Women in World History
© Anup Mukherjee i3pep.org
[This Article is a partly revised version of my post in the H-World Discussion Network]
This refers to the Teaching Unit D1 of the AP World History course relating to “The Economic Role of Women in World History” 600-1914 that is available at www.whc.neu.edu (complete write-up retrieved on 31-08-2003). This lesson (Unit D1) was also later on awarded, and indeed the lesson despite its shortcomings is a step forward (alongwith other teaching units brought out by WHA). I only hope that such lessons would be revised in future for a better comprehension by the students.
Usually in the study of History, there are three issues that directly interface with each other: Historiography, Facts (or Historical content) and teaching methodology. The point is where do we find the balance. Is methodology by itself sufficient if the content is not up to the mark. Teaching objective, I understand is both learning by students, as well as empowering them to think. The world history perspective in such cases is useful as it allows for comparatives. However, often such comparatives by itself bring out the biases of the Historian or lack of information, when the canvas is wide as the world.
In this particular case of the dimension of Gender as part of world history, exactly what we aim to achieve? Is it to depict women as equal to men? Is it to show as the particular text in question asserts, gender in history…means…”Activities in which women have played more important roles then men: childrearing, planting, etc etc…in which women’s role has been as great as men’s”… Or is the objective of gender studies means to sensetise that History has undermined the role of women. And that even apart from the traditional roles, women have excelled and showed their abilities – that given a chance, women can stand as equal to men (and perhaps even excel – prove better rulers, better strategists, engage established philosophers in debates etc)
This way in our times when we see that women excel in areas from politics, to music, to education – and despite this if we read the history of current times, say thirty forty years back, most of the people in focus are men. So is recording history by itself biased and ignores the contribution of women? For example, see the Hollywood movies relating to Second World War- and women are generally missing- did they have no role during those times other than being mothers and wives and daughters?
For that matter, has historical records in general undermined the contributions and roles played by women and focussed attention on them only as part of the traditional system? Or is it the traditional texts that would provide such fiats for women, while there was a vast gap between the theory and the reality.
Also, is it that something that was written – and has survived – does that mean that it really depict the reality as it was during those times? (particularly when it is things like the law codes of traditional code givers). Or is it that such traditional aspects have been overemphased in history to the point where the role of women have been undermined. In such cases puritanical views in the text tend to take precedence than the reality that exists. For example see the women in Islamic countries today – theoretically & legally there are restrictions on them, however in reallity their contributions to their respective society are equally great as men.
Equally important, in history, even as mothers and wives, were women just like that – just adjuncts to men – father, husband, son? Or even as mothers and wives they played a very important role of influencing decisions by men in power and authority? In such situation, we need to think whether our obsession with macro dimension in general makes for the absence of women from History? Does the meta-history leave out women from its scope?
I read the electronic text of this teaching unit, and after going through it, there were a few questions that cropped up in my mind. Before I begin, I would summarise the related sections of the book:
Beginning from the abstract it says, “This unit explores the gradual changes in women’s status and economic roles in six geographical regions over the past millennium.” leading to “critically evaluate…factors… that have shaped gender dynamics across time and space.” The objective being to, “to encourage students to broaden their world historical perspective by re-examining AP World History course material over a long time frame, and from the perspective of groups of women whose lives and experiences are sometimes marginalized in World History textbooks.”
The book then details out (and in fairly well meaning & comprehensive manner) how such a subject should be handled in a classroom situation. In its handout 1 it says, “In the last twenty years, scholars of women’s history have shown that there were many more important women, more sources written by women and more sources about women than had previously been assumed.” In its outline of “What is world history”, it finds that “One benefit of studying world history is clearer thinking about past and present.” In its diagram of ‘approaches to world history’, which is to be found in all the books of the series, at one place as regards perspective, it says three points: 1. view events, processes, people, ideas from multiple point of view 2. be able to uncover bias 3. be able to understand even when disagreeing, why something happened.
For it, to see gender in history…means…”Activities in which women have played more important roles then men: childrearing, planting, clothing production, local marketing, health care, education- and those, like art and religion, in which women’s role has been as great as men’ s”…
In its lesson 2, “Comparing The Economic Role Of Women”, its objectives are:
“1) Compare the economic role of women in six different societies during the period 600-1450 2) Analyze change over time through the study of gender issues in world history 3) Explain the influence of belief systems on women’s social and economic status in societies around the world”
Thereafter the handouts deal with different religions and regimes that subscribed to such religious ideologies. So while the equitable injunctions of Quran are given, the realities of Abbasid Empire are also mentioned.Similarly for Sub Saharan Africa (among others), it quotes Jerry Bentley’s Traditions & Encounters, “Islam did relatively little to curtail the opportunities available to women or to compromise their status in sub-Saharan Africa.” To put it succinctly, it deals with the issue of women & Islam in a balanced manner – in a more realistic plebian way- eg. to quote Richard Bulliet, “Women’s activities were not confined to the hearth, … common female activities included making clay pots for cooking and storage and making clothing. Marketing was a common activity among women, especially in West Africa, where they sold their agricultural surplus, pottery, and other craftwork.”
Thereafter, it deals very well the subject matter of women in China.It shows that women held high position, there were women scholars, as well as there were issues like those of foot binding that had social ramifications for women. It equally deals with the legal aspects of those times. Thereafter it shows the striking independence of Mongol women “No more striking evidence of their independence can be found than contemporary accounts of Mongol women riding to the hunt, both with their husbands and at the head of their own hunting parties. The daughter of one of Kubilai’s cousins went to war, and she refused to marry until one of her many suitors was able to throw her in a wrestling match.” (Peter N Stearns)
Then the subject matter mostly deals with gender roles in different parts of the world, whether it be the Americas or the Aztecs or the European societies like England and France.
In its section like Gender and Empire, the book again gives a comprehensive coverage of the issue taking examples from Africa, countries like Ghana, from China etc. So we can find women traders in Ghana in 1660s. It speaks of Queen Nzinga of Angola who led resistance against Portuguese in the early 17th century. It also depicts deteriorating condition of women in China during Medieval times. It also shows how women contributed to Europe
Then in the section on Women and industrialisation, it again makes a balanced overview that shows the situation in different parts of the world including the (deteriorating) conditions of women during colonisation.
Now I would like to make some observation. Going by the perspective issue, that I quote again – “1. view events, processes, people, ideas from multiple point of view 2. be able to uncover bias”. This is definitely the right direction to move. However, in case of India, it seemed to me that instead of ‘multiple point of views’ and instead of ‘uncovering bias’, the text has in some ways reinforced the traditional bias of womans’ gender role as that of weak and oppressed.
Firstly, though the time period of focus of the book is 600-1914, and I gather that this 600 is AD, and not BC (or BCE). For India, there are handouts
1) 2S “Hindu Caste and the Status of Women in Mauryan and Gupta India (ca320 B.C.E – 480 C.E.)” (p 40) that gives the role of women during Maurya & Gupta periods. (a period predating the scope of the time period of the book)
2) Handout 2T “Female Property Rights in Mauryan and Gupta India: The Laws of Manu (320 BCE-480 CE)” (p. 41)
3) Handout 2U “Religious Practices and Women’s Rights in India” (ca 1000-1400 C.E.) (p. 43)
Thereafter in the next chapter “Gender and Empire” -
4) Handout 3N “The Political Influence of Elite Women in the Mughal Court” (1526 -1857C.E.)
5) Handout 3P “The Status of Non-Elite Women outside the Mughal Court” (1526 -1857C.E.)
6) Handout 3Q “Women and Textile