Analyzing the history of women's politics in the shadow of the millennium.
Judson, Sarah Mercer
Analyzing the history of women's politics in the shadow of the millennium.
Sarah Mercer Judson, "Analyzing the History of Women's
Politics in the Shadow of the Millennium," Labour/Le Travail 43
(Spring 1999), 195-202.
Kristi Anderson, After Suffrage: Women and Partisan and Electoral
Politics Before the New Deal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1996).
Suzanne Marilley, Woman Suffrage and the Origins of Liberal
Feminism in the United States, 1820-1920 (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press 1996).
Susan Marshall, Splintered Sisterhood, Gender and Class in the
Campaign Against Woman Suffrage (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press 1997).
AS WE APPROACH the 21st century how should scholars evaluate
women's politics in the United States over the last two centuries?
Should women's politics be seen as a tireless progression toward
women's suffrage, culminating in 1920 with the Nineteenth
Amendment? Is the study of women's politics defined by the
participation of white, middle-class women? Have we succeeded in
uncovering how race and class shaped women's political struggles?
Did all activist women take the same positions? And finally, how should
we understand the boundaries of women's politics? This review looks
at three recent books that address women's political participation
in the context of the United States women's suffrage movement.
These three books: Suzanne Marilley, Woman's Suffrage and the
Origins of Liberal Feminism in the United States, 1820-1920, Kristi
Anderson, After Suffrage: Women and Partisan and Electoral Politics
Before the New Deal, and Susan Marshall, Splintered Sisterhood, Gender
and Class in the Campaign Against Woman Suffrage, explore how white
women acted politically before and immediately following the passage of
the Nineteenth Amendment. Taken together, these works offer new insights
into the history of gender and politics in the United States.
Recent scholarship in US women's political history is
expanding our knowledge of the history of women's political
empowerment by challenging the traditional narrative of women's
pursuit of a political voice. Scholars are now interrogating the
conventional periodization of the women's suffrage movement. They
are reconsidering which dates mark significant turning points in
women's political history. Should we consider 1837 as the beginning
of the women's movement when the first Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women convened, as opposed to 1848, the year of the Seneca
Falls Woman's Rights Convention? Is 1920, with the passage of the
Nineteenth Amendment, the victory year for women's campaign for the
vote? Or is 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act guaranteeing
universal suffrage, a more significant milestone in women's
political history?
Another related question is whether the definition of politics
should be limited to voting and other types of formal political
participation. Do people act politically when they cannot vote or attend
political meetings? Women's history has contributed a great deal to
our expanding understanding of what politics is and has been in the
United States. Scholars have shown how with the rise of the white
middle-class in the US, both physical and cultural space was divided
along the lines of gender, with middle-class women occupying the private
sphere of home and family, and men located in the public sphere of
commerce and politics. Victorians associated gender identities with
designated spheres, and thus, calculated degrees of manhood or womanhood
based on one's proximity to the private or public sphere. Hence,
working-class and African American women, whose lives took them outside
the conventional gendered spheres were often not considered "true
women."
By the turn of the century, many white middle-class women rebelled
against the idea of women's separate sphere. They constructed
different strategies to justify and ease their entrance into the public
sphere. Many women participated in reform efforts and joined the
women's club movement, often justifying their involvement in
political issues on the basis of their special interests as women,
mothers, and potential mothers. This "maternalism" lent
credibility to women as they lobbied government officials, waged
campaigns, and fought fierce battles over diverse issues such as
prohibition, anti-lynching, child labour, pure milk, women's work
conditions, and the age of consent.
Historians today consider women's movements of the
pre-suffrage era to be intensely political. Despite women's lack of
voting power and exclusion from parties (with a few exceptions), women
acted politically to transform their communities. They attempted to
control or at least influence the distribution of resources and they
promoted new kinds of government that would respond to the welfare of
citizens.
This new political life for women was deeply divided by race, and
the women's suffrage movement needs to be seen in this context. As
women organized voluntary associations and reform movements, relations
between black and white women reformers were strained at best.
African American women were also excluded from local and national
women's suffrage organizations. In 1896, after repeated efforts to
join the General Federation of Women's Clubs, African American
women created their own mass women's movement by forming the
National Association of Colored Women in 1896. This history of exclusion
has led historians to interrogate the different ways that African
American and white women fought for citizenship rights during this
period.
