![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
In the early nineteenth century, the utilitarian feminist Anna Doyle Wheeler generated still relevant analysis of the political economy of gender. The feminist literature credits Wheeler and her coauthor William Thompson as the first to appreciate that reproductive labor, however exploited, plays a central role in capitalism. Wheeler convincingly argues why piecemeal reform within capitalism cannot generate equality. The answer: a cooperative economy. This article formalizes two central propositions attributed to Anna Doyle Wheeler: (i) high levels of social welfare require gender equality; and (ii) gender equality requires a cooperative economic system. Conditional on interdependence and perceptions of happiness, there is a fundamental coherence underlying the first proposition. This study explicates the reasoning for the second proposition using Wheeler’s insights into social psychology and her understanding of cooperative institutions. Identifying and constructing decentralized, self-governing, and commonly owned institutions that embody Wheeler’s broad principles remains a challenge.
HIGHLIGHTS
Feminist philosopher Anna Doyle Wheeler argued gender equality requires cooperation.
Meaningful gender equality demands a social psychology of enlarged self-interest.
Cooperative institutions of common property must be decentralized and self-governed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their input on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Notes
1 The Historical Gender Equality Index takes into consideration health, household autonomy, political power, and socioeconomic status to measure gender equality, with a value of 100 as the case of perfect equality. Between 1950–2003, this index increased in the United Kingdom from 70.1 to a mere 75.9. Likewise, the figures only rose in France from 67.0 to 72.8; and in the United States from 64.5 to 74.7.
2 Our forthcoming book, Building a Social Science: 19th Century British Cooperative Thought (Oxford University Press), develops some of these themes in the context of the broader British nineteenth-century cooperative movement. It should be noted that Wheeler does not use the term “capitalism,” which comes to the fore only in the last half of the 19th century. Although somewhat anachronistic, it captures well the economic construct she is so critical of. Hence, we use the term throughout this paper.
3 Dorothy Dooley (Citation1996) provides excellent biographical details for Anna Doyle Wheeler.
4 Given elaborate social restrictions on European women at this time, intelligent women moving in relatively elite social circles created the salon as a niche in which they exercise personal agency. This agency applied to the creation of effective social networks as well as engaged participation in intellectual discussion, and shaping and diffusing knowledge and policy. In the early nineteenth century, the popularizer of Classical political economy, Jane Marcet was one such salonnière in London, as was Sophie de Grouchy, the marquis de Condorcet in France (see Forget Citation2001a, 326: Citation2017). Dooley explores “The Politics of a Salon Collaborator” as it relates to Wheeler’s biography (Citation1996: 71–4). Wheeler developed her social skillset in part through entertaining with her uncle the governor, Sir John Doyle, after fleeing her marriage. In later years in both France and England, she became a salonnière, selectively inviting intellectuals and social reformers to small gatherings in her home. The control Wheeler maintained over the guest list and the ability to establish expectations about conduct are part of the appeal of the salon. Dooley also suggests that Wheeler’s “expertise in emotional negotiation” likely assisted in smoothing over differences among some of the stronger personalities in cooperation and in utilitarianism (Dooley Citation1996: 89–92). More unusual than her salon is the record of Wheeler giving a public lecture on cooperation and gender equality (Wheeler Citation1830).
5 Vlasta was the name of a legendary woman leading an army of women for seven years to end gender subordination (Dooley Citation1996: 79; story taken from an explanation at the end of Wheeler [Citation1834]: 326).
6 The publisher gave formal authorship credit to William Thompson but in the introduction, Thompson identifies the ideas as Wheeler’s. Independent linguistic analyses of this text by Dooley (Citation1995: 31) and Cory (Citation2004: 114–8) suggest that the last section titled, “Concluding Address to Women” is the writing of Wheeler. When quoting this section of the Appeal (Thompson and Wheeler Citation1825: 187–213), the present paper attributes authorship to Wheeler. Notice the Appeal was written in response to an argument by James Mill (J.S. Mill’s father). In On Government, James Mill (Citation1825) argues that because of an alleged identity of interests between men and women in a household, women need not have political voice.
7 In recent years, two noteworthy feminist contributions challenge economics to incorporate emotion-based knowledge. Julie A. Nelson (Citation2003) philosophically reflects on how the process ontology of Alfred North Whitehead might pave the way for emotion in research. Kristin Blakeley (Citation2007) explores the methodological and theoretical implications of emotionally engaged research.
