‘Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women’s History’ by Amanda Vickery, Article Review
‘Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women’s History’ by Amanda Vickery, Article Review
Amanda Vickery’s article presents an interesting dimension to the debate of separate spheres, although published a while ago much of what is argued still remains influential to historians today. She chooses to tackle two important aspects of women’s historiography the first being the separation of spheres, and this being a middle-class phenomenon, and secondly the marginalization of women as a consequence of capitalism. Although as with all articles there are some failings and limitations, the overall vigour of Vickery’s article is extremely convincing. She refuses to accept Davidoff and Hall’s Family Fortunes, as the final word and leaves the reader questioning much of the previous historical trends when assessing women’s history.
Vickery’s article attempts to critically review the use of the term separate spheres, and assess the theory that domestic womanhood should be associated with the emergence of the middle-class.1 She focuses on the fact that the theory is over reliant on models of social and economic change, and also points to a problem of evidence with particular criticism on focusing on prescriptive literature. Another aspect of her argument is the idea that separate spheres points to a golden age, which seems unrealistic. These are all very powerful criticisms, and form a very real threat to the theory of separate spheres.
Vickery argues that the theory of separate spheres insinuates some sort of pre 19th century golden age or ‘egalitarian Eden’ in a convincing manner.2 It seems unrealistic to envisage the pre-industrialist economy, as an idyllic place where women thrived.3 She confidently starts the article by pointing out that the idea of separating the public and private is far from novel, this brings the reader to straight away question why it is that the 19th century is considered by many to be a pivotal stage
Amanda Vickery’s article presents an interesting dimension to the debate of separate spheres, although published a while ago much of what is argued still remains influential to historians today. She chooses to tackle two important aspects of women’s historiography the first being the separation of spheres, and this being a middle-class phenomenon, and secondly the marginalization of women as a consequence of capitalism. Although as with all articles there are some failings and limitations, the overall vigour of Vickery’s article is extremely convincing. She refuses to accept Davidoff and Hall’s Family Fortunes, as the final word and leaves the reader questioning much of the previous historical trends when assessing women’s history.
Vickery’s article attempts to critically review the use of the term separate spheres, and assess the theory that domestic womanhood should be associated with the emergence of the middle-class.1 She focuses on the fact that the theory is over reliant on models of social and economic change, and also points to a problem of evidence with particular criticism on focusing on prescriptive literature. Another aspect of her argument is the idea that separate spheres points to a golden age, which seems unrealistic. These are all very powerful criticisms, and form a very real threat to the theory of separate spheres.
Vickery argues that the theory of separate spheres insinuates some sort of pre 19th century golden age or ‘egalitarian Eden’ in a convincing manner.2 It seems unrealistic to envisage the pre-industrialist economy, as an idyllic place where women thrived.3 She confidently starts the article by pointing out that the idea of separating the public and private is far from novel, this brings the reader to straight away question why it is that the 19th century is considered by many to be a pivotal stage
Bibliography: Barker, Hannah and Chalus, Elaine. Women’s History: Britain, 1700-1850 (Abingdon, 2005). Davidoff, Leanore and Hall, Catherine. Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class 1780-1850 (London, 1987). Jones, Vivien. ‘The Seduction of Conduct: Pleasure and Conduct Literature’, in Marie Mulvey and Roy Porter (ed.), Pleasure in the Eighteenth Century, (Basingstoke, 1996), pp.108-132. Kent, Susan Kingsley. Gender and Power in Britain 1640-1990 (New York, 1999). Landes, Joan B. ‘Further Thoughts on the Public/Private Distinction’, Journal of Women’s History 15 (2003), pp.28-39. Rendall, Jane. ‘Women and the Public Sphere’, Gender & History 11 (1999), pp.475-488. Vickery, Amanda. ‘Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women’s History’, The Historical Journal 36 (1993), pp.383-414. Wahrman, Dror. The Making of the Modern Self: Identity and Culture in Eighteenth-Century England (New Haven, 2004).