Women's place? Moral philosophy and feminist thought in Astell, Masham, and Cockburn

Mary Astell (1666-1710), Damaris Cudworth Masham (1659-1708), and Catherine Trotter Cockburn (1679-1749) argue for the improvement of the condition of women. Scholars have claimed that these early modern women philosophers' discussions of women's "proper place" are similar. Some scholars stress common Cartesian principles while others emphasize shared debts to Cambridge Platonism. This dissertation shows, contrary to the prevailing view, that although these philosophers deal with similar problems, their arguments and solutions are significantly different. Ultimately, this study suggests a new interpretation of the history of feminist thought through a new look at the history of early modern ethics.;In Chapter One, I argue that these authors are each concerned with improving women's condition by basing it not on arbitrary custom but rational principles. They each understand this to be a matter of interpreting God's will for women, which requires attention to the two ways they believe that God communicates his will to humans: through natural reason and revelation. They also agree that both natural reason and revelation dictate duties, which primarily take the form of roles. Thus, Astell, Masham, and Cockburn believe that an improvement in the condition of women requires using the correct philosophical methods to determine what roles God expects women to fulfill.;Each of the next three chapters is devoted to the different solutions offered by each of these authors. Astell articulates women's place on the basis of principles similar to Descartes, Malebranche, and John Norris, and concludes that women are destined for domestic and political roles. Masham uses arguments similar to those of Locke, her father, and Stillingfleet and claims that women are destined for being wives and mothers, while stressing their importance to political society. Like Masham, Cockburn argues that women's domestic duties are critical to political society, yet she uses a different argument to do so; namely, one based on the thought of Clarke. In Chapter Five, I discuss the implications of this study, and how they suggest that aspects of the canon of early modern thought must be reconsidered.