“Women are
individuals, even when married …”
She seems to replace
relational ties between individuals in families (could they perhaps be mutual
instead of one-way as with coverture?) with
an atomistic individualism that leaves no barriers (no intermediate
levels of authority) between the individual and the state. That, itself, sounds like it might be a
threat to liberty. It’s good to break
down hierarchy, but are we left with anything but individuals, who by
themselves, could not stand up to a government if it decided to take away our
liberties?
From Wood: “the connectedness of colonial society—its capacity to bind
one person to another—was exceedingly fragile and vulnerable to challenge”
-Does she take away informal means of bonding each other together (such
as the family) and leave only the state (with all its powers of coercion) left
to do the job of binding us together?
No comments:
Post a Comment