It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century English women who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with the Royalist side in the conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars. Since Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of seventeenth-century political theorist Robert Filmer—a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women wrote the earliest extended criticisms of the absolute subordination of women in marriage and the earliest systematic assertions of women's rational and moral equality with men. Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women's political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides.

Catherine Gallagher argues that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self. She cites the example of the notoriously eccentric author Margaret Cavendish (1626–1673), duchess of Newcastle. Cavendish claimed to be as ambitious as any woman could be, but knowing that as a woman she was excluded from the pursuit of power in the real world, she resolved to be mistress of her own world, the "immaterial world" that any person can create within her own mind—and, as a writer, on paper. In proclaiming what she called her "singularity," Cavendish insisted that she was a self-sufficient being within her mental empire, the center of her own subjective universe rather than a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet. In justifying this absolute singularity, Cavendish repeatedly invoked the model of the absolute monarch, a figure that became a metaphor for the self-enclosed, autonomous nature of the individual person. Cavendish's successors among early feminists retained her notion of woman's sovereign self, but they also sought to break free from the complete political and social isolation that her absolute singularity entailed.



The primary purpose of the passage is to


trace the historical roots of a modern sociopolitical movement

present one scholar's explanation for a puzzling historical phenomenon

contrast two interpretations of the ideological origins of a political conflict

establish a link between the ideology of an influential political theorist and that of a notoriously eccentric writer

call attention to some points of agreement between opposing sides in an ideological debate

考题讲解

题目分析:

文章主旨题


选项分析:

A选项:追溯一个现代社会政治运动的历史根源:文章没有追溯根源,也没有提到“现代历史运动”。

B选项:正确。提出一个学者的解释,来解释一个令人困惑的历史现象:第一段讲了一个令人困惑的现象:保皇党女性批评父权主义;第二段提出了一种解释。

C选项:对比两种关于“某一个政治冲突的起源”的解释:文章并没有关注冲突的起源。

D选项:
建立“有影响力的政治理论家的理论”和“臭名昭著的古怪的作家的理论”的联系:文章并没有试图建立两个人的关系。

E选项:
强调辩论的双方观点的一致之处:尽管双方有一致的地方,但文章更多的是强调不同之处。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2016-RC