Friday, 4 January 2019

My blog ebook: Research Thoughts on... Spinoza - Volume 3






Research Thoughts on... 
Spinoza - Volume 3

 A Feminist Approach to Spinoza's Political Treatise 

Liba Kaucky 



Series: Research Thoughts on… Spinoza - Volume 3

Sole author: Liba Kaucky

Copyright © Liba (Libuse) Kaucky 2019 (Copyright acquired automatically under UK law)

Copyright registered 

The moral rights of this author have been asserted, including:  
The Right of Attribution (eg the right of an author to be credited)

The Right to Object to Derogatory Treatment (eg affecting the author’s reputation)

The Right of Integrity (eg prejudicial distortions of the work)

The Right to Object to False Attribution

Protected by Copyscape

First published 2019 by Liba (Libuse) Kaucky as a blog ebook on blogger.com at My Spinoza Research Diary blog, available at:
http://myspinozaresearchdiary.blogspot.co.uk/ 


Liba Kaucky ResearcherID: P-2484-2016


Liba Kaucky ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1598-0833 



First edition.

Editor: Liba Kaucky

Cover photo: Copyright © Liba (Libuse) Kaucky (photographer) 24th September 2013

All rights reserved. No reproduction without written permission from Liba Kaucky. No part of this ebook or the blog ebook version may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means now known or hereafter invented including printing, photocopying or recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission from Liba Kaucky. You must not circulate this ebook in any way other than by referring people to read it on these sites:


Practitioners and researchers must rely on themselves in evaluating and using any information and methods described herein and do so at their own risk. 
To the fullest extent of the law, the publisher, author, editor does not assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, including negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.

Current titles in this series 'My Research Thoughts on...': 


Titles in series 1 on Spinoza:

Research Thoughts on… Spinoza - Volume 1
Research Thoughts on… Spinoza - Volume 2

Titles in series 2 on Lady Mary Shepherd:


Research Thoughts on… Lady Mary Shepherd – Volume 1

Forthcoming titles:

Titles in series 1 on Spinoza:

 Research Thoughts on… Spinoza - Volume 4

Titles in series 2 on Lady Mary Shepherd:


Research Thoughts on… Lady Mary Shepherd - Volume 2


Titles in series 3 on Margaret Lucas Cavendish:

Research Thoughts on… Margaret Lucas Cavendish – Volume 1

I would like to dedicate this book to my mother, Jana, without whose endless love, continual encouragement and support this book would not have been possible. I want to take this opportunity to thank her for always being there for me throughout life’s ups and downs and for always having total belief in me and giving me the confidence to follow my dreams. I love you!

I should also like to dedicate this volume in particular to Professor Susan James, who always encouraged all students to “read” and understand Spinoza’s philosophy in a positive light throughout his writings. This is something I try to do in my series on Spinoza. She is an exceptional philosopher, political philosopher, fellow feminist / feminist philosopher, member of the sisterhood whom I both respect and admire.  


Contents





Author’s Note




I can be contacted at:

Message me via: 

or message me via my contact form on my academia website:


Send me a message via my contact page at:


Leave a comment on:


Preface


I’d like to thank my mother, who brought me up as a feminist from the cradle. She created an environment where I could be free from gender stereotypes, be it toys, games, clothes, attitudes or interests so I did not grow up with gendered notions about myself or others. As I grew older, we would chat about everything together and she would let me explore ideas for myself and form my own opinions and support me in developing my knowledge of feminist theory, feminist psychology/counselling, the history of women, women in politics, women artists/feminist art and feminism in everyday life. We’ve attended feminist conferences, events and talks together for over 20 years. I still remember the excitement I felt when we would go to Central London to buy books at Silver Moon, the feminist bookshop! I was gutted when it ended up as a small section at Foyles before closing down. We both go to marches in London which support women’s rights and fight for women’s freedom from violence/domestic violence, such as Women’s March London, Million Women Rise. Last year, we were also part of the Procession mass artwork to commemorate 100 years since certain women were given the right to vote. We were in the purple group!

