Inroads and Ironies: The Legacy of Margaret Fell and Sarah Grimké

Response by Jennifer Jenson

When reading the excerpted works of Margaret Fell and Sarah Grimké two thoughts tend to recur. One, that neither of these women deliberately set out to argue for women’s rights in general but were forced to resort to a defense of their sex in order to participate in activities that they believed were crucial to the success of their cultures. Second, both women refer to what was then the highest authority for human rights, the Bible, in an era when the Bible was considered a legitimate source of authority. These thoughts, in turn, form an irony: the religious movement (Protestantism) that encouraged these women to feel responsible for social and cultural "right-ness," was the same movement that vilified their attempts to secure fair treatment for their fellow human beings.

The fact that Fell and Grimké did not deliberately set out to secure the public speaking rights of women is striking because it draws to our attention a fundamental difference between the motivations of these two women and their contemporary feminist counterparts. Today, feminist rhetoric is self-serving, whereas Fell and Grimké defended woman’s rights simply because it was the only way to continue their work defending the rights of others. Bizzell and Herzberg indicate that Grimké is responsible for the initial suggestion of an "alternate women’s rhetoric," which suggests that she thought it necessary to avoid the male-privileged cultural hierarchy ; however, this perspective ignores her motivations, which were clearly non-feminist oriented (676). It seems more likely that her goal was to seek a unified female voice within the religious paradigm which was then seen as the ultimate guide to human conduct, as opposed to a separate voice which would necessarily have to manifest itself outside that hegemony. After all, the most basic tenet of her argument is that for those operating within Christ’s spirit, there is no distinction between male and female as moral and accountable beings. As with her other major points, she refers to scripture as her authority on this point: "The apostle beautifully remarks, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (688-689).

One of strongest points made by both Fell and Grimké relates to the common interpretation of some of the apostle Paul’s letters as encouraging repressive action toward women, a belief which forced people of faith to accept his overall message as occasionally contradictory. As Fell puts it, "If the Apostle would have had womens [sic] speaking stopped, and did not allow of them, why did he entreat his true yoke-fellow to help those women who laboured with him in the Gospel?" (680). Grimké echoes:

I think we must be compelled to adopt one of two conclusions; either that the apostle grossly contradicts himself on a subject of great practical importance…or that the directions given to women, not to speak, or to teach in the congregations had reference to some local and peculiar customs…which the apostle thought inconsistent with the purpose for which they were met together (696).

With this in mind, it seems unlikely that Grimké would suggest a separate discussion for women, a move that would contradict her position that the moral value of men and women lies only in responsibility and accountability, regardless of gender. The key to distinguishing the intention of Grimké’s message lies in remembering that her motivation was not self-serving, as it is for contemporary feminists, but that her fight for women’s rights was essential only in that it was necessary to preserve her opportunity to continue to speak publicly as an abolitionist.

That Fell and Grimké were motivated to defend woman’s rights in order to speak to the rights of others is one difference between these women and their contemporary feminist counterparts; the second major difference is that they used as their defense the very source material of their attackers: the Bible. What is remarkable is that the Biblical arguments of Fell and Grimké are so resoundingly logical, authoritative and emotionally appealing, that we would hard pressed to deny their rhetorical strength. However, in the 200-plus years since Fell’s piece and the 170 years since Grimké’s, western culture has settled into a profound dependence upon humanism, resulting in the termination of the Bible as the supreme authority. So while Fell and Grimké offer indisputably strong arguments for the public rights of women, arguments that have clearly influenced some of the contemporary feminist activists and theorists, the Biblical basis on which these women based their appeals has very little ethos today. Again, a striking irony appears: while Fell and Grimké were among those who paved the way for modern feminism (theoretically and rhetorically) the strongest aspect of their argument (Biblical ethos) has been lost.

From our modern perspective, it is interesting to see how the precedent set by these two women continues to undergo metamorphosis: simply speaking, a woman’s right to speak became a woman’s right to vote, which became a woman’s right to work and then a woman’s right to fair pay. And caught up in the rhetoric of "public woman" was the woman’s right to control conception, and then her right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, probably the only two issues concerning women’s rights that continue to find fodder in the flames of moral exactitude. However complicated the issues seem to have become, the rhetoric behind all of these "modern" arguments for women’s rights has remained surprisingly unchanged. Women today still feel a need to have their basic status as an equal being externally affirmed and, thereby, reified. Whether that status is intellectual, physical, moral or otherwise, in the feminist sphere, the rhetoric continues to echo Grimké’s basic position, that:

Man has inflicted an unspeakable injury upon woman, by holding up to her view her animal nature, and placing in the background her moral and intellectual being.

Woman has inflicted injury upon herself by submitting to be thus regarded; and she is now called upon to rise from the station where man, not God, has placed her, and claim those sacred and inalienable rights, as a moral and responsible being…. (689)

Another thing that has not changed since Fell and Grimké is that women continue to challenge the patriarchal hegemony by trying to change the public perception of paradigms which are arguably the product of that same hegemony. Fell and Grimké tried to convince the followers (male and female) of a male-constructed religious system that their paradigm was faulty. Contemporary feminists, operating within the humanist paradigm, try to convince both genders that value lies with the individual and only when the individual is viewed as such can he/she achieve the equal status to which he/she is entitled as a human being, regardless of gender.

The problem today is the same problem that Fell and Grimké faced: the very action of addressing the paradigm reifies it. After all, one cannot address a system without assuming its veracity. Fell and Grimké attempted to show that the original paradigm, the one laid out by God through the Holy Scriptures, had been mis-read and mis-applied by men and consequently accepted by under-educated women. Contemporary feminists attempt to demonstrate that the gender hierarchy system by which men presume and assume privilege is a male construct, the purpose of which is to ensure the continued repression of women. Fell, Grimké, and their contemporary counterparts use rhetoric that reifies the very paradigms they are seeking to reform or destroy.

The continued usage of the epistemology of these systems privileges them to the extent that any opposition must necessarily take a defensive position and so, in this way, feminist rhetoric traps itself in the awkward corner in which the argument must recognize the superiority of the male position in order to create a place from which to launch the protest. Fell and Grimké had to privilege the Bible with ultimate ethos, because that was the paradigm by which their accusers lived and the one which they believed was being wrongly used against them. Yet by seeking ethos in the ammunition of their enemy, they put themselves at great risk of strengthening the argument against them. It is easy to imagine the General Association of Congregational Ministers turning the women’s rhetoric against them: they could be the "tatlers, and busie-bodies" [sic]of the scriptures which they used in their defense; they were certainly seen as a threat against the "female character" which was to be "unobtrusive and private" (685-686).

Regardless of the potential risk of having their words turned against them, neither Fell nor Grimké attempted an alternative rhetoric. With bravery and compassion, they battled their opposition within the only shared rhetoric available, fighting to change the paradigm from within. Their example survives as their legacy. While some contemporary feminists strive to create an alternative rhetoric, such separatist anxieties seem to simply result in separate paradigms too far removed from the general hegemony to result in any meaningful challenge. True change is yet to come; maybe it would be helpful to do as Fell and Grimké suggest, and re-examine the basis for the paradigm which we seek to change. By using a shared rhetoric, appealing to the same authorities, the logical and emotional appeal of the argument retains a commonly recognized authority.

Work Cited

Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical

Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford, 1990.

Dr. Stein,  History of Rhetoric II, 17 January 2000