8 Ferguson (Citation1999a, Citation2008, Citation2020) provides an overview of social reproduction feminist thought. Her most recent publication establishes the historical roots of feminist economics. She begins with equality feminism (apparent in the thought of Mary Wollstonecraft) and then explores the debates among socialist feminists, particular social reproduction feminism and its relationship to critical equality feminism (as represented in the thought of the Saint Simonian Flora Tristan).
9 Barbara Taylor predated Ferguson in stressing that Wheeler and Thompson make gender equality central to early socialist thought (Citation1983: 23–4).
10 However, notice there are circumstances in which women’s exploitation when pushed too far can actually lower rates of growth. Elissa Braunstein, Stephanie Seguino, and Levi Altringer predict this possibility in the inequality-led, “low road” economies (Citation2021: 149). Their empirical results tend to confirm the hypothesis.
11 In Britain, cooperative socialism pre-dated Marxian, Fabian, and other forms of centralized planned socialism. In some circles, the historical rise of centrally planned socialisms is interpreted as intellectual progress. Clearly the approach we take here rejects this simplification and insists on the uniqueness and continuing relevance of cooperative thought in its own right.
12 From a prosperous Irish family of the “Protestant ascendancy” who settled in Cork, William Thompson (1775–1833) early on espoused egalitarian, and even feminist, sentiments. In 1818 he advocated the formal education of young women. Initiating contact with Jeremy Bentham concerning an educational proposal, Thompson became an effective disciple of Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy. Thompson also maintained a close but conflicted relationship with Robert Owen. In writing his major treatise Inquiry (1824), he provided a theoretical foundation for the cooperative economic system based on principles of equality and self-governance (Pankhurst [Citation1954] Citation1991: 1–9, 18–23, 100–8; see also Dooley [Citation1996] for biographical background).
13 The Saint-Simonians were followers of the French philosopher, Saint-Simon. After his death, the Saint-Simonians focused on the social and economic role of women (Forget Citation2001b: 80–4). In the 1830s, French feminists continued to influence Wheeler, including the following Saint Simonians: Flora Tristan, Desiree Veret, Suzanne Voilquin, Marie-Reine Guindorff, and Jeanne Deroin. These Saint Simonians generally advocated equality along with “women’s collectives” and “belonging to a female community” (Dooley Citation1997: 4–5).
14 In particular, see Mill’s elaboration in Utilitarianism ([1863] Citation1969).
15 On the collaboration of Mill and Taylor, see Mill’s Autobiography ([Citation1873] Citation1981) and Frederick A. Hayek’s The Mill-Taylor Friendship (2015). In particular, scholars recognize their collaboration in the famous chapter on the Future of Laboring Classes in Principles ([1848] Citation1965) and attribute “The Enfranchisement of Women” (1851) to Taylor.
16 We find Sigot and Beaurain’s argument interesting, but as they admit, it makes crucial propositions not explicitly put forward by Mill and Taylor (21n). Though husbands and wives specialize in different sectors (him in the market, her at home), in an “ideal marriage”, the equality between the two unifies and harmonizes their interests through reciprocal influence. As children observe this equality between their parents, they become convinced that equality is necessary to maximize social happiness. Thus (and assuming the wife has an education on par with her husband) the family serves as a school of sympathy, educating all toward the noble pleasures. As the social psychology transforms across households, workers become more capable and more sympathetic toward cooperative organization along the lines of producer associations. In this analysis, Sigot and Beaurain insist on equality as making association possible.
17 Notice, it is this broad list of pleasures in Thompson and Wheeler’s utilitarianism that opens the possibility that the greatest happiness of the greatest number may require a new economic system. Jeremy Bentham ([Citation1823] and earlier) presents his own long and detailed list of pleasures and pains. Significantly his list does include benevolence.
18 While Thompson and Bentham seem to be the minds behind typifying pleasures, Wheeler also reflects on the various sources of happiness. For example, in the “Address to Women,” Wheeler identifies the senses, intelligence, social pleasures and sympathy as genuine sources of happiness (Thompson and Wheeler Citation1825: 205, 213). Wheeler describes despotic control as a false source of happiness (Citation1825: 207). Throughout her sole-authored publications, she links happiness to the higher intellectual and social pleasures as well as to voluntarism. All of these higher pleasures derive from training through a rational-ethical education system (Wheeler Citation1830: 13–4, 36; Citation1833: 279; Citation1834: 304–6 322).
