Rousseau on Women: Gender, Nature, and the Social Contract

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s views on women were complex and often controversial, and they have been the subject of intense debate in the centuries since they were articulated. On the one hand, Rousseau emphasized the importance of women’s role in the family and in the upbringing of children, and he gave women a kind of moral authority that was not always available to them in the eighteenth century. On the other hand, Rousseau argued that women were naturally different from men, and that this natural difference justified a social and political order in which women were subordinate to men. This article examines Rousseau’s views on women, his account of their nature, and the implications for modern feminist thought.

Rousseau’s Account of Women’s Nature

Rousseau’s account of women’s nature is developed in several of his works, especially in Émile (1762) and in the famous letter to d’Alembert on the theater (Lettre à d’Alembert sur les spectacles, 1758).

In Émile, Rousseau develops the account in the context of his discussion of the education of Sophie, the young woman who is to be the companion of Émile. Sophie is presented as the embodiment of the feminine virtues — modesty, gentleness, sensitivity, and a natural inclination to please. She is, in Rousseau’s view, naturally suited to the domestic life, and her proper role is to be the wife and the mother.

In the Lettre à d’Alembert, Rousseau develops the account in the context of his argument against the establishment of a theater in Geneva. He argues that the theater is a corrupting influence, and he especially argues that it corrupts the women of Geneva, who are naturally modest and virtuous, into something different from what they should be.

The Complementarity of the Sexes

Rousseau’s views on women are grounded in his account of the natural complementarity of the sexes. Men and women, in his view, are naturally different, and the natural difference is the basis of the social and political order.

Men, in Rousseau’s view, are naturally active, rational, and disposed to public life. Women are naturally passive, emotional, and disposed to private life. The two sexes complement each other: men provide the rational direction, and women provide the emotional support; men engage in the public life, and women manage the domestic life.

The complementarity is, in Rousseau’s view, the foundation of the family. The family is a kind of moral community, in which the different roles of the husband and the wife are integrated into a harmonious whole. The proper functioning of the family requires that the husband and the wife recognize their different roles and that they work together for the common good of the family.

The Critique of Rousseau

Rousseau’s views on women have been the subject of intense criticism since they were first articulated. The most important critique is that Rousseau’s account of women’s nature is not a description of natural differences but a prescription for social subordination. The “natural” differences that Rousseau identifies are, in the view of his critics, the result of social conditioning, and the proper response is not to accept them as natural but to overcome them.

The most famous critique of Rousseau’s views on women was developed by Mary Wollstonecraft in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). Wollstonecraft argued that Rousseau’s account of women’s nature was inconsistent with his own principles, and that the natural differences between the sexes were much smaller than Rousseau had supposed. The proper response, in Wollstonecraft’s view, was to provide the same education to women as to men, and to allow women to participate fully in the public life of the community.

The contemporary feminist critique of Rousseau has developed in various directions. Some critics have argued that Rousseau’s account of women is essentially patriarchal, and that the proper response is to reject his account altogether. Other critics have argued that Rousseau’s account has some positive features — the emphasis on the moral authority of women, the importance of the family, the recognition of the value of the domestic life — but that these features are undermined by the patriarchal framework within which they are developed.

The Defence of Rousseau

Rousseau’s views on women have also been the subject of defence, especially by those who argue that the proper interpretation of his views requires attention to the historical context in which they were developed.

In the context of the eighteenth century, Rousseau’s views on women were relatively progressive. The emphasis on the moral authority of women, the recognition of the importance of the family, the insistence that women should not be treated as the playthings of men — these were all positions that were at odds with the dominant view of the time, and they were important steps in the development of the modern conception of the proper role of women.

The defenders of Rousseau also point out that his views on women were not as simple as his critics often suggest. The emphasis on the moral authority of women, in particular, can be read as a recognition of the importance of women in the moral life, and it can be developed in ways that are consistent with the modern feminist commitment to the equal moral worth of all human beings.

The Lasting Significance

The proper response to Rousseau, on most contemporary accounts, requires a careful and critical engagement. Rousseau’s account of women’s nature is not a final word on the question, and his patriarchal framework is not consistent with the modern commitment to gender equality. But Rousseau’s emphasis on the moral authority of women, the importance of the family, and the value of the domestic life are insights that the modern feminist tradition has developed further.

Further Reading

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu), relevant entry
• The Cambridge Companion to [Thinker] (Cambridge University Press)
• Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (1969)