The Tyranny of Women's History?

After a summer break, I’m drawing inspiration from a great female historian.

Hey and happy September to you 👋🏻

I hope you had a lovely summer! It’s so good to be back.

This week, I’ve revisited an article by a really insightful female historian called Elizabeth Brown. It’s an oldie (published in 1974) but it’s definitely a goodie. A bit like this really …

sorrynotsorry

Anyway 😂

In her article, Brown is talking about the concept of feudalism in the Middle Ages, which you might remember from your school days. You might even remember being taught as a pyramid, with the king at the top and the peasants at the bottom. And definitely no women anywhere on it.

But, I’m digressing.

Using feudalism as her anchor, what Brown is really talking about is the idea of concepts or labels, more generally. Concepts are how we make sense of the world, right? And it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the past or the present. Our brains need some way of making sense of information and categorising them accordingly. If we didn’t do that, we’d probably explode.

On page two, Brown talks about how pretty much every medieval historian since 1800 has allowed the concept of “feudalism” (or the “feudal system”) to dominate their thinking about the Middle Ages. I love her summary of this situation and the underlying problem:

“The appeal of these words (“feudalism” and “feudal past”), which provide a short easy means of referring to the European social and political situation over an enormous stretch of time, has proved virtually impossible to resist, for they pander to the human desire to grasp – or to think one is grasping – a subject known or suspected to be complex by applying to it a simple label simplistically defined.”

And what has happened as a result?

“The great authority of these terms has radically influenced the way in which the history of the Middle Ages has been conceptualised and investigated, encouraging concentration on oversimplified models that are applied as standards … As a result, scholars have disregarded or paid insufficient attention to recalcitrant data that their models do not prepare them to expect.”

By the time I got to this part (and we’re still only on page two, folks), I couldn’t help but draw a parallel with the concept of “women’s history.” Because it *is* a concept, everyone. True, it’s a very complex concept but it’s shiny little label makes it seem more simplistic, just like “feudalism.”

Let me show you what I mean.

Sometimes, I wince a bit when I tell someone that I specialise in women’s history. And that’s not because I’m not proud of my work, the discipline, or of women and their experiences, more generally. It’s really because of the ‘baggage’ that’s typically attached to this term. You know what I’m talking about … those wider misconceptions that the discipline is just focused on the Suffragettes or queens or you have to be a bra-burning feminist to be interested in it. Yawn.

Another issue that comes up a lot (and which the above examples also show) is that we often think we’re all on the same page when the reality is that we’re not even in the same library. What I mean is that for every person working in women’s history, there is a definition of what “women’s history” means. Sure, definitions tend to overlap and share commonalities, but the waters are still pretty muddied.

Brown notes this in her article, too. Every time a new historian defines “feudalism,” (which people just can’t help but do) it creates more confusion. Another problem is inconsistency within a definition, caused by the fact that it’s a very vague term to begin with. It’s like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

If we pause and think about what “women’s history” means, you can see how vague it really is. It is as simple as the history of women? Is it history for or by women? Is it all of the above? And once we start digging in – while being mindful of the fact that women generally can’t be investigated in the same way as men – is it even “history” in the traditional sense of the word?

After reading Brown’s article again, what I’m absolutely not going to do is define what women’s history is. Instead, I invite you to think about what it means to you and how you might define it.  

In her conclusion, Brown declares feudalism to be a “tyrant” that must be “declared once and for all deposed.” Its “influence over students” must also come to an end. (ICYWW, I can 100% vouch that this has NOT happened in the 40 years since Brown wrote this piece. That feudal pyramid is very much alive and well).

So, the question I’m pondering is this: is “women’s history” also a tyrant? Is it more problematic than it is helpful? I think the ‘baggage’ that comes with it needs to get in the sea, but I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Until next time,

Kaye x