinent and ingenious" (849).
And especially
"I suppose then that you're fill'd with a laudable Ambition to brighten and enlarge your Souls, that the Beauty of your Bodies is but a secondary care, your Dress grows unconcerning, and your Glass is ne'er consulted but in such little intervals of time as hang loose between those hours that are destin'd to nobler Employments" (849).
These two statements make traditionally, culturally feminist attributes negative. It makes caring about dress and appearance negative concerns independent of gender. Which, if we're talking sociology of gender harms everyone. Because who could care about what they're wearing while they're reading?
She makes eloquence sound delightful, and I'm not saying it's not a noble pursuit, but I don't think feminine traditions and intelligence should be separated - that's the harm.
Granted, it took until 1980 to realize the separation might be harmful.
When "you read and you delight in it, because it informs your Judgments, and furnishes Materials for your thoughts to work on; and you love your Religion and make it your Choice because you understand it" (849) is made into a male attribute, it forces eloquent and intelligent females to accept the adoption of male characteristics, rather than intelligent ones.
Also, the entrance of "GOD" - literally all capitalized - seems late, as though it has to be inserted to avoid heresy; it's something we've discussed before. And on the topic of capitalization, let's look at what she's done here. "Labour," "Cost," "Wisdom," "Envy," "Essay," "Bodies," "Choice," "Mind," "Confidence." If writing is brand new, is everything up for experiment? I tried to find some purpose behind these capitalizations and obviously there's reason and it makes each of the words more important (with ultimate importance placed on GOD), but if everything is important, how do you differentiate? Oh wait, you capitalize everything. So we've established that GOD is most important, but why is equal importance given to her "former Essay" as is given to "Wisdom," "Choice," and "Mind?" Perhaps that one is easy. When it came down to a Choice, Astell clearly should boost her own intelligence if she's claiming to teach other females. Go Mary. But what about "Raillery" (Mockery)? And "Country Lady?"
I'm rambling, but I guess my question is whether all of the capitalizations were purposeful.
And I appreciate referring to female intelligence as "real Ornament" (848).

Getting rid of pathos...or not

Have you noticed that many of the women rhetoricians we’ve read highly stress reason and logic in writing and barely even touch upon pathos? I’m guessing that they do so to build their own ethos; as women, they would be accused of being too “emotional,” unfit to compete in the “rational man’s” world. Mary Astell writes, “For the design of Rhetoric is…to Reduce the Passions to the Government of Reasons” (852 2^nd column). In fact, her entire piece is pretty much dedicated to the betterment of ladies’ minds. Astell is definitely pulling the logos card here.

And yet, she seems to also suggest the importance of pathos in a very subtle way. When she advises to “Reduce the Passions to the Government of Reasons,” she could mean one of two things:

1. passions (emotions) should be reduced to such an extent that reason and logic replaces them (so that “government” means “government of self”; a person is governed by logic rather than emotion) or

2. passions should be controlled by reason (so that “government” means “government of the passions”). 

  

We could argue for either of these interpretations, but I think the second interpretation is probably more accurate; Astell goes on to say that the purpose of rhetoric is “to place our Subject in a Right Light, and excite our Hearers to a due consideration of it” (852 2^nd column). If I’m not mistaken, to “excite” someone involves provoking his or her passion and emotion. In other words, we should stir the passion/emotion of the audience (“excite our Hearers”) before they may logically consider the topic (“a due consideration of [our Subject]”). However, Astell also seems to support a reason-controlled passion. We cannot logically accept something without the support of emotion, and yet our passions also cannot approve something our minds have rejected. Upon closer inspection, Astell doesn’t seem to so much discount pathos as to disguise it within the complexities of logos.

Eloquent Rebellion

            Though I have strongly associated with many sophistic tendencies up to this point, I like Astell’s perspective on style and clarity.  While the Sophists rely on the tools of philosophy and rhetoric as fuel for clarity in teaching future rhetoricians, Astell “believes that one can pick up the grammar and spelling of one’s native language mostly from reading good books.”(845) Clarity and brevity take precedence for Astell, and I agree with her that these conversational elements can be acquired simply by being an observant member of society. 