African American women activists could not separate their interest
from the interests of their people. For many African American women,
fighting for rights could not be gender exclusive, especially in a
political climate in which Jim Crow laws excluded black men from
political participation, in which the United States embarked on a
foreign policy of imperialism that was justified to the public in terms
of white racial superiority, and as the numbers of lynching rose. Hence,
suffrage for African American women was part of a larger struggle for
equal rights and citizenship for all. White women, on the other hand,
professed to be fighting for women's rights exclusively. Whether or
not they were fighting to share in the political rule of white supremacy is a question that historians are still debating. It is no accident that
as white women entered the public sphere during the late 19th century,
public life in the United States was increasingly divided by race.
Suzanne Marilley's Woman Suffrage and the Origins of Liberal
Feminism seeks to explain how and why the women's rights movement
transformed from a radical movement for equal rights to a narrowly
defined and exclusive movement for white women's right to vote.
Marilley uses methodologies from different disciplines, most notably
political science, to challenge conventional interpretations of the
reasoning behind some of the successes and failures of the women's
suffrage movement. For example, when considering the 1893 Colorado
campaign for women's suffrage, Marilley disagrees with earlier
works that stress the nativism and racism of this campaign for
women's suffrage. She argues that it was not appeals to nativism
that encouraged white men to side with women's suffrage, but that
sufragists were able to "create a context that prepared and enabled
white men to see the political exclusion of women as unjust." (155)
Drawing on John Kingdon's theory of "policy streams,"
Marilley demonstrates how once the public got used to the issue of
suffrage, negative attitudes toward women voting could change.
Marilley's book also sets up an interesting periodization for
the women's suffrage movement. Where most historians see a marked
difference between the antebellum women's rights movement and the
women's suffrage movement following the Civil War, Marilley divides
this women's movement into three distinct phases: the
"feminism of equal rights" (1820s-1870s), the "feminism
of fear" (1870s-1900), and the "feminism of personal
development" (1900-1920). It is within the context of these three
feminisms that Marilley explores the contradictory nature of liberal
feminism. She argues that because of their lack of power, liberal
feminists often had to draw on "illiberal" rhetorics of racism
in order to advance the cause of women's suffrage. Marilley charts
the political and social developments that transformed the ideology of
the suffrage movement, from the equal rights discourse of the antebellum
era to suffragists appeals to racism and to nativism in the late 19th
century. Marilley concludes in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth
Amendment and the rise of a new phase in the women's suffrage
movement -- a sort of multi-cultural feminism based on a diverse
coalition of women reformers.
Marilley offers the reader a challenging analysis of the
women's suffrage movement. She argues that the racist ideologies
employed by national leaders to keep African American women out of the
suffrage movement were really just necessary political strategies. As
evidence of this, she points to the early 1900s, when the national
women's suffrage leadership abandoned racism and nativism and
re-emphasized discourses of egalitarianism to win the vote. In other
words, suffrage leaders who had fought to keep the suffrage movement
racially exclusive decided that exclusion was not the right strategy,
learned from their mistakes, and tried to open the suffrage movement up
to a variety of "subcultures." The reader will have to decide
for his or herself whether or not they agree with interpretations such
as, "from the start of the women's rights movement, both
justice and expediency mattered and sometimes leaders made difficult
trade-offs between them, but none of these elements was ever fully
sacrificed for any of the others. Some leaders such as Catt may have
been less than `good persons' at times, but successful political
reform often requires exactly that." (220) Marilley excuses
Catt's manipulation of white supremacist ideology to win support
for suffrage and some readers may not feel comfortable with that.
However, Marilley is headed in the right direction by trying to
understand why race mattered more in some contexts of the suffrage
movement than in others. However, by rendering racism a political
strategy, Marilley misses an opportunity to explore how deeply embedded
beliefs about racial inequality were in the women's rights
movement.
In her study of the liberal origins of women's suffrage,
Marilley herself employs the colour-blindness of liberalism, the idea
that race should not make a difference. Part of the problem with
Marilley's interpretation of the history of the women's
suffrage movement in the United States is that she sees it as made up of
women who all had the same interests. Her treatment of African American
suffragists provides some insight into this narrow definition. For many
African American suffragists, rights for women were never separate from
rights for all African Americans. A number of historians demonstrate how
African American women activists perceived voting rights for women as a
benefit to the "race." In the 1830s, Maria Stewart, an African
American abolitionist and women's rights activist spoke of
women's special role in African American as well as women's
liberation. Stewart's insistence that the political action of black
women was central to both projects resonates even today: "possess
the spirit of men, bold and enterprising, fearless and undaunted, sue
for your rights and privileges. Know the reason you cannot attain
them." Stewart urged black women to understand the complex
relationship between sex and race discrimination in 19th-century
America. By missing this connection, Marilley under-emphasizes important
differences in the ways that African American and white women
experienced and thought about women's suffrage.
