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 author of the passage refers to Robert Filmer (see in the highlighted text) primarily in order to
show that Royalist ideology was somewhat more radical than most historians appear to realize
qualify the claim that patriarchalism formed the basis of Royalist ideology
question the view that most early feminists were associated with the Royalist faction
highlight an apparent tension between Royalist ideology and the ideas of early feminists
argue that Royalists held conflicting opinions on issues of family organization and women's political rights
题目分析:
本文难度较大,在第一题这里,我们先分析一下文章的主旨结构:
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 Royalist and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars.
现象:被普遍认为是现代女权主义先驱的17世纪英国女性,在英国内战保皇派和议会派的争斗中,被划到了保皇派的阵营中。
请注意作者这里对这个现象的定性:odd but indisputable 虽然奇怪但是不可辩驳的,意思就是这的确是一个事实,这些女性的确是保皇派。但odd的存在表明这是一个矛盾。
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 headof the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women wrote the earliest extended criticism of the absolute subordination of women in marriage and the earliest systematic assertions of women’s rational and moral equality with men.
进一步强化矛盾:保皇派的想法通常都和父权主义相关,但这些保皇派的女性却是第一批公开批评女性在婚姻中从属地位和系统性地主张男女平等的人。
Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalist and Parliamentarianson 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.
作者对一种解释的评判:一些历史学家认为把保皇派理念和父权主义等同起来太轻率了,保皇派和议会派对家庭结构和女性政治权利的观念可能并不存在一贯的分歧。注意indeed是让步,更重要的是but后的内容,作者对这种解释的态度是否定的,因为如果的确是这样的话,这些女性也应该平均分布于两个阵营,但一开头讲过了,这些女性就是保皇派的,这是一个indisputable fact,所以这个解释并不成立。
Catherine Gallagher argues that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self.
CG对这个看似矛盾现象的解释:之所以女权主义产生于保皇派是因为君主专制思想提供了向绝对自我思想的过渡。
文章的最后讲了一个例子,快速阅读即可。
选项分析:
A选项:文中没有提到此种比较。
B选项:并没有claim说父权主义是保皇派思想的基础,无中生有
C选项:作者开篇就说了早期女权主义者是保皇派这是一个不争的事实,所以RF并不是用来质疑这个事实的。
D选项:Correct. 本选项在语法和逻辑上均是正确的。
E选项:后文才提到保皇派可能并没有一致的观念,这里并没有这层意思。
全文逻辑:17c的女性主义者属于保皇派,而且和父权主义的关系也非常紧密,这是因为保皇派给女权主义提供了发展的空间
容易出现逻辑错误导致全文没有读懂:因为第一句在说一个矛盾,第二句还在说矛盾,还顺带解释了这个矛盾带来的后果,所以很容易误会成作者想要question矛盾的其中一方,然后后面的论点被“读成”了对某个观点的支持。
事实上,这篇文章就是现象解释,提出了一个大家都觉得很odd的现象,并解释了背后的原因。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论