The article by Amanda Vickery offers valuable insight into the ongoing debate about separate spheres. Despite being published some time ago, much of her argument remains influential among historians today. Vickery focuses on two important aspects of women’s historiography: the separation of spheres as a middle-class phenomenon and the marginalization of women resulting from capitalism. While there are some limitations and weaknesses in the article, Vickery’s overall argument is highly persuasive. She challenges the idea that Davidoff and Hall’s Family Fortunes should be considered the definitive perspective and prompts readers to question previous historical trends in understanding women’s history.
Vickery’s article aims to analyze the term separate spheres and its connection with middle-class emergence in domestic womanhood. She highlights the theory’s dependence on models of social and economic change and its reliance on prescriptive literature, identifying a problem of evidence. Additionally, she challenges the notion that separate spheres imply a idealized golden age. These criticisms pose a significant challenge to the theory of separate spheres.
According to Vickery, the theory of separate spheres suggests a pre-19th century golden age or ‘egalitarian Eden.’ However, it is unlikely to imagine the pre-industrialist economy as a perfect place for women. She confidently points out that the concept of separating the public and private is not new, making the reader question why the 19th century is seen as an important period in gendered history. Vickery mentions socialist writers like Engels who believed that the new capitalist society required women to be confined to the domestic sphere, thus linking separate spheres to industrialization. She supports her argument by referencing Alice Clark’s Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century (1919), a classic in English economic history.
The text highlights how artworks demonstrate the decline of female workers in contrast to the increase of male breadwinners, effectively supporting the author’s argument. The author’s cogent point convinces readers with its coherence. One of her crucial arguments is that relying too heavily on models of social and economic change undermines the concept of separate spheres.
Vickery’s main theory is about the problem of evidence. However, other historians like Davidoff and Hall rely heavily on didactic and complaint literature as their primary sources. Vickery criticizes them for not testing the accuracy of such evidence or fully examining how these prescriptive sources were received. By neglecting these questions, historians undermine their own interpretations. Vickery references modernists who argue that people were capable of resisting attempts to control their actions, but their ideas were ignored as research continued to rely on prescription. While Vickery’s argument against prescription is persuasive, she could have used the primary sources she advocates, like diaries, to further support her point. It should also be noted that Vickery acknowledges that Davidoff and Hall recognize the limitations of prescriptive sources, so it is an assumption to suggest that influential historians have unquestioningly accepted them.
Vickery raises an interesting point in the article regarding the position of the lower gentry and the potential for greater social cohesion among genteel, professional, and commercial families. She uses a micro-study of northeast Lancashire from 1750-1825 to support her argument, but acknowledges the limitations of this study and the need for further research. According to Vickery, these three types of families dominated the area and shared similar views on gender roles. This challenges Davidoff and Hall’s notion that separate spheres were exclusively a middle-class concept. The issue is that very few historians have examined the lesser gentry, and Vickery highlights the gap in scholarly knowledge. She refrains from making assumptions about the rest of the country without additional research to support her claims.
Vickery argues that women used their vision as angels in the home to break free from the private sphere. Kent supports this idea by giving examples of women reforming the lives of the poor or working on colonized projects. This raises the question of whether the separate spheres were truly rigid if middle-class women could manipulate them to act in public. It also highlights the porous nature of bourgeois femininity, with philanthropists and travelers who don’t fit into the separate spheres model. However, Vickery overlooks the legal limitations on women, such as their inability to vote until 1918. This brings up the legal aspect of separate spheres, which Vickery mainly focuses on social aspects.
Vickery provides a thorough critique of Davidoff and Hall’s Family Fortunes, which is so outstanding that it deserves separate discussion. Although Davidoff and Hall’s work stands out, it is understandable why Vickery wanted to offer a detailed critique. However, this critique occupies a significant portion of the article, slightly diminishing the clarity of Vickery’s own arguments. Nevertheless, much of what she says about their interpretation is impressive. She accuses them of disregarding newer debates and doubts while insisting on reaffirming old theories, limiting room for debate. Additionally, Vickery criticizes their assumption of the “vitality of an oppositional culture of commerce versus land,” which connects to earlier arguments she presented regarding the potential social cohesion between the gentry and commercial families.
However, her critique of Davidoff and Hall’s excessive emphasis on the significance of the French revolution and the involvement of the campaigning evangelical in shaping this new moral class lacks impact. It would be more convincing if she presented more specific arguments on why the French revolution and evangelicalism should not be deemed influential, supported by primary evidence.
Whilst Vickery’s argument appears convincing, certain aspects of her argument stand out, particularly when compared to other interpretations. In particular, her argument that there was no golden age is widely accepted and supported by her evidence. Historians like Barker have also pointed out the lack of debate on this issue. However, the debate on public and private spheres remains contested, even though Vickery’s influential argument acknowledges that there is more to be said. Furthermore, Vickery’s interesting case against Davidoff and Hall is slightly weakened by her failure to fully assess the influence of the Church on perceptions of masculinity and femininity. It seems she has overlooked an important part of the ongoing debate.
This central part of Davidoff and Hall’s argument, the failure to address cases such as the Queen Caroline affair, seems porous. Vickery’s argument about the failings of prescriptive literature is impressive and has been continuously assessed by other historians of this period. When considering other interpretations, Vickery’s argument remains strong, especially her points about the so-called golden age and the problem of prescriptive literature.
Vickery’s hypothesis is highly influential and contributes to the historical debate on separate spheres and the marginalization of middle-class women due to capitalism. While she could have provided more evidence of the legal restrictions faced by women, her arguments remain strong. However, it is not the final word on the topic. Despite Vickery’s attempts to critique Davidoff and Hall’s influential work, it still holds a prominent position in the separate spheres debate. It seems that while she exposes the limitations of separate spheres, it is too ingrained in 19th century gendered history to be completely disregarded. Nonetheless, Vickery’s arguments about the absence of a golden age are generally accepted, and her analysis of prescriptive literature is impressive. She acknowledges the limitations of her article and calls for further case studies on the personal concerns and economic contributions of women from the 17th to 19th centuries.
