Not that I’m trying to sound provocative to feminists [or others]…
But I’ve just finished reading ‘The Book of the Body Politic‘ by Christine de Pizan and ok, she’s wrote it in the first years of the 1400s in a France torn by war with not only itself but also the English but I find her idea about the ‘knights’ to be overly bloody…
So, why do I cast her idea as worthy of the Girl Guides?
Well, Samuel Pufendorf wrote ‘On the Duty of Man and Citizen‘ back in1673, after the rather Mad Troop Leader Hobbes had written his ‘Leviathan‘ during the English Civil War, when Sweden and Denmark were slogging it out – Pufendorf himself having been imprisoned by the danes at one point. I should perhaps point out that whilst there are cheaper versions of these texts, although Christine’s will be in french, I find the quality of the background to the text and author as good and the quality of paper and print combine for an easy read although the text doesn’t at times… And the actual links provide a good synopsis of the work even if you don’t want a copy, Dear Reader.
Anyway, back to the point. Christine shares the view of the greek and roman authors that the most important thing about ‘the body politic’ are the leaders and thus gives half of her book on how a prince or king should behave – nicely and with morals, about a third to the knights and how they should conduct themselves and what little remains to the rest of us – who should behave, be loyal and even if we have a genuine complaint should mind our tongues.
This contrasts with Pufendorf’s work which is divided into two books – one on how in general we should all behave to one another and the second about how various things should work out practically from that. And to be honest he’s so tediuosly boringly boy scoutish I did not finish the second book…
But here’s the difference – Christine sees the knights, more or less, as a pack of well trained war hounds whereas Pufendorf would not go so far. Indeed, whilst he argues that war should be understood universally as something we shouldn’t pursue and the suffering should be limited as best it could be Christine gives examples of brutality to spur knights on in being obedient and savage in their pursuit of their prince’s command.
One of the problems I have of Anarchist theories is that I do not know of one by a woman, here however we can see that there is no difference, essantially in the ability of male and female to think similarly to each other. We can probably all think of examples of iconoclastic women who would, if we thought about it, give an example of following the anarchist creed. Mary Shelley, Godwin’s daughter did indeed live her own life, despite the Father of Anarchy disapproval of her romance with the poet Shelley, indeed Godwin’s first wife, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote political works [although I can't say I've read them...]and in the Spanish Civil War women played an equal and as important part of the various government militias against Franco.
So, I find some strange comfort that a ‘girl guide’ view of political theory is as bloody as it is – there is no difference in the divergence of thought within the genders as there is across it, even if we don’t necessarily have a good written account of a female anarchist theory – women, just as men, can see the benefit of anarchy if only they are able to undo the shackles in our minds, as Stirner would put it, but this seems to be an universal problem engendered by states’ resistance to the idea that we could behave if we were left to our own devices and supported by many who would fear that we would all turn into slavering beasts if we took away the state…
There is enough evidence from social anthropology to say that cultures where there was no central authority are as rich as any others of their time. Sometimes, possibly, richer.