I have proudly called myself a feminist for as long as I can remember, certainly since around the time I was 8 years old, well over two decades ago. It never bothered me whether the word feminism was considered a dirty word by some. Much as I loved the phrase ‘girl power’ in the 1990’s, I still additionally strongly identified as a feminist and saw myself as being part of a larger sisterhood of loyal feminists, actively defending women’s rights for themselves and each other, no matter how similar or different they are from each other. I therefore have always found that feminism comes naturally to me and I see it as full of positivity and inclusivity. Hence, when I was studying Sociology at A Level, I chose modules which included various feminist theories, to deepen my academic knowledge of feminism, including studies on women’s condition and the Patriarchal structure of society. I also chose modules in English Literature A Level which included women writers with feminist thought in their works, namely, Carol Ann Duffy’s The World’s Wife and Margaret Attwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, alongside Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. The latter also deepened my knowledge and appreciation of feminist interpretations in secondary literature, in this case, feminist readings of the characters of Kate and Petruchio. I’d previously undertaken a feminist reading of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre in my early teens, so I already had a good idea of how to go about this.

I continue to expand my knowledge of feminism, for example, by pursuing courses, such as, ‘Beyond the Ballot: Women’s Rights and Suffrage from 1866 to Today’ (Royal Holloway, London University, FutureLearn 2018) and 'Understanding Violence Against Women: Myths and Realities' (University of Strathclyde, FutureLearn 2018), as well as reading and studying gender and sexuality.

Having thoroughly enjoyed studying feminist theory both for my own pleasure and for qualifications, I wanted to make feminist philosophy part of my degree. I then looked forward to having the freedom to explore and research feminist issues in the history of philosophy after I graduated and this volume is the result of me following my passion for this field.



Introduction


Structure of this ebook: My Analytic-Jewish-Feminist Interpretation of Spinoza’s Political Treatise (TP)



This is my third volume in the series ‘My Research Thoughts on…Spinoza’, a series of books dedicated to Spinoza (labelled series 1) which is situated within my overarching series on the History of Philosophy, entitled ‘My Research Thoughts on…’.  This volume 3 continues where my previous second volume on Spinoza left off. Volume 2 ended on the topic of how we hold in tension being an unique individual as well as being part of a collective society. Volume 3 furthers this tension by placing it into the realm of political philosophy and women: How does political, legal and social life impact on the life and death of people and states? A key question for Spinoza, which informed his purpose of delineating philosophy from theology when writing the TTP[i], was: What are the parameters of individual freedom within a collective society in which there are diverse opinions? Using my Analytic-Jewish-Feminist interpretation, I shall examine the political life and death of women in his unfinished Political Treatise (TP). 

Barbone and Rice view the TP as being a treatise on political science (unlike the TTP) therefore it examines “organisation and equilibrium”[ii]. However, on my interpretation of Spinoza, I shall not be treating the TP as a work of political science but rather as a ground-breaking work in political philosophy. A Machiavelli Spinoza is not.

Machiavelli worked in “the inner circles of government” (and held the high position of being the Republic’s chancellor/secretary) where he could directly observe political systems first-hand[iii]. Such empirical data formed the backbone of his political theory and writings. It is widely accepted in scholarship that Machiavelli’s political career “provided the raw material for his later life as a writer”[iv] and that his “diplomatic experiences thus had a direct influence upon the development of his political theory”[v]. The reason Machiavelli can retrospectively be seen as a political scientist is that “the weight of classical authority” (and “historians”) is always present in his works but tempered by direct observation”[vi]. In other words, classical and historical practical examples are not enough to classify a work as political science.

Spinoza, on the contrary, never worked for the government or in politics. So he cannot work from raw data gathered through his own direct observational experience which, I argue, is a requirement for undertaking research in political science. Hence, unlike Machiavelli, Spinoza’s empirical element in the TP does rely solely on classical and historical examples. Likewise, I also use practical examples (classical, historical, contemporary) to support my arguments but this does not mean my work thereby shifts discipline from political philosophy to political science (a relatively new discipline which analyses data rather than philosophical arguments).

