Rousseau on Women's Education

The student who reads Emile carefully meets the most uncomfortable passage at the very end. After hundreds of pages on freedom, nature, and the open possibilities of the developing child, Rousseau turns to women’s education and produces a chapter that contradicts almost everything he has just written. This article works through what he actually said, why he said it, and how a modern educator should hold it.

Where the discussion sits in Emile

Rousseau talks about women’s education at the very end of Emile, in a section devoted to a young woman named Sophie. Sophie is introduced because Emile, the boy whose education the book has followed for hundreds of pages, has reached the age when he will need a wife. Sophie is to be that wife.

This placement is the first thing a reader needs to notice. Sophie does not appear in her own right. She appears as preparation for Emile. Her education is described not as the education of a person but as the education of someone who will later be useful to a particular man. The framing is built into the structure of the book.

The contrast with the treatment of Emile is sharp. Emile is followed from infancy as a developing individual whose nature is to be respected, whose freedom is to be protected, and whose education is to serve his own flourishing. Sophie is introduced as a finishing touch on a male life. The two halves of the book operate on different principles.

Flashcard

Where does Rousseau discuss women's education in *Emile*, and why does the placement matter?

Tap to reveal

Answer

At the very end, after the boy Emile is grown and needs a wife

Sophie is introduced as preparation for Emile rather than as a developing individual in her own right. Her education is described not as the education of a person but as the education of someone who will be useful to a particular man. This placement shapes everything Rousseau says about her education.

The relative education

The core of Rousseau’s view is a phrase the reader has to confront directly. The whole education of women, he writes, ought to be relative to men in order to please them and be useful to them.

Three words in that sentence are doing the damage.

Relative: a woman’s education is to be defined in relation to the men in her life, not in relation to her own developing nature. The standards by which her education is judged are external to her.

Please: one purpose of the education is to make her pleasing to the man she marries. The aim is the man’s response, not the woman’s flourishing.

Useful: the second purpose is to make her useful to him. Useful is a verb that takes an object. The object here is the husband, not the woman herself.

Each of these reverses the principle Rousseau spent the rest of Emile defending. For Emile, the boy, education aims at the child’s own flourishing, the child’s own freedom, and the child’s own developing nature. For Sophie, the girl, education aims at someone else’s flourishing, at her constraint, and at fitting her to someone else’s needs. The same book holds both positions at once.

This is part of what readers mean when they call Rousseau a man of paradoxes. The contradictions are real and visible on the page. A serious student does not soften them. A serious student names them and decides what to do with the rest of his system in light of them.

Flashcard

What does Rousseau mean by saying women's education should be 'relative to men'?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Defined in relation to men, aimed at pleasing and being useful to them

A woman’s education, on this account, is not judged by her own developing nature or her own flourishing. It is judged by how well it fits her to a particular man’s needs. The position reverses the principle Rousseau spent the rest of Emile defending, in which education aims at the child’s own freedom and growth.

What the training contains

Rousseau then describes in detail what a woman’s training should include. The list is short and revealing.

Bodily training comes first. The purpose is twofold: physical charm and the bearing of vigorous offspring. The female body is treated as a means to two external ends, attractiveness and reproduction, rather than as the body of a person developing for her own sake.

Domestic skills come next. Sewing, embroidery, lace-work, and design. These are useful skills in an eighteenth-century household and are not in themselves objectionable. What is objectionable is the limit: these and only these.

Character traits include obedience and industriousness. Rousseau is direct about this. He does not list courage, judgement, independent reasoning, or any of the qualities he carefully develops in Emile. He lists qualities that fit a woman to subordinate work in a household.

Accomplishments include singing, dancing, and other domestic graces. These are the kinds of skills a wife of the period would be expected to display in social settings.

What is missing is more striking than what is present. The intellectual training Emile receives is absent. The civic training is absent. The capacity for independent judgement is absent. The whole apparatus of the rest of Emile is set aside for Sophie.

Flashcard

What does Rousseau's training list for Sophie include, and what is missing from it?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Included: bodily charm, domestic crafts, obedience, dancing. Missing: the intellectual and civic training Emile receives.

The training is bodily (charm and bearing children), practical (sewing, embroidery, lace, design), characterological (obedience and industriousness), and accomplishment-based (singing, dancing). The intellectual training, the civic training, and the capacity for independent judgement that fill the rest of Emile are absent from this list.

What to do with this part of Rousseau

A modern educator cannot endorse Rousseau’s account of women’s education. It contradicts the basic principle that all children deserve an education aimed at their own developing nature. It reduces half the population to a supporting role. It treats women’s bodies and characters as means to male flourishing rather than as ends in themselves. None of this fits the principles of any serious modern philosophy of education.

The honest course is to name the failure clearly rather than to apologise for it or skip past it. Rousseau got this wrong. The error is not a minor inconsistency that can be patched. It contradicts the deepest claims of his own system. A reader who takes Rousseau seriously has to confront the failure and decide what it means for the rest of his philosophy.

There is one piece of the analysis worth keeping in spite of everything. The exercise of asking whose flourishing is this education aimed at? is a useful question for any educator. Rousseau gives the wrong answer for women. But the question is the right one. An educator who never asks whose ends is my teaching serving? can end up doing for some children what Rousseau explicitly endorsed for half the population.

The most generative reading is therefore double. Reject the conclusion. Keep the question. Apply the question, with the answer Rousseau failed to give: every child’s education aims at the child’s own flourishing, regardless of sex, class, or what some other person will later need from them.

Flashcard

How should a modern educator handle Rousseau's account of women's education?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Name the failure clearly; reject the conclusion; keep the underlying question for general use

The conclusion (that women should be educated for men’s needs) must be rejected; it contradicts the basic principle that every child’s education aims at their own developing nature. The underlying question (whose flourishing is this education serving?) is the right question to ask of any education. Apply the question with the answer Rousseau failed to give.