Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution [Paperback]

This is an outstanding scholarly work by a well-respected scholar of Old Regime France and the role of women in history. To criticize her work because her definition is loosely based on a term which refers to an often nebulous group or phenomenon that is historically impossible to nail down is cheap. As to any criticism of her methodological sloppiness (here in using modern films to exemplify points she makes in her book and draw the reader into the story in an engaging fashion or to show the longevity of historical memory), you ought first to be clear in your examples and then to justify your criticisms for the reader. Your "critical" review is much sloppier and gives little information besides your negative opinion.

One of the purpose of this book is to explore the power of rhetoric and the (lack of) influence women were able to exert in pre-Revolutionary and Revolutionary France. Landes has been criticized for a weak sense of coherency in the way she deals with her text and a lack of hard evidence to back up her claim that the dominant ideology of "equality, liberty and fraternity" developed and instituted by the "bourgeois" Republic necessarily limited women. Her evidence is in the weight of rhetoric to influence politics, an important debate in French Revolution historiography, from scholars like Furet and Chartier to historians like Joan Landes. Her methodology is not exactly sloppy and there is little evidence to suggest that she doesn't understand the methodological models she uses. The confusion here must come from that fact that she is combining Habermas' sociological theory with a postmodernist emphasis on the importance of an even more abstract and difficult to document force, the power of language. The result is engaging, but perhaps not always what a casual reader would want. But the problem is not her grasp of these concepts, but her ability to use them together in a convincing manner.

Landes book is one of many recent books on women and their role in 18th century French intellectual life and the causes of the radical shift in their involvement. The variety of topics under discussion should make this book interesting for a number of audiences. It should be criticized with more skill and understanding than shown by the previous entry, and history students who read this book should be taught to understand the good points as well as the bad. Certainly the previous criticisms should not "invalidate the book as a whole" or even keep curious or interested readers from checking out this book. Particularly for people interested in the Enlightenment and influential writings of Old Regime France, this book offers an interesting perspective on the how French people were thinking about political involvement and the role of women even before the Revolution and the change in legal status for male and female subjects.

I am only including a review because it is clear that this book deserves more than 2 or 3 stars. It is a scholarly work which has been respected and documented in many other historical works in this field, and if it's good enough for professors of history it is sure as hell good enough for the plebeian readers of Amazon.com.

Joan Landes' "Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution" consists of several essays loosely united by the theme of women and their place in the "public sphere" of activity during the late 18th century-- and specifically during the French Revolution. This is an important and exciting topic-- and it's one that has not yet been researched to exhaustion.

Sadly, Landes' book is flawed in several ways. Some of these flaws are forgiveable, but a few are fatal. One of the most obvious faults of this book has to do with one of its central concept-- the idea of the "public sphere". Landes specifically states that she is using this term as the philospher Habermas used it in his famous "Public Transformations of the Public Sphere". However, that is not what she does. Habermas's conception of the public sphere is that the idea of the "public" emerged as a term for referring to the collective sets of feelings arising from private individuals engaged in private activities-- and *NOT* as something that exists in opposition to private interests and activities (which is how Landes uses it). Now, the truth be told-- I don't think it's really a *problem* that Landes uses a different model of the public sphere than Habermas... after all, there's no reason to say that Habermas definition of it is any better than hers. However, the fact of the matter is that Landes claims she really IS using Habermas' model of the public sphere. In other words, it's not that she prefers another model-- it's that she misunderstands the model she's trying to use!

While this fact does not necessarily invalidate the whole book, it is, nontheless, a bit troubling. One would think that a scholarly writer should have a good understanding of the theoretical models she is herself using.... and one might start become skeptical of more specific things that writer has to say as a result. In the case of Landes, such skepticism would be well-placed, for there are many more serious, specific problems with this book. I'll not go into them all here, but I'll only cite the most damning, namely that it one of the essays, Landes analyzes two contemporary movies that are set in Revolutionary France-- and she does so in order to bolster her general claims about how politics and gender operated in Revolutionary France. Yes, that's right-- she uses two 20th century movies as if they were primary sources for writing the history of the 18th century. And no, there's no recognition on her part that she's doing anything unusual-- or any attempt to say she's actually writing about the way we today represent the 18th century. She really is trying to use these contemporary films as historical sources, as if they were actual 18th century documents. What's next, using "Braveheart" as a historical source for information on medieval Scotland? That's a kind of error that not even the most amateurish of historians should commit!

When alls said and done, the many flaws of this book outweight its merits. Although Landes does have a few insightful things to say about women, the public sphere, and the French revolution, the fact of the matter is that her claims are undermined by her methodological sloppiness. She doesn't fully understand the theoretical models she is using, and she doesn't even seem to know what constitutes a legitimate source of historical information on the eighteenth century and what does not. Still, this book has its merits-- especially as a model to be given to history students as to what *NOT* to do when writing a book.