Margaret Fuller published “The Great Lawsuit: Man versus Men. Woman versus Women” in the July 1843 number of the Dial before its revision and expansion into a book in late 1844 under the title Woman in the Nineteenth Century. Phyllis Cole in “Fuller’s Lawsuit and Feminist History” mainly refers to Fuller’s use and expansion of the arguments made by feminist predecessors Mary Wollstonecraft and Sarah Grimke. Cole then identifies that Fuller’s use of “the rhetoric of expectancy as a means to its own fulfillment” is her “greatest gift to nascent feminism”. However, David Robinson states that Fuller’s contribution in the demand for social change is evident in the title “The Great Lawsuit” as he argues that she not only includes the Emersonian distinction
…show more content…
Therefore, it was only natural to her that she applied these ideas to the gender roles with the argument that this would benefit both sexes. This social transformation based in transcendentalism, Fuller believed, would inevitably lead to both genders regaining their “lost inheritance” that would re-create the intended spiritual harmony of humanity. Though some scholars, according to Michael Hurst, often identified Fuller with a generic version of Emerson’s transcendentalism as though she were only a “mere satellite of Emersonian thought” and less attention on how she redefined transcendentalism to fit her ideas of equality between the genders. Therefore, I want to examine how Emersonian thought and transcendentalism shaped Fuller’s feminism within “The Great Lawsuit” before its expansion into Woman in the Nineteenth Century and the effect that Fuller’s unique transcendentalist feminism had in this work, which helped her recognize the need for social reform and its later impact on women’s …show more content…
Analysis of how Michael C. Hurst contrasts both Emerson and Fuller’s self-reliance will be necessary when examining how Fuller combines her idea of the fundamental importance of interpersonal relationships with her ideal marriage relationship. Hurst first contrasts Emerson and Fuller’s views on relationships by examining how the deaths of their loved ones affected their transcendentalist views. For Emerson, the death of his son Waldo illustrated the limits of self-reliance because his son’s death depicted “the radical discreteness of the individual, the absolute lack of interpenetrability between people” (Hurst 2). For Fuller, the loss of her younger sister Julia Adelaide gave her a different perspective. She viewed it as a “missed opportunity for the interconnectedness and influence” it would have had on her personally (Hurst 2). Hurst ascertains that Emerson mourns the “impossibility of connection”, but Fuller conversely mourns the obstacle to interpersonal connection blocked by death (Hurst 2). Hurst also contrasts Emerson and Fuller’s ideas of self-reliance in his analysis by noting that an ideal relationship, for Emerson, is one between an individual and his ideals (Hurst 2). This illustrates the problem with the Emersonian self because not only is the opportunity for meaningful human interaction impossible, but it elicits an indifference to others
Therefore, it was only natural to her that she applied these ideas to the gender roles with the argument that this would benefit both sexes. This social transformation based in transcendentalism, Fuller believed, would inevitably lead to both genders regaining their “lost inheritance” that would re-create the intended spiritual harmony of humanity. Though some scholars, according to Michael Hurst, often identified Fuller with a generic version of Emerson’s transcendentalism as though she were only a “mere satellite of Emersonian thought” and less attention on how she redefined transcendentalism to fit her ideas of equality between the genders. Therefore, I want to examine how Emersonian thought and transcendentalism shaped Fuller’s feminism within “The Great Lawsuit” before its expansion into Woman in the Nineteenth Century and the effect that Fuller’s unique transcendentalist feminism had in this work, which helped her recognize the need for social reform and its later impact on women’s …show more content…
Analysis of how Michael C. Hurst contrasts both Emerson and Fuller’s self-reliance will be necessary when examining how Fuller combines her idea of the fundamental importance of interpersonal relationships with her ideal marriage relationship. Hurst first contrasts Emerson and Fuller’s views on relationships by examining how the deaths of their loved ones affected their transcendentalist views. For Emerson, the death of his son Waldo illustrated the limits of self-reliance because his son’s death depicted “the radical discreteness of the individual, the absolute lack of interpenetrability between people” (Hurst 2). For Fuller, the loss of her younger sister Julia Adelaide gave her a different perspective. She viewed it as a “missed opportunity for the interconnectedness and influence” it would have had on her personally (Hurst 2). Hurst ascertains that Emerson mourns the “impossibility of connection”, but Fuller conversely mourns the obstacle to interpersonal connection blocked by death (Hurst 2). Hurst also contrasts Emerson and Fuller’s ideas of self-reliance in his analysis by noting that an ideal relationship, for Emerson, is one between an individual and his ideals (Hurst 2). This illustrates the problem with the Emersonian self because not only is the opportunity for meaningful human interaction impossible, but it elicits an indifference to others