Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: This essay shall examine in detail the theoretical aspects of Lucretia Mott’s holistic worldview which makes an essential and highly original contribution to the early stages of American feminism. Throughout her life Mott attacked the passive reliance on doctrine, dogma, and sectarianism in all forms, especially when it came to religious faith. This stance is fully consistent with Mott’s embrace of the Hicksite approach to Quakerism, which criticized the increasing reliance on definitive interpretations of Scripture by those who came to be known as Orthodox Quakers. Mott’s rejection of dogmatism coincides with her view that patriarchal interpretations of Scripture originate from elite men who seek to impose their arbitrary worldview on others and whose theories can be refuted by closer examination of the texts themselves. A prime example of patriarchal interpretation for Mott is the prohibition against public speaking or preaching by women that was often justified by an overreliance on St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians to the exclusion of other passages which emphasize the active role of women in spreading the word of God in various ways. For Mott, the divine command by God to live a pious life, embodied in the actions of Jesus, applies to men and women alike. Thus women, like Mott herself, are obligated to speak and preach when moved to do so by the “inner light” of faith within them. By engaging in preaching and public speaking, Mott provides an important paradigm to others such as Sarah and Angelina Grimke, fellow Quakers who also sought to improve the lives of women as well as abolish slavery. She offers arguments in favor of women’s rights that would eventually become commonplace.
But Mott’s contributions do not end there. This paper shall argue that Lucretia Mott also presents a thought process in speech and in deed – a performative political theory of sorts – which leads the audience through a certain way of thinking that entails criticisms of dogma and sectarianism and ultimately encourages the formation of independent conclusions. By offering a way of thinking rather than another doctrine per se, Mott does not simply replace one dogma with another, namely, a patriarchal doctrine with a female-centered one. The legitimacy of Mott’s perspective comes solely through the persuasion of the “inner light” of the individual rather than indoctrination or passive obedience. It is a perspective that, while grounded in the Scriptural discourse of her day, is fundamentally philosophic in nature. Mott’s approach unambiguously requires the active acceptance of the audience. Equally important, those who are persuaded to sympathize with Mott’s advocacy of women’s rights and other causes are challenged to reexamine and reflect on their views and ensure that their acceptance is active and voluntary. Mott’s ultimate contribution, therefore, is a way of thinking, and a way of living, a philosophical stance toward truth. This way of thinking opens a vital space in which authentic speech and reflection can take place. Individuals must examine themselves and the teachings presented to them and draw their own provisional conclusions. Although it is certainly the case that more strident activists made important reforms for women possible, it is equally true that without the vital space provided by Mott, it is difficult to imagine how any reform efforts for women would have been seriously contemplated in the first place, or how they would have ultimately taken hold.