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)
Liba Kaucky ResearcherID: P-2484-2016
Liba Kaucky ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1598-0833
orcid.org/0000-0003-1598-0833Academia profile: https://independent.academia.edu/LibaKaucky
First edition.
Research Thoughts on... Spinoza - Volume 4
Contents:
Editor's Note:
Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, Poems and Fancies (London, UK: J. Martin, and J. Allestrye at the Bell in Saint Pauls Church Yard, 1653),
https://ia800802.us.archive.org/35/items/poemsfancies00newc/poemsfancies00newc.pdf
In this series, the following system will apply:
Orations with a capital O refers to Cavendish’s book:
orations with a lowercase o refers to individual orations within the above book
Author's Note:
The purpose of writing this ebook and publishing it on my blog
is to encourage wider access and participation in philosophy and philosophical
research, not just within but also outside of academic institutions regardless
of educational background. This is one of the reasons I have included open
access sources for Margaret Cavendish’s writings.
I can be contacted at:
Message me via: https://independent.academia.edu/LibaKaucky
or message me via my contact form on my academia website:
https://libakaucky.academia.edu/contact
Leave a comment on my blog The Feminist Margaret Cavendish Circle:
https://thefeministmargaretcavendishcircle.blogspot.com/
Introduction
This book is my first volume in a series of books I am writing on the philosophy of Margaret Cavendish, within my broader book series 'My Research Thoughts on...', which also currently features three volumes on Spinoza and one on Lady Mary Shepherd.
In this Volume 1 on Margaret Cavendish, I introduce three methodological strands to my interpretation and analysis of her writings, which also function as philosophical thought and argument techniques which convey her philosophy:
Possible Worlds
Philosophical dialogue/Rhetoric
Thought Experiments
I will closely analyse and examine specific sections of her works, with a particular focus on possible worlds and later incorporating my comparison between Plato’s style of philosophical dialogue, the querelle des femme dialogism and Cavendish’s Orations.
The main topics in this volume span Cavendish’s love of science and planetary worlds; human flourishing and how to live in order to lead the good life; why and how Cavendish presents debates and provides a variety of differing stances on issues.
My interpretation of Cavendish is what I shall refer to in full as an Intersectional, LGBT+, Classical Radical Feminist interpretation. In chapters 6 to 8, I flesh this aspect of my interpretation, building on and clarifying my previous description of my feminist interpretation of Cavendish a couple of years ago.
My overarching interpretation of Margaret Cavendish is that she was first and foremost a philosopher and mostly used creative writing as a vehicle to express her philosophical thoughts and arguments. Hence, I take a rigorously philosophical approach to interpreting all of Cavendish's works, irrespective of the apparent genre in which they are written. My overarching interpretation of Margaret Cavendish simultaneously acknowledges Cavendish as the first British, (lesbian), gender fluid, feminist philosopher. I put lesbian in brackets because so many centuries later it is especially tricky to make assumptions about sexuality. However I have included the possibility because I have read plausible theories that she should be included in LGBT+ history as a gender non-conforming lesbian. One, this is interesting to bear in mind when picturing feminism within the context of an historical timeline of women and herstory. Two, it is relevant to my interpretation of her because this impacts on how I suggest one needs to read Cavendish 's works carefully so that one does not accidentally overlook the early forms of feminism in her works or form assumptions about her feminist (or even non-feminist) intentions which may not be true on closer examination of her texts. I do not take it for granted that readers see Cavendish as the first British feminist philosopher because she is rarely, if ever, referred to as such and I have seen references to Mary Astell, Mary Wollstonecraft and others as being considered to be the first British feminists or feminist philosophers. However, Cavendish predates these women and the context of her works certainly contains no less explicit feminist issues than theirs, so it seems highly implausible to me that these women could be the first British feminist philosophers instead of Margaret Cavendish. Furthermore, Wollstonecraft's writings are not especially philosophical in style and many of her works are written with a different purpose in mind, such as documenting her travels or recording her observations during a war. Out of the British feminists who were not philosophers, one is hard pressed to find many who predate Margaret Cavendish. One I mention in this volume is Makin, however it depends on how one wishes to define 'first'. Bathsua Makin (1600-c.-1675) predates Cavendish in the sense of being born earlier but Cavendish released her feminist books earlier than her so she predates Makin in terms of her works.
What do I mean by the term feminist and what type of feminism do I have in mind? I shall not be using the option of referring to feminists in the history of philosophy as proto-feminists, simply because they predate contemporary feminist movements. This is because I feel this causes a sense of discontinuity between feminist thinkers and theories down the ages and can create the impression that feminism is a much more recent phenomenon that it actually is. Over the course of this series on Margaret Cavendish, I shall flesh out the details of how to draw parallels between contemporary feminism and Cavendish's feminist philosophy. Nevertheless, I agree that philosophers must be interpreted within the context of their era rather than being transposed into earlier or later times and movements. Thus, such comparisons are intended as a comparative analysis to situate Cavendish within feminism as a whole within a herstory of feminist philosophy as well as to enable present day feminism to draw inspiration and knowledge from Cavendish's unique approach and perspective to both philosophy and feminism. A few years back, I stated that I interpret Cavendish as a Radical Feminist. Since then, there has been an explosion of debate surrounding what Radical Feminism is and what this approach advocates, especially concerning trans people's rights. I feel that a huge amount of this public debate has generated a great deal of confusion, and sometimes misinformation or misleading arguments about what Radical Feminism is. Hence, I would like to take the time in this introduction to attempt to clarify my meanings and definitions when I examine Cavendish and feminism.
One, I shall use the term Classical Radical Feminism to distinguish what I shall refer to as Radical Feminism from Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism (TERFs). I shall only be exploring the radical branch of feminism which has its roots in the 1960’s civil rights movement, with some feminists adding separatist elements since the 1980’s to help combat the patriarchal system, which attempt to achieve gender equality without a reliance on men’s and male feminists’ assistance. Elsewhere, I also research the male feminist J.S. Mill, and, interestingly enough, he encouraged feminist groups to be self-reliant and independent from male assistance, including from his own help at times where suitable, so a certain amount of separatism in the right way can benefit various branches of feminism. Within Classical Radical Feminism, I shall focus on the inclusive (including trans inclusive), intersectional theories within Radical Feminism. I have never, and shall not be, drawing on or supporting TERF so-called feminism or so-called pro-LGB activism. Although I see the benefits of the women’s movement being capable of functioning independently of men, I do not endorse any form of feminism which excludes people who do not wish to identify as or live with the gender identity relating to the biological sex they were assigned at birth. My personal, academic and active feminism is, and always has been, an intersectional inclusive form of feminism, which is explicitly trans inclusive. This shapes my feminist concepts and meaning behind terms which can be relevant to themes in Cavendish, such as women’s spaces and separatism, which, however, I do not use as exclusionary notions.
My opening chapter to this volume consists of my abstract and short paper, which provides an overview of my approach to my interpretation of Cavendish, my analysis and methodologies as well as to the topic of flourishing in her philosophy. In chapters two and three, I fill in background assumptions, arguments, philosophical terminology, concepts and historical context I shall be referring to later on in my interpretation. I then analyse Cavendish’s explicit mention of possible worlds and references to planetary systems in her poetry and scholarly discourse in her orations. I then test my possible worlds hypothesis and reading of her works by applying to Cavendish’s feminist orations which do not contain explicit references to possible worlds and extend the topic of flourishing into women’s flourishing, social status and rights. I conclude by demonstrating how my methodological strands are applied to Cavendish’s philosophy and flesh out Plato-style classical dialogue in her Orations.