19 Mary Wollstonecraft also ascribes to the belief that environment shapes character (Ferguson Citation1999b: 435–6). While there is alignment between Wheeler, Wollstonecraft, and Owen on character formation, the depth of Robert Owen’s commitment to gender equality and to respect for diversity must be qualified. In her analysis of the inegalitarian practices in the Owenite communities of the United States between 1824–8, Carol Kolmerten states:
Even Robert Owen, perplexed at the ‘woman problem’ in New Harmony, lectured to his community that women’s dissatisfactions with their duties must stem from their 'talking too much,’ not from too much work. Owen theorized that, in association, ‘one female will with great ease and comfort perform as much as twenty servants can do.’ (Citation1981: 33)
20 It is interesting that, despite her own miserable experience in marriage, Wheeler stayed open to the potential rewards of men and women interacting as equals in a healthy relationship. She is clear though, that there can be no equality and no mutually reinforcing happiness within the constraints of the nineteenth-century European institutions of marriage and competitive capitalism (Citation1834: 323–4). Within those institutions many, if not most, men see only immediate material gains from the exploitation of women as modern feminists like Folbre (Citation2021) point out. Wheeler certainly understands the point. She goes further in also identifying the false pleasure arising from domination.
21 In part, these differential effects on men and women result from gender-stratified “separate spheres” with men in the market and women constrained to the household. See Folbre (Citation1998) for fuller treatment of the concept of separate spheres and its application to early twentieth-century history of economic thought.
22 Modern feminist interpretations of internalized oppression include Steven Lukes (Citation1974) and Jo Rowlands (Citation1997).
23 Thompson and Wheeler were among the earliest British writers to problematically describe white, relatively privileged middle-class women as slaves. The first three chapters of Angela Davis (Citation1983) makes it clear in the case of the US during the first half of the nineteenth century, that while all women experienced oppression, the experience of Black men and women’s enslavement stands out in its brutality.
24 Asking whether women “suffer from false perceptions,” Bina Agarwal (Citation1997) appropriately challenges any universalist ascription of internalized oppression on women in problematic patriarchal households. In the context of critiquing the extensive household bargaining model literature, Agarwal questions whether women misperceive their own self-interest when raised in patriarchal environments. Instead, Agarwal directs attention to external constraints which block women from “acting overtly in their self-interest.” The lack of protest to oppressive norms may be strategic, signaling awareness of the costs to protest. Rather than reflecting internalized oppression, overt compliance may “reflect a survival strategy stemming from the constraints on their ability to act overtly in pursuit of those interests.” In order to more deeply explore the question of oppression versus agency, Agarwal recommends that researchers uncover the extent to which women participate in covert resistance to household patriarchy (Citation1997: 23–5). Wheeler did not go this direction: she likened the situation of early nineteenth-century European women as capitulation into a form of slavery.
25 Wheeler’s work also anticipates elements of a related theme that still attract attention in the current feminist literature. On the various forms of power and the explicit and implicit forms of “power over” see Lukes (Citation1974). Rowlands links the insights from Lukes on “power over” dynamics to the construction of a psyche of internalized oppression (Citation1997: 10–4). In making choice central in the definition of power, Naila Kabeer translates Luke’s understandings of power into the agency framework of more recent feminist economics (Citation1999: 437–8). Kabeer also raises the difficulties in understanding some women’s apparent decisions to undermine their own personal welfare. Like Rowlands, Kabeer interprets such cases as ones in which women internalize “their social status as persons of lesser value.” Further, women with “internalized lower status” tend to attribute the same lower status to other women (Citation1999: 439–41).
26 For example, Susan Himmelweit (Citation1995) recommends reducing work hours in formal employment, improving work conditions for part-time employment, and decreasing income inequality both across and within households to facilitate social recognition and engagement in caring work and self-fulfilling activities. In light of the gendered division of labor, Ailsa McKay (Citation2001) rethinks and recommends a citizen’s basic income policy. Jeni Klugman et al. (Citation2014) make numerous policy recommendations to expand women’s agency, such as opening educational and economic opportunities, enhancing social protections and legal reforms, and challenging harmful social norms. While laudable and certainly necessary to partially redress gendered exploitation, nearly two centuries ago, Wheeler clarified all such piecemeal reforms are insufficient for full gender equality: gender equality and competitive capitalism are incompatible.
27 These include the creation of associations among women to support one another and fight gender oppression (Thompson and Wheeler Citation1825: 210–1). She calls for a “society of enlightened advocates for the rights of women” (Wheeler Citation1830: 36). In association, women are to “hold fellowship or sympathy with” other women (Citation1833: 279). In the contemporary feminist economics literature, Kabeer (Citation2016: 316–7) concurs, highlighting collective agency among women. For Wheeler such activism must work toward equal rights in education, property, and “equal morals,” along with equal civil and political rights (Wheeler Citation1830: 36; Thompson and Wheeler Citation1825: 207).
