How Enlightenment thinkers used the concept of nature

Forced Nature:

or how the Enlightenment invented "Nature" to save itself the trouble of reinventing society

The Enlightenment was defined by its focus on rationality. During this era, the mysticism and superstition of the medieval era were abandoned for the idea that the world was an orderly and rational place. God, if He existed, was not an arbitrary and capricious nobodaddy, as he may have been seen in previous years. On the contrary, He (or It) was seen as the great clockmaker, a mechanic who engineered the world according to divine law and order. According to some, natural law was seen as so important that nature and God were found to be one, and a monistic impression of the world suggested that the natural was all of the divine. In many ways, this focus on natural law led to a liberalization of ancient prejudices. The superiority of hereditary rulers was challenged by evidence from nature that all men had equal and inalienable rights to self-determination; the domination of the church was questioned by evidence from science and nature. Yet despite the fact that Enlightenment thinkers idealized nature and the law of nature, there was a degree to which in their work ideology and cultural mores were still allowed to overrule nature. The idea of nature and natural law was used to defend both sides of conflicting arguments, and in many cases physical "evidence" from nature was even altered or ignored where it conflicted with preconceived social or personal ideas. This is evidenced in Enlightenment era writings about the relative roles of men and women in an ideal society, for here both feminist and misogynistic writers appealed directly to the rule of natural law, with oppositional results.

The degree to which nature was co-opted in the service of ideology is evidenced in the "science" which described and moralized upon the skeletal structures of men and women. It is scientifically true that between the races there are no consistent differences in skull size, and that in most cases women have larger skull sizes (compared to their body mass) than men. However, throughout the Enlightenment era, it was taught that white Europeans have larger brains and skulls than do Africans, and that this led to a greater intelligence. This difference was measured by numerous scientists, and carefully documented by researchers. Additionally, many anatomists suggested that women also had smaller skulls, which explained their lack of rationality and tendency to feel instead of think. Thiroux D'arconville, for example, "insisted that the female skull was smaller in proportion." (Schiebinger, 207)

That women had smaller skulls was seen as a sort of natural mandate for less education and rights for them.

Ironically, even when many scientists had noticed that women actually had larger skulls -- and used this as a justification for saying that women were less intelligent! "Soemmerring pointed out that women's skulls are actually heavier than men's relative to total body weight... John Barclay...used...[the] larger size of the female skull as evidence that...women resemble children." (Schiebinger, 207) So, when women were seen to have smaller skulls this was used as evidence that women had smaller (and hence, less intelligent) brains, but when they were seen to have unusually large heads, they were understood to be underdeveloped and childlike. It was suggested that they had stopped at an earlier stage of development, and that like children they were irrational and overly emotional. It appears that the dictates of nature are, thus, entirely open to interpretation biased by cultural norms. The hard physical evidence of nature need not actually be taken as hard law -- after all, applying such stricture to this science would indicate that the larger brained individuals were always more intelligent, rather than implying that only sometimes were they more intelligent (when discriminating among men) and sometimes more childlike (regarding women). The enslavement of nature to politics in this case shows a general flaw in Enlightenment thinking regarding the natural state -- even if one may agree on the events and facts of nature, the interpretation thereof is hardly self-evident, and may rather be self-serving.

That evidence from nature may be warped to any given perspective is clearly evidenced in Rousseau's writing. He suggests both that a woman's place is to resist sex from "aggressor" men and that they control men by their power to make men desirous; yet he also suggests that were it not for the "natural" sense of shame which women develop, they would be like oversexed animals who used men only for reproduction and then discarded them. This, naturally, proves that women will be better off if they are educated only to please men in all things. The logic behind this statement is occasionally unclear. He suggests that "Who can possibly suppose that nature has indifferently prescribed the same advances to the one sex as to the other... since the consequences of the sexual act are so different for the two sexes, is it natural that they should engage in it with equal boldness?" (Rousseau) From this, he continues that as women are biologically weaker and have more extreme consequences from sex, they are naturally more reserved regarding it. He seems to imply that their reservation creates an increased demand among men, and that their weakness and lack of rights is what encourages men to provide for them.

Rousseau also claims that the biology of sex -- namely, that women can be sure of their maternity while men cannot be sure of their paternity -- justifies the inequality which existed in his era regarding property rights and the double standard for men and women regarding sex. "Inequality is by no means a human institution or at least it is not the work of prejudice but of reason," Rousseau says, claiming that reason and nature dictate the way in which the social structure responds to women's sexuality. He finishes by saying that if men and women are not constituted the same, then it is only natural that they should not have the same education. Mothers know this, he implies, and disdain to educate their daughters as men because they realize that they will have more power over men if they are feminine and chaste.

The problem with Rousseau's argument from nature are relatively obvious: he takes the culturally specific, attributes it to nature, and then uses that nature to uphold the social structure. For example, he seems to argue that because women willingly teach this to their daughters, it is natural for women to be chaste, and hence mothers should continue this education. Likewise, because society is currently based on paternity, he argues that it is natural for women to be more restricted to protect paternity, because paternity is necessary for society. In both cases, the argument is from society, and not from nature. Nature, here, is not being defined as what must be by virtue of the physiology of the world, but rather by what currently exists in his time -- thus he idealizes the status quo in this respect, but in no other. Yet, despite this flaw, Rousseau continues to speak as if he appeals to brute nature, and to the relative biology of men as aggressors and women as prey.

Curiously, other enlightenment thinkers who argue against Rousseau also argue from nature and even from some of the same points. For example, where Rousseau argues from insecure paternity the need for women to be kept in their place and kept chaste, de Gouges argues from insecure paternity the need for women to have the right to freedom of speech and ownership of property. Where Rousseau argues from the relative weakness of the female character the need for her to be educated only in effeminate things, both de Gouges and Wollenscraft argue from this weakness the need for girls to be more aggressively trained in physical and rational skills, so that she will be able to survive. "If girls were allowed to take sufficient exercise, and not confined in close rooms till their muscles are relaxed, and their powers of digestion destroyed," Wollenscraft (60) suggests, then they too would be able to stand up as strong citizens. Rousseau had argued that women by nature were calculating in their control over men, and that through beauty and sexual manipulation they indeed controlled men altogether. Both de Gouges and Wollenscraft appeared to agree somewhat, both suggesting that women used beauty as men used aristocratic breeding. However, the disagreement lay in what this "natural" fact implied. To Rousseau it implied that women were feeling and sensual rather than rational, and that their best interests were served by continuing to serve men and thus be somehow themselves served. De Gouges and Wollenscraft implied that this showed women had strength and intelligence which was as great as man's, and that if they were allowed to put aside the tyranny of beauty they would be better adapted both to caring for their children and mates, and too contributing to the progression of the world. In fact, Rousseau and Wollenscraft were even directly opposed as to the meaning of the natural fact that women alone gave birth. Rousseau implied that this proved the point that women ought to serve their husbands and children, and that they had no need to be educated as a man. Wollenscraft used the fact that women must bear children as evidence that they must be educated, because as they age they will need consolations of the mind to keep them satisfied as their motherhood and old age draws them away from the sensual pleasures of youth. A good mother and grandmother, she would suggest, will not be a Roussean heroine constantly hoping to passively seduce men and defining her life accordingly.