In praise of zealotry

In the early 1700s, two English women, Mary Astell (1666–1731) and Catharine Macaulay (1731–91), challenged powerful male figures through political writing. Astell, a conservative feminist, wrote pamphlets attacking prominent Whig politicians like John Locke, while Macaulay, a radical republican, criticized Edmund Burke, a key conservative thinker. Both women were dismissed as 'offensive,' 'zealous,' or 'virulent' for their sharp, direct arguments. For example, Astell’s 1704 pamphlet Moderation Truly Stated openly embraced fiery language, calling it the 'Quintessence of Gall' rather than the 'Extract of Honey.' Burke mocked Macaulay as a 'patriotic scolding' Amazon, yet admitted he feared engaging with her. Their experiences highlight how women’s political voices were often silenced or ridiculed in 18th-century England.

Eighteenth-century male philosophers like David Hume, Anthony Ashley-Cooper (Earl of Shaftesbury), and Edmund Burke argued that political partisanship should be polite, moderate, and reasonable. They believed partisans should seek harmony by compromising and avoiding excessive zeal. For instance, Shaftesbury advocated 'serene, soft, and harmonious' manners to prevent 'angry, zealous' political conflicts. However, these ideals often served as tools to exclude marginalized voices. Astell and Macaulay observed that powerful men could act forcefully while still being called 'polite,' while women or servants faced harsh criticism for the same behavior. Astell questioned whether women would be allowed to challenge male authority in the same way as men, revealing how 'civility' could be used to suppress dissent.

Astell and Macaulay argued that marginalized groups, like women, needed zealotry—fierce, uncompromising commitment—to challenge systemic injustices. They rejected the idea that politeness and moderation were virtues in political debate. Astell praised the 'Zealot' as someone 'warm and assiduous' with 'inflexible conscience,' while Macaulay admired partisans with 'warm and honest zeal.' They believed that polite debate preserved the status quo, which often oppressed marginalized groups. For example, Astell sought to dismantle customs that painted women as intellectually inferior, while Macaulay argued that 'practical gentlemen' like Burke were too corrupted by power to see reform clearly. Their zeal was not a flaw but a necessary tool for change.

Astell and Macaulay identified gatekeeping as a major problem in political debate. They asked: Who decides what counts as 'polite' or 'moderate'? They argued that powerful men like Shaftesbury and Burke controlled these standards, using them to dismiss dissenting voices. Astell’s 1709 pamphlet An Impartial Enquiry challenged Shaftesbury’s idea that ridicule was acceptable if delivered with 'good manners.' She pointed out that while men could ridicule freely and still be seen as polite, women would be labeled 'bad-mannered' for the same behavior. This double standard reinforced their exclusion from political discourse. Their critique anticipated modern discussions about how civility can be weaponized to silence marginalized groups.

Astell and Macaulay believed that zealous partisanship actually sustained political debate, rather than destroying it. They argued that righteous zeal kept arguments alive by forcing opponents to engage, even when they preferred silence. Astell envisioned meeting her 'enemies in heaven' where they would admit her arguments had improved them. Macaulay was known for persistently returning to politics in social settings, even at parties, refusing to let discussions fade. Their approach contrasted with Burke’s vision of partisanship as a 'loyal friendship' between like-minded men who agreed 'at least nine times in ten.' For Astell and Macaulay, zealotry was essential for progress, as it prevented oppressive norms from going unchallenged.