In praise of zealotry
The marginalised have long been told to temper their demands with politeness, but history suggests that zealotry may be the only language powerful enough to disrupt entrenched hierarchies. By examining the uncompromising rhetoric of early feminist thinkers like Mary Astell and Catharine Macaulay, we uncover how righteous indignation functions not as a flaw but as a necessary tool for those excluded from institutional power—one that exposes the hypocrisy of calls for moderation from those already in control.
How did Mary Astell and Catharine Macaulay respond to accusations of being 'impolite' or 'zealous' in their political writings?
Rather than defending themselves against these labels, both thinkers embraced them as virtues. Astell explicitly defended her use of 'inflaming Oratory, Satyr and Invective' in Moderation Truly Stated (1704), arguing that harsh truths were preferable to flattery, while Macaulay declared that partisanship required 'speaking some bold offending truths' even at the cost of being offensive. Their defiance underscored a rejection of the idea that marginalised voices should soften their critique to meet the standards of the powerful.
What did Edmund Burke and other male political theorists of the 18th century consider the ideal traits of a partisan?
Burke and figures like David Hume and Anthony Ashley-Cooper championed partisanship as a form of polite, moderate friendship among like-minded men, where agreement 'at least nine times in ten' preserved social harmony. Zealotry, by contrast, was framed as a disruptive force that violated 'concord'—a quality they associated with rationality and restraint, particularly in men of status.
Why did Astell and Macaulay argue that zealotry was essential for marginalised political actors?
They contended that politeness and moderation served the status quo, allowing entrenched power structures to persist. For women and other excluded groups, zealotry was not a flaw but a strategic necessity: it forced confrontation with injustices that polite debate would otherwise ignore. Macaulay, for instance, argued that her distance from political power gave her clearer insight into the 'sinister views' of those in power, while Astell saw inflexible principles as a moral duty in the face of oppressive customs.
What systemic issue did Astell identify in the enforcement of 'civility' as a political virtue?
Astell exposed the double standard in early modern civility, noting that powerful men like Shaftesbury could wield ridicule and harsh language while remaining 'polite,' whereas women or servants would be condemned for identical behaviour. She framed this as a tool of exclusion, where the standards for acceptable discourse were set by those already in power, rendering marginalised voices illegitimate by definition.
Ce que ça pourrait changer
This historical lens challenges contemporary assumptions about the role of tone in political discourse, suggesting that calls for 'civil' debate may often serve to silence dissent rather than foster genuine exchange. It also raises questions about how institutions might adapt to value zealotry not as a disruption but as a corrective to systemic biases, particularly in spaces where marginalised groups remain underrepresented.