Susan Marshall's book addresses women's suffrage, but
from a vastly different perspective. In Splintered Sisterhood, Marshall
analyzes women's involvement in the late 19th and early
20th-century anti-suffrage movement. Her goal is to answer a number of
important questions about the political engagement of women who
vehemently objected to women's suffrage. She asks: How do we
reconcile women protesting against women's rights? What was the
relationship of the anti-suffrage movements to other Progressive Era
reform movements? How did gender and class interests shape suffrage
opposition? Probably one of the most compelling problems Marshall solves
is the apparent contradiction between anti-suffrage women waging a
highly visible political campaign against suffrage and their belief that
suffrage endangered social order because it brought women into the
public sphere. (14-15)
To answer her questions, Marshall uses the records of the
Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage
to Women. She argues that these records counter the conventional
stereotypes of anti-suffrage women as isolated, "butterflies of
fashion." Marshall portrays anti-suffrage women as politically
savvy members of the burgeoning women's club movement and
participants in their community life. It is ironic that anti-suffragists
and suffragists were both heavily influenced by the same women's
club movement, yet they drew vastly different conclusions and their
platforms were diametrically opposed. While some women came to support
suffrage after their clubs exposed them to community and intellectual
issues, for other women, the club work had an opposite affect. The clubs
gave anti-suffrage women an avenue for practicing indirect influence on
prominent husbands and male policy makers.
Through her statistical analysis, Marshall finds some significant
social differences between national leaders in the suffrage
anti-suffrage movement. Suffrage leaders tended to be from rural areas
while most of the leaders in the anti-suffrage movement were New York elites. Suffragists embodied the characteristics of the "New
Woman," the late 19th and early 20th-century female college
graduate who found employment and fulfillment in Progressive reforms.
Anti-suffragists drew on more personal contacts. They "actively
maintained the relatively closed social networks of wealth and privilege
that constituted the source of their poser." (56) Female
anti-suffrage supporters promoted as an ideal a class-based gender
identity that restricted elite women to the ladylike position of the
"power behind the throne." (109) In contrast to suffrage
leaders, anti-suffragists occupied less visible positions. Their
immediate social world was family, home, and local community.
One of Marshall's contributions to the study of women's
politics is her chart of anti-suffrage arguments by time period and by
sex. She lists three themes -- suffrage comparisons, gender issues, and
political issues -- under which are listed topics of published
arguments. For example, between 1867 and 1899, the most popular topics
used by anti-suffrage women to argue against suffrage were gender issues
like family welfare, female character, domestic roles, and separate
spheres. This changed in the years between 1913 and 1921 when women were
more likely to argue against suffrage on the basis of political issues,
like female influence, women as unqualified voters, and threats to
national strength and elite power. Over time, female anti-suffragists
became more militant and more engaged with public issues as support for
women's suffrage grew.
Marshall draws on mobilization theory to explain the seemingly
contradictory behaviour of anti-suffragists by arguing that these women
were acting out their gendered class position. She argues that
"gendered class position suggests motives for female mobilization
against the extension of the franchise to other of their gender."
(226) Anti-suffrage women followed the tradition of "true
womanhood," basing their identities in the home as mothers. Yet at
the same time, anti-suffragists could exploit their kin and social
networks among the elite to prevent women's suffrage from gaining
serious consideration. It appears that anti-suffragists manipulated men
to their advantage with their indirect influence. Marshall reveals the
intricacies of male/female relations by pointing out how "male
emissaries bound by kinship and class interest enabled female opponents
of suffrage to maintain an image of self-sacrificing womanhood that
obfuscated the true extent of their suffrage activities." (226)
Ironically, anti-suffragists became trapped by their practice of this
elite gendered class identity since they were "restricted from
openly engaging in electoral politics in support of their allies."
(227) In the end, they failed to prevent women's enfranchisement.
In 1920, the Susan B. Anthony Amendment was ratified, giving women the
right to vote.
But did the vote make a difference? After women fought so hard for
(and against) the vote, did female enfranchisement change anything for
women? Did the women's vote transform the United States? Since
1920, debate has raged over whether or not voting made a difference in
women's lives and in US society. Did women march into political
office en masse? Did women vote in huge numbers and differently from
their husbands? Did US politics change? Kristi Anderson offers a fresh
perspective on these questions in After Suffrage: Women in Partisan and
Electoral Politics Before the New Deal.