28 We find evidence for Wheeler’s two propositions consistently across her known publications. Proposition I (gender equality is necessary for high levels of social welfare) appears across all four of her publications. Proposition II (cooperation is necessary for gender equality) appears in three of her four publications (Citation1825, Citation1833, and Citation1834). In the fourth, her eulogy to Thompson, Wheeler primarily argues the obverse: that the gender inequality of her times is in great part due to the anti-social system of competition (Citation1834: 322). The most complete and detailed exposition of both propositions appears across the pages of the “Address to Women” at the end of Appeal.
29 Presumably Wheeler is sure that the if this is the case, the logic of utilitarianism also requires any other system to achieve full gender equality.
30 A mathematical appendix to this section is available upon request to the authors. This appendix offers a simple utilitarian model that demonstrates the formal conditions necessary to achieve Wheeler’s conclusions.
31 Gary Becker (Citation1965, Citation1981) is one of the early contributors to neoclassical modelling of the household. The feminist economics literature takes Becker to task for assuming unity within the household, including his assumption of a single household utility function. (Agarwal Citation1997: 3–4.) In her feminist economics analysis, not only does Wheeler distinguish the utility of wives from that of husbands, but she also recognizes their dynamic interdependence.
32 The mathematical exercise that we undertook shows the conditions under which men’s gains exceed their losses in the case of interdependence.
33 The evidence for this claim in feminist economics comes from two searches: (a) manual review of the titles and, where titles were suggestive, the abstracts of all articles published in Feminist Economics; and (b) an electronic search for the terms “cooperative economy” and “cooperation” in Feminist Economics. The electronic search was undertaken at https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfec20 in the second half of April 2023.
34 With respect to embedding cooperation into a competitive system, Julie Matthaei raises an important question: do these cooperatives “reproduce gender and racial-ethnic inequality” (Citation1996: 35)?
35 See also Caroline Shenaz Hossein (Citation2021), which draws on case material for enterprises, including some mention of cooperatives in Toronto, Canada.
36 However, a reading of Folbre might cast doubt on the robustness of a social psychology like that in the writing of the early cooperative theorists. This is potentially a fundamental criticism of cooperative thought.
37 As a victim and escapee of abuse and oppression Wheeler remained true to her emotionally analytical might and obstinacy. Though a deep understanding of character formation does stimulate tolerance and “forbearing” for others, nonetheless she qualifies that she gives “a tenfold portion” of her sympathy to those of “great moral superiority” (Citation1834: 309).
38 Robert Owen first applied his program of rational-ethical education to the community of the New Lanark Textile mill which he managed for twenty-five years. Owen (1813–16) describes the program. While advocating for the equal education of girls as early as 1818, William Thompson’s written contribution centering on cooperation appears over a decade later. A chapter of Thompson’s Practical Directions (1830) considers “Education and Mental Pleasures” in the cooperative village.
39 Wheeler also highlights the importance of reasoning skills (Citation1834: 312).
40 Wheeler also repeatedly links rationality and morality (Citation1834: 315–7). Distinct from Owen, Wheeler’s thought emphasizes liberty: “Without liberty, there can be no virtue: without knowledge, there can be no liberty.” And like Thompson, she advocates universal education: “But it should never be forgotten, that if ‘knowledge is power,’ power only ceases to be dangerous when held by the instructed many” (Citation1834: 317).
41 Note there is a sharp distinction between these character traits in the cooperative setting and similar reactions from those suffering from internalized oppression. In the first case, these character traits reflect psychological health whereas in the second case, they are a survival strategy in a coercive environment.
42 Though by 1827, Wheeler and Thompson were obviously intellectual partners and held one another in high esteem, there is no evidence to ascertain how much she influenced his thinking and his writing beyond the Appeal. They obviously both had an affinity in their feminist sentiments, and both had deeply reflective analytical minds. Of the two, Thompson’s writing provides the clearest exposition of the concept of enlarged self-interest and so we rely on source material from his publications here, supplementing that coverage with relevant material appearing in Wheeler’s publications.
43 This enlightened self-interest arises when there is no coercion. It assumes that most others are rational and do this enlarged calculation as well. Rationality includes adjustments for irrationality in the calculus and acting “to guard calmly against evil” (Thompson Citation1827: 19).
