WILLIAM THOMPSON AND ANNA WHEELER: EQUALITY AND UTILITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY by Laura Rae Kelly A thesis submitted to the Department of Political Studies In conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (July, 2015) Copyright © Laura Rae Kelly, 2015 Abstract This dissertation examines the work of William Thompson and Anna Wheeler in relation to more prominent feminist political theorists of the period. It argues that, read in light of Thompson and Wheeler’s Appeal of One Half the Human Race (Appeal), John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of Women (Subjection) represents a step backward in the history of feminist political thought. Mill’s Subjection reproduces many of the limitations in Mary Wollstonecraft’s groundbreaking Vindication of the Rights of Woman (Vindication), limitations that had been overcome by Thompson and Wheeler’s Appeal, which was published in between the publication of Vindication and Subjection. These limitations center on the relationship between women’s access to self-government and happiness, the economy, and the lack of compensation for domestic and reproductive labor. Unlike Appeal, Vindication and Subjection limit women’s freedoms by maintaining women’s obligations to perform unpaid labor within the private sphere. Vindication and Subjection are unable to recognize women’s biological difference without reducing women’s role to that difference. Thompson and Wheeler resolve the tension between capitalism and gender equality by making the case for radically democratic communities of mutual co-operation, where all useful labor, including reproductive labor, is compensated. They use utilitarianism to advance this argument, but some contemporary scholars describe them as conservative utilitarians. I argue to the contrary, that because Thompson and Wheeler’s utilitarianism is ‘indirect’ and is informed by both a rich account of the self and a relational understanding of happiness, that it is not i incompatible with arguments for greater social and economic equality. ii Acknowledgements This dissertation is greatly indebted to the advice and expertise of my supervisors: Andrew Lister and Eleanor MacDonald. It has benefitted from their guidance in so many ways, from improving the clarity of the writing to helpfully encouraging me to more thoroughly explore and expound various questions and tensions, to all things in-between – thank you both. You have each contributed in a unique way to this project, and I feel very fortunate to have benefitted from your expertise and advice. The examining committee provided many valuable insights and suggestions for improving the dissertation: Colin Farrelly, Mark Kaswan, Margaret Moore, and Christine Sypnowich. Queen’s University’s Department of Political Science, in particular, Karen Vandermay, Barb Murphy, and Dianne Flint – thank you so much for your help navigating the program– from beginning to end. I would like to thank my partner, Joe Velaidum, for your loving care, and pragmatic advice over the years. My siblings, Timothy Kelly, Monica Kelly, and Marilyn Kelly, your kindness, love, and encouraging words have been invaluable. It truly would not have been possible to complete this without you. My grandmothers: Velma Carmody, who taught me how to write; and Theresa Kelly, for her unconditional love. To Basil Kelly who sparked my initial interest in politics and justice, and to Paula Kelly for providing an example of a truly benevolent spirit. The contributions of friends made along the way cannot be underestimated. For iii engaging conversations, valued companionship, and wise advice through the years, I would like to thank Dimitri Panagos, Scott Matthews, Chris Samuel, Erin Tolley, Marcel Nelson, and Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant. Joanne Wright: thank-you for inspiring me to continue my educational pursuits in the fields of political theory and gender and politics. Emmett MacFarlane, Anna Drake, and Nick Hardy: thank-you for your invaluable support, advice, and friendship. Mira Bachvarova, your sharpness of mind and wit, alongside your ability to effectively encourage and commiserate, has made for an immeasurably richer academic and social experience. Richard Kurial, thank-you for your advice over the years and for reading parts of this project. Finally, there is perhaps no greater privilege and pleasure in life than to have been raised by loving parents. Debra and Glen Kelly brought up their four children to explore the world, to sympathize with others, to ask questions, and to think for themselves. The dissertation is dedicated to them. iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. iii Chapter 1 : Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and Writings ......................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Citing Thompson and/or Wheeler .......................................................................................... 26 1.3 Dissertation Overview ........................................................................................................... 27 1.3.1 Chapter 2: Wollstonecraft Breaks Ground ................................................................................ 27 1.3.2 Chapter 3: Thompson and Wheeler: Human Nature, Happiness, and Utilitarianism ............... 28 1.3.3 Chapter 4: Thompson and Wheeler’s Feminism: The Private Sphere, Politics, and Mutual Co- operation ............................................................................................................................................ 30 1.3.4 Chapter 5: Appeal and Subjection in the History of Feminist Political Thought ........................ 31 1.3.5 Chapter 6: Utilitarianism and Thompson and Wheeler’s Feminism, Exploring Contemporary Critiques .............................................................................................................................................. 32 Chapter 2 : Wollstonecraft Breaks Ground .......................................................................... 34 2.1 Inequality and The Problem of Arbitrary Power and Hierarchy ................................................ 36 2.2 Argument from Good Motherhood ........................................................................................ 44 2.3 Wollstonecraft’s Proposals .................................................................................................... 46 2.4 Limitations in Wollstonecraft’s Proposals ............................................................................... 50 2.4.1 Women’s Virtue, Independence, and Self-government are too narrowly defined ................... 51 2.4.2 Education and Class Inequalities ............................................................................................... 54 2.4.3 Are the Limitation in Wollstonecraft’s Proposals Strategic? ..................................................... 63 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 67 Chapter 3 : Human Nature, Happiness, and Utilitarianism .................................................... 71 3.1 Not quite Benthamites .......................................................................................................... 75 3.2 Character and Human Nature ................................................................................................ 78 v 3.2.1 Self-Interest ............................................................................................................................... 82 3.2.2 Sympathy ................................................................................................................................... 84 3.2.3 Power, Capitalism and the Formation of Character .................................................................. 89 3.3 Happiness ............................................................................................................................. 96 3.3.1 Happiness: Self-Government ..................................................................................................... 97 3.3.2 Happiness: Security.................................................................................................................... 99 3.4 Can we call them utilitarians? ...............................................................................................104 3.5 Utilitarianism: Thompson and J.S. Mill ..................................................................................107 3.6 Thompson’s Utilitarianism: Conservative? .............................................................................113 3.6.1 Thompson – not a conservative utilitarian .............................................................................. 114 3.6.2 The means of social change ..................................................................................................... 119 3.6.3 The Labor Theory of Value and Women’s Interests ................................................................ 122 3.7 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................125