Draft:Universal Womanhood

“Universal Womanhood” “Universal womanhood” refers to the idea that all those who identify as a woman are unified through shared experiences of oppression based on gender. Many modern scholars argue that the concept of universal womanhood is indefensible since the terms “woman” and “female” cannot even be defined at the biological level, as some women do not have the capacity to bear offspring. Additionally, they argue that due to the intersectionality of different forms of identity and the variability of experiences that they produce, women cannot be united under a common umbrella of social experiences. These scholars believe that because of the multiplicity of identities that a woman possesses causes a difference in their relation to patriarchy. Although universal womanhood may seem like a sentiment that fosters community, in reality, it proposes a false understanding of oppression and an erasure of intersectionality. Despite its lack of validity, British women in the nineteenth century used universal womanhood as an attempt to promote the feminist movement, believing themselves to be philanthropic in their endeavors. “Civilization” of those in India, for example, included the abandonment of their own cultural practices in favor of Western ideals of marriage and family. Universal womanhood was destabilized during the third wave of feminism in the mid-1990s, along with other previously rigid concepts such as gender, sexuality, and heteronormativity.

Universal womanhood and gender in the British Empire:

Similar topics such as the “cult of domesticity” exist, but are not quite the same. Essentially, motherhood was proposed as the natural course of action for women once their productive skills were no longer needed. It is this near-obsession with the family unit that was so restrictive for women outside of Britain during the Victorian Era. Upper-middle-class white women of the British Empire used their position and cultural differences from minority communities and empires to support their feminist campaigns. This mentality of superiority is a theme that pervades much of global foreign relations, so it is unsurprising that the predominantly white and affluent British would attempt to reform or “civilize” Eastern nations of color. As explained by historian Phillippa Levine, this emphasis on Western ideals of gendered morality had effects on colonial reform movements; British “feminine compassion and sympathy” often had consequences that outweighed the benefits for those they sought to “liberate”. However, in depicting themselves as the superior manifestation of womanhood, they in turn negatively influenced the already unfavorable public opinion about women of color. Enslaved Africans were portrayed as “victimized, passive, and silent, immoral savages” who needed to be taught the language of universal womanhood. This concept enlarged the political role of British feminists but also insinuated a false connection between women across the Empire. As time went on, the world became increasingly globalized and interconnected. Because of this, the concept of universal womanhood also developed over time, being changed by the communities that the British tried to impart it. As the British world became larger, people expanded outward, traveling to colonies such as India and neighboring empires such as the Ottomans. British feminists, in many respects, weaponized the concept of universal womanhood.

British universal womanhood in India: Historian Antoinette Burton, in her piece “The White Woman’s Burden”, highlights the position that white women from Great Britain took when bringing their feminist ideals to other parts of the world, specifically India. Burton quotes Josephine Butler, a British social reformer, who when speaking about women in India, said, “Their cause is our cause, their griefs are our griefs.” The racial oppression faced by Indian women amplified their gendered oppression, making their experience drastically different than that of British women. The idea of universal womanhood was used as a gateway for the British to encourage women of color to assimilate with the Victorian way of life. Even in such small aspects such as modesty and dress, the Victorians seemed to criticize foreign tradition. The British acquired India as a colony, creating a power imbalance in the relationship between British and Indian women. As was the case for much of the rest of global colonialism within this era, the subordination of the Indian people by the British Empire was made easy by this dynamic. This forced acquiescence to the Victorian status quo resulted in a massive loss of Indian tradition. The goal of British feminists in India during this time was not necessarily to put Bengali women in heels and stockings, but to establish a basis for Victorian domesticity in that corner of the Empire. In viewing women of color as needing to be saved, while suggesting that their struggle was shared, white women created a power structure that reinforced the very patriarchy that they claimed to be challenging. The letters of Eliza Fay also give details on the inner workings of British colonialism in India and can reveal how this “unification” endeavor went into effect. Fay, as was likely the case for many white women in India during this time, seemed unbothered by the negative effects of British colonialism, if she even fully recognized them at all. Fay even refers to Cochin, India, as a “land of liberty towards which my wishes have so long pointed.” This statement highlights how critical it is to understand the mentality of superiority that the British were operating under when interacting with other cultures.

British use of universal womanhood in the Ottoman Empire:

British hopes of “westernizing” their colony in India, as was the ultimate consequence of promoting universal womanhood, is similarly reflected in their interactions with the Ottoman Empire. This concern is further exemplified in the letters and diary entries of Annette Akroyd Beveridge, who often comments on the “shocking” standards of modesty and delicacy outside of the Empire. Akroyd’s perspective was far from unusual, the “eastern” way of life in the Ottoman Empire was increasingly difficult for Europeans to understand and accept. Rather than trying to understand, synthesize, and establish new cultural identities in the British colonies, though, the British attempted to make their neighbors adopt Western ways (and abandon their native traditions). Within the Ottoman Empire, Europeans were a minority, suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the two empires and their respective cultures. As displayed in Felatun Bey and Rakim Efendi, an 1875 fictionalized story set in Istanbul, the Ottoman Empire’s interactions with the British are much more analogous to a cultural exchange than forced “civilization.” However, high tensions between the European and Ottoman lifestyles (alafranga and alaturka, respectively) insinuate a cultural perception of “otherness,” a common presumption that British feminists operated under. This contrast is impossible for the characters in this novel to ignore, and readers are expected to determine who may (or may not) fit into these two very distinct societal spheres. The Ottoman Empire was perched in between Western Europe and Eastern Asia, which made that discernment even more difficult and kept the two cultures in competition. British feminists regarded Ottoman women to be immodest, with twisted perceptions of the imperial harem influencing their opinions of the entire Ottoman Empire.