44 Sophie de Grouchy, the marquise de Condorcet, translated Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments into French in 1798. Her translation infused her own understanding of sympathy into Smith’s work. It seems reasonable to conjecture that de Grouchy’s ideas about sympathy influenced Wheeler, given Wheeler’s extensive intellectual pursuits in France. See Forget (Citation2001a) for an insightful exposition of de Grouchy’s thought.
45 For the most part, Wheeler concentrates on what we (elsewhere) call principled institutions and gives less attention to concrete institutions. She left it to Owen and Thompson to develop extensive blueprints for semi-autarchic cooperative villages.
46 Wheeler draws a normative distinction between institutions that “recognize the general interest of all mankind” and vicious institutions (particularly competition) which pit person against person (Citation1830: 15). The institutions of Table are all in the first category.
47 In laying out his Practical Directions for the establishment of a cooperative, Thompson justifies an optimum size of 2,000 individuals. There his argument addresses economic, intellectual, social and political arguments supporting his claim that 2,000 is optimum (Citation1830: 29–45). Concerning his claim that this is the optimum size for self-governance, Thompson writes, “many more than the adults of 2,000 individuals, could hardly with convenience meet together to discuss and arrange the common concerns, the public business of the community” (Citation1830: 45). In the “Address to Women” at the end of Appeal, Wheeler raises the issue of voluntarism and self-governance in interpersonal relations, claiming, “[b]y Mutual Co-operation of large numbers, the power and the means of exercising it, and the desire of exercising it, are equally withdrawn” (Citation1825: 203).
48 Interestingly, this theme reappears in the modern feminist literature on cooperation. See, for example, Felix Meier zu Selhausen (Citation2016).
49 Among cooperative thinkers in the early nineteenth century, Wheeler’s friend, Frances Fanny Wright was a leading advocate for equal education (Wheeler Citation1830: 36).
50 Wheeler decries the institution of marriage sanctioned under the laws of capitalism for its oppression of women and deleterious effects on both women and men (Citation1834: 324). She also acknowledges the problematic implications for children under that law when fathers are not around to support their families. Along with Owen and Thompson, she leaves open the possibility of more open relationships in cooperation. Children are far more secure when the community takes responsibility for their care.
51 Formerly isolated household units of capitalism transform into communal living and working arrangements in cooperation. For example, Thompson’s blueprint for a semi-autarchic cooperative village includes communal living quarters. While each adult claims a two-room apartment with a private sleeping and a private sitting room, children above the age of two live dormitory-style in the same building as their parents. Kitchens, laundry facilities, and eating and social spaces are all communal (Thompson Citation1830: 52–60). Thus, all reproductive labor, extending far beyond childcare, is a shared responsibility of all in the community. See David Leopold (Citation2019) for an insightful overview of Robert Owen’s vision of the cooperative village. Leopold also highlights noteworthy differences between Thompson’s blueprint and Owen’s.
52 The cooperative thinkers of early nineteenth century Britain disagreed on principles of self-governance, particularly in transition from competitive capitalism to cooperation. Robert Owen maintained a role for paternalistic authority (see, for example, Claeys [Citation1993]: xli–ii). This was a major difference in Owen’s thought compared to Wheeler and Thompson.
53 Beyond stressing the importance of voluntarism and self-governance within interpersonal relations across her writing, Wheeler also specifically explains the importance of women sitting as equals with men on governing councils (Citation1833: 280).
54 While Thompson and Wheeler were early nineteenth-century pioneers in their advocacy to free women from the constraints of the sexual division of labor, their writing does still diminish the value of domestic tasks historically relegated to women. Dooley analyzes a male bias in their elevation of the market over the “drudgery” of the domestic sphere (Citation1996: 222–3, 340). A truly effective cooperative system would eliminate such biases.
55 Twentieth-century socialist planned economies prove little better than capitalism in establishing gender equality.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Kirsten Madden
Kirsten Madden is Associate Professor of Economics at Millersville University of Pennsylvania. Her relevant research publications center on the history of women’s economic thought and the history of cooperative economic thought and ethics. Her most recent book publication is as lead editor of Routledge Handbook of the History of Women’s Economic Thought, with Robert W. Dimand, co-editor, 2018.
Joseph Persky
Joseph Persky is Professor of Economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has a longstanding interest in nineteenth-century economic thought. In 1994 he published The Burden of Dependency: Colonial Themes in Southern Economic Thought with Johns Hopkins Press. Most recently, in 2016, he published The Political Economy of Progress: John Stuart Mill and Modern Radicalism in the Oxford Studies in the History of Economics with Oxford University Press. That book includes a discussion of Mill’s interest in producer cooperatives. Persky has also published a number of articles on nineteenth-century economic thought.