Did They Really Have a Choice?

Gabrielle Suchon published Du Celibat Volontaire in 1700. In this work, she coins the term ‘The Neutralist’ in suggesting a way of life for woman that doesn’t require them to marry. For her, the Neutralist has the ability to voluntarily chose to be “celibate” from a profession. Celibacy for her is “an active decision to be without commitments” (not sexual celibacy), and “Professions, for her, have what I will call an institutional character. They are constituted by a set of policies, codes of conduct, and law-like rules for those who practise that profession to follow” (pg. 55). In her context, she was thinking marriage or convents, however her conception of profession can be applied to anything institutional. Though feminist movements should pay close attention to Suchon’s conception of the Neutralist, and promote such ideas, looking at the way Suchon views professions can help us understand why although everyone has a ‘choice’, it is actually a phony choice since women are always moving through space created, dictated, and often dominated by men. Linking back to sexual violence in the work place, though actresses, for example, had a ‘choice’ whether to take a meeting in a hotel room, it wasn’t really a choice since there was no other way for them to achieve their goals without playing by the rules that men created.

Suchon’s idea was that, “[women] are directed from an early age into professions. While they might appear to have a choice of which profession to enter, their options are limited” (p. 63). For her, this meant women had a choice whether they wanted to marry or go into a convent, however they didn’t really have the freedom to choose any path they wanted to commit to; they had to make a choice between options set out for them by social and institutional conceptions of appropriate conduct for women within men’s worlds. This is why Suchon fought against professions. It seems that she has a problem with people, especially women, having to play by rules made up by the powerful. She still values morality, but she says that women should be able to set their own rules. She doesn’t mean total anarchy where everyone can do whatever they want, rather I understand what she says as arguing for people to have basic respect for other people’s rationality and autonomy which would mean that everyone would have the freedom to choose their own paths and do what they want so long as it does not impede on other people’s freedom. In the current age, we of course have much more space to choose our paths, especially as women. However, we would be remised as a society to think that what Suchon wrote doesn’t apply to us today.

Within the context of Hollywood historically, women who decided to become actresses and wanted to be successful had to work within the condition and set of rules that existed for that profession created by the men that dominated and controlled this industry. Sexual harassment/assault, and conceptions of what you had to do to be successful aka sleep with directors/producers was part of those set of “policies, codes of conduct, and law-like rules.” Yes, women had a choice, but they didn’t really; they could choose to play the game or not, but that doesn’t give them any freedom in choosing how to play the game. It was a fake choice because the conditions set for women in the industry were not set for them to be able to be successful in what they chose without adhering to arbitrary social rules created by powerful men that did not protect or care about the wellbeing of women. Women did not have freedom or autonomy within this industry to choose their own set of guidelines and rules. This is what Suchon found so problematic. She wanted women to be in a position where others respected women’s rights to autonomous choices, and here we are 400 years later and we’re still not quite there.

Suchon was against institutions because she believed they hindered people’s freedom of choice. Though she focused on women, her arguments could really be applied to any and all people. She did not seem to like the idea of having to navigate through a world where the rules are made up by people that already don’t want her to achieve full autonomy and freedom. She still believed in morality and being mindful of others, she just wanted to be able to create her own rules to live by, and be able to make whatever life choices she wanted, not just a choice out of options given to her by others.

The #MeToo and #TimesUp movements ignited the spark that allowed important issues in Hollywood, and other industries, to be exposed. However, there still isn’t enough discourse about the problematic underlying power dynamics that have existed for so long in all industries, not just Hollywood. These are dangerous dynamics that made it seem like women had a choice, when really they didn’t. Women didn’t have the option of setting out their own conducts and rules to live by, we have for a long time played by the rules created by men. Feminist movements can, and should, use Suchon’s conception of what a profession is to explain to people how women have only ever had a fake choice. Finally, her conception of the Neutralist should be given more attention, as it can be used to empower women to choose their own path and create their own rules, and highlight the fact that women can be successful by doing so.

Source: Shapiro, Lisa. “Gabrielle Suchon’s ‘Neutralist’.” Women and Liberty, 1600-1800: Philosophical Essays. ed. by Jacqueline Broad and Karen Detlefsen. Oxford University Press, 2017.