Seminar 1: Mary Wollstencraft and John Stuart Mill

We started the Seminar by discussing the government's decision to cap universities and the financial role that they play in education as a whole, in relation to the current economic climate. This brought us on to what the Conservatives will most likely do if they win the next election; the fact that they are free marketers and reflect a lot of Adam Smith's political and economic philosophy. This is very fitting with today's discussion of Wollstencraft and Mill because their philosophies are intertwined with education and the structure of society, especially the way that this shapes us.

Mary Wollstencraft had lots of responsibility from a young age, and in many respects can be seen as a casualty of her time. She preached that women should get the same education and opportunities as men and that the role that society has forced on women is constricting and smothering, taking away any possible independence. She was not educated to be free, and so she fell into the same traps that she was advising against. She was often called a hypocrite because she said that women should not cowtail to men and their fleeting fancies, and yet she was several times a mistress and became so embroiled in such emotional turmoil that she attempted suicide over a man. This goes completely against her beliefs and so many think that her work has been degraded as a result of her personal life. It makes it very difficult to respect her, however, in my opinion she was simply an example of what was wrong with society and therefore proved her own point, adding further strength to her arguments. She also gained support from some of Rousseau's arguments, however they did not see eye to eye on everything.

She boosted her writing in many ways, such as the passionate approach she had, with exclamations and personal feelings being expressed. This shows that she was very strong minded and gives the audience more confidence in her. She is often sarcastic, making women question their role and wether they need protection etc. She often reaches out to women as well, especially on the points of; unfaithful husbands, unequal treatment (for example the inheritance laws of the time) and the fact that they can be independent and look after themselves. There is also one paragraph written as if she were talking to God, which would have appealed to many at the time. Her writing gives women a voice, which was greatly needed at the time, taking away from the power that men held over women and, but she is equally critical of men for controlling and women for being controlled. She argued vehemently that women have reason and potential on a par with men, but that the role that society had given them meant that this could never be achieved. Therefore, women are not inferior, only unfairly treated and made weak by society. The fact that women were obliged to look to men for everything meant that they were constantly submissive and their thoughts never turned to anything but whiling away their time, meaning that they only ever thought of themselves, encouraging vanity and idleness, further taking away from their potential.

John Stuart Mill focused more on what society can and should control and how much control the government and other organisations should have over the individual. He thought that everyone should be equal and not controlled, with equal opportunities. He was utilitarian and believed in freedom of speech, having individual space and a limit on the power and influence of the government. He was Utilitarian, meaning that he wanted the greatest good for the greatest number and to maximise good and pleasure and minimise pain. He devised a hierachy of pleasures, however many people have a problem with this part of his philosophy because happiness is very subjective and completely dependant on the individual's situation. His focus was on inner conciousness and thought, however he did acknowledge that every action has a consequence and that these should be monitored to so that no harm was done to society in general. Mill saw no difference between men and women, which is advantageous in political matters as they can be treated exactly the same and only one set of rules and expectations is needed. However, Wollstencraft saw women and men as different privately and only publically the same. Mill was writing a century later than Wollstencraft, and this can be seen in the increased equality in his view and arguments.

On the whole, both were very influential, but Wollstencraft's work was greatly damaged by her personal life and, in my opinion, Mill was more valid because his arguments could be acted upon; there is very little that can be done about the restrictive role of society.