I suggest the conflation between political philosophy and political science may arise because both can value a scientific methodology. However, they carry this out in different ways. Spinoza aims “to deduce from certain and undoubted course of argument, or to deduce from the very conditions of human nature, not what is new and unheard of, but only such things as agree best with practice”[vii]. Maths underpins Spinoza’s methodology because it gives him “freedom” to “understand human actions” more objectively as properties not as vices[viii]. In this way, Spinoza attempts to fill a research gap in political philosophy in the 17th century. He is somewhat dissatisfied with philosophers’ approach to politics, as being too fixated on vices and advocating an unrealistic account of human nature while engaging in “verbal attacks on that which, in fact, exists”[ix]. Spinoza is equally unimpressed that statesmen are “more crafty than learned”, “are suspected of plotting against mankind, rather than consulting their interests” but “have written about politics far more happily than philosophers”[x]. So, at a fundamental level, Spinoza would be unimpressed with Machiavelli’s overall acceptance of political dirty dealings. Thus, Spinoza tries to find a middle ground for political philosophy which neither falls into moralising, nor collapses into corruption. He achieves this by balancing a variety of philosophical methodological approaches. One, he draws on a mathematical, analytical philosophical method, to guard against descending into mere outrage. However, unlike Descartes, Spinoza rejects that one could “by meditation discover in this matter anything not yet tried and ascertained”[xi]. So two, Spinoza draws on past events for practical examples to bridge the gap between theory and practice so his political philosophy, unlike prior philosophical attempts, has the potential to be “turned to use”[xii]. Indeed, as a scientist himself, Spinoza was always drawing on mathematical and scientific methodology throughout his philosophy, and taking into account how hypotheses work in practice. Hence, I maintain it is only consistent for him to continue to do so in his political philosophy.

My overarching philosophical aim in this volume is to flesh out the feminist strand of my interpretation of Spinoza in relation to his hitherto under-researched Political Treatise. Throughout, I offer a positive and charitable reading of Spinoza’s original Latin, by analytically demonstrating how his philosophy should not be dismissed as expressing sexist ideas about women. Where pertinent, I provide an historical context to his concepts and arguments to illustrate and examine how the cogs of his political philosophy arguments work. Furthermore, I elaborate on how Spinoza can inform the philosophy of gender as well as feminist philosophy, feminist jurisprudence and feminism, especially intersectional feminism. This is not to use Spinoza’s philosophy in a teleological way, as merely a means to end. The purpose of this is manifold: 

  •  I aim to uncover truths in his philosophy and demonstrate how they function; 
  • to support his arguments with empirical evidence of them working, or potentially working, successfully in practice (historically or currently);
  • to provide a closer reading of Spinoza’s original Latin texts so his political philosophy and attitudes towards women can be better understood; 
  • to expand on how feminism (alongside Jewish philosophy, analytic philosophy, contextual/history of philosophy approach) can contribute to an accurate representation and interpretation of Spinoza’s philosophy
  • to shed light on Spinoza’s on-going relevance to today and how his philosophy can be a constant source of inspiration and wisdom.






[i] Benedict de Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise, trans. R. H. M. Elwes, Dover Philosophical Classics (Mineola, New York, USA: Dover Publications Inc, 2004).
[ii] Benedictus de Spinoza, ‘Introduction’, in Political Treatise, trans. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000), 27.
[iii] Lucille Margaret Kekewich and Niccolò Machiavelli, ‘Introduction’, in The Prince., ed. Tom Griffith, trans. C. E Detmold, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature (Ware: Wordsworth Editions Ltd, 2013), vii, https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/11406095.
[iv] Kekewich and Machiavelli, vii.
[v] Peter Bondanella, Mark Musa, and Niccolò Machiavelli, ‘Introduction An Essay on Machiavelli’, in The Portable Machiavelli, The Viking Portable Library (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979), 14.
[vi] Bondanella, Musa, and Machiavelli, 12.
[vii] Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes, 288.
[viii] Spinoza, 288.
[ix] Spinoza, 287.
[x] Spinoza, 287–88.
[xi] Spinoza, 288.
[xii] Spinoza, 287.



at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)