            Much like Margaret Fell, Astell uses religion as a tool for justification in her writings, however Astell has more of a voice of genuine concern toward her sex, whereas Fell employs a crusade-like voice.  Astell empowers the reader through pathetic appeal concerning the quality of a life, stating, “It is one thing to be content with Ignorance, or rather with a less degree of Knowledge, on account of the Station that GOD has plac’d us in, and Another to Chuse and Delight in’t thro a Stupid Carelessness, a fear of Trouble, or an Inordinate pursuit of the Cares and Pleasures of this Mortal Life” (859).  This is eloquent rebellion in a fine state, and I read this quote as, “We will most definitely get into trouble if we intend to live our lives to the fullest.”  In juxtaposition to my caring vs. crusade categorization, this quote from Astell really kicks off the feminist movement, and speaks honestly to the fears that must be acknowledged on this trying path. 

            As a side note, I did some extra research on Astell, and it’s a bummer we got such a short snippet of her writings.  She is responsible for a lot of smart pondering points concerning fairness among the sexes.  Some of my favorites:

“If all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves?” (Reflections Upon Marriage)

“What poor Woman is ever taught that she should have a higher Design than to get her a Husband?” (Reflections Upon Marriage)

“Women are from their very infancy debarred those Advantages with the want of which they are afterwards reproached.” (Book 1 of Serious Proposal)

“If God had not intended that Women shou’d use their Reason, He wou’d not have given them any, ‘for He does nothing in vain.’” (Christian Religion)

Astell’s View on Rhetoric and Words

From the short introduction on Mary Astell (p.841-846) it is known that Astell held similar views as Ramus in regards to rhetoric. “For the design of Rhetoric is to remove those Prejudices that lie in the way of Truth, to Reduce the Passions to the Government of Reasons; to place our Subject in a Right Light, and excite our Hearers to a due consideration of it” (p.853, second column). Astell thought nature was the best teacher of eloquence/rhetoric, which played in women’s favor since schooling was limited.

However, as I continued reading Astell’s work I was intrigued in the passage that said, “And since the Clearness and Connexion as well as the Emphasis and Beauty of a Discourse depends in the great measure on a right use of the Particles, whoever wou’d Write well ought to inform themselves nicely in their Proprieties. a[n] And, a The, a But, a Fore, Etc. do very much perplex the Sense when they are misplac’d, and make the Reader take it many times quite otherwise than the Writer meant it” (p.853, second column). This section reminded me of the reading we did last week on Locke and how words carry multiple meanings, thus making the use of each word important in rhetoric. Astell’s did not go as in depth as Locke did about the use of words, but the fact that she mentioned it in her section about rhetoric made it interesting and important. Even if the view Astell held on rhetoric was somewhat downplayed, the importance and placement of words is still a key tool in being a rhetorician.

Women's Rights for Education, Ladies' Rights for All

In "A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Part II," I thought Astell's section about "The Application and Use of our Knowledge" interesting as it takes the vague and abstract notions of rhetoric which she asserts in the various parts of the reading, but actually applies it to then-present day occurrences relevant not only in the lives of the ladies, but also their male counterparts. In this section she looks at the NATURE of women and their places within a societal framework. I thought it was interesting how she stated that "And all her Eloquence is but an empty noise, who employs it in any other design than in gaining Proselytes to Heaven. I am therefore far from designing to put Women on a vain pursuit after unnecessary and useless Learning, nor wou'd by any means persuade them to endeavour after Knowledge cou'd I be convinc'd that it is improper for 'em" (858, left hand column). To this end, it would seem that Astell is putting constraints upon women and their ability to participate in certain events. What's more, it seems like the audience is an ever-important consideration as well in terms of how one conducts themselves in both the private and public spheres of society. Moreover, she discusses the importance of understanding the hierarchy in place, but also understand HOW and WHY it is in place. "So," Astell posits, "it cannot be thought sufficient that Women shou'd but just know whats Commanded and what Forbit, without being inform'd of the Reasons why, since this is not like to secure them in their Duty" (859, left hand column: first paragraph).

In terms of the introduction to the reading, I've been seeing a pattern that some women seem to marginalise some groups, whilst valuing others; however, Astell "wanted her program to be within the reach of every woman..and the heart of her educational scheme was to be a method of thinking that could be applied in any area" (842). While reading, I noted that Astell called for women's participation in certain affairs not typically afforded to women and argues that "A great deal of Good will be omitted, and very much Evil, or Imperfection at least, stick to us, if we are not thoroughly acquainted with the Law of God and the secret springs and windings of our Hearts, which is scarce to be obtain'd without much Meditation and the helps that study affords" (858, right column). Therefore, she makes a good case of saying that women's rights to education or a place for education would be beneficial not only to women, but also for the men and overarching society in which they were living.