Anderson argues that we are not looking in the right places if we
just focus on the numbers of women voting and the amount of legislation
passed. She asks a broader question: how did conceptions of women's
citizenship change with the vote? To answer this, Anderson analyzes how
the boundaries of public life shifted as women entered politics as
voters, party activists, and office holders. Historically, women's
citizenship was perceived as indirect, "exercised primarily through
a woman's care of husband and children, and disinterested, rather
than interested." (139) In the 1920s, as women entered the public
world of politics, US society understood their political engagement as
fundamentally different from men. The popular view of women in politics
was that they were not politically ambitious, were concerned mostly with
"women's issues," and held primary allegiance to their
families. However, Anderson reveals that some women political activists
and candidates pushed at these boundaries, seeing themselves as not
essentially different from men.
Anderson shows that even with this gender boundary in politics, US
society did grow to accept women in politics. That acceptance did lead
to a renegotiation of political boundaries. Changes in how people
"did" politics demonstrates that women's political
participation had a fundamental impact. Anderson shows how observers at
the time perceived these changes in politics. For example, one
commentator complained that, "since the women's been mixing
in, politics ain't the same." (143) The gender boundary in
politics meant that partisan politics was associated with male public
spaces and public rituals such as saloons, parades, campaign clubs, and
mass rallies. (143) With women's inclusion, politics took on a more
genteel and refined air. Politics now took place in "gender
neutral" public spaces like churches, schools, and firehouses.
Anderson points out that women's suffrage helped transform the
prevailing view of elections as a "somewhat questionable, probably
corrupt activity." Now, elections were seen as "a wholesome
community event in which all good citizens could participate."
(144)
Scholars who are interested in using gender as a category of
analysis will appreciate Anderson's contribution to the study of
citizenship and politics. Anderson is correct in arguing that
women's suffrage hastened the erosion of the division between
public and private and the transformation of politics from a male
activity to a gender-neutral activity. This change in American society
may not have granted women equal rights, but it did transform the
playing field. Politics changed with women's suffrage, even though
it continued to be difficult for women to hold powerful political
positions. This conflict has lasted into the present day as women
politicians in the United States still have trouble gaining and holding
powerful political offices.
Anderson is successful at using gender to analyse US politics in
the 1920s. I wonder if the story would be even richer if she had
factored race into her equation. Anderson duly recognizes studies by
Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham and Rosalyn Terborg-Penn that study African
American women's partisan activities after the Nineteenth
Amendment. Works by these and other scholars suggest that African
American women's political participation was very influential in
northern urban centers and impacted established political machines.
Including African American women's experiences after the Nineteenth
Amendment might also bring new insight to how in the 20th century,
citizenship became increasingly defined as white. Before women's
suffrage, citizenship was gendered, with full citizenship rights granted
to men. With voting restrictions fully in place by 1920 in the South,
full citizenship was increasingly a racial prerogative.
These three texts enrich our understanding of how the struggle for
women's voting rights was a piece of the larger history of
women's political activism and engagement with the public sphere.
Each in her own way, the authors advance the field by introducing new
ways of understanding women's politics in the United States.
Marilley challenges how we understand the evolution of suffrage
politics, Marshall demonstrates the importance of class identity and
elite status to the anti-suffrage movement, and Anderson shows how
women's citizenship was redefined after suffrage. Yet, these works
also remind us that scholars must pay attention to the different ways
that women gave meaning to political change and political activism in
the late 19th and early 20th-century United States. While Marshall
focuses on the connections between class and gender identity, Marilley
and Anderson look only at gender in their examination of women's
politics.
Scholars researching women's politics must reach beyond the
experiences of white middle-class women and examine how women from all
backgrounds negotiated for power. It is clear that women activists have
not always shared the same interests across class, race, and ethnic
lines. Likewise, we should not assume that women always choose each
other as allies because of their gender. Perhaps the scope will be
widened if scholars move away from the conventional periodization of the
women's movement. Women's suffrage was part of a larger
movement by women to advance political, social, and economic reforms in
a society where women, especially women of color and working-class
women, had little if any political impact. The legacy of this movement
exists today, albeit in different forms, as women in the United States
continue to fight race and sex discrimination in employment, attacks on
welfare and abortion rights, and the rise of the religious right. As we
face the millennium, it is imperative that scholars revise the narrative
of women's political history to create a more inclusive history.
Now is the time for us to make connections between yesterday's
struggle against women's oppression and today's activism that
resists assaults on women's hard won rights.
COPYRIGHT 1999 Canadian Committee on Labour History
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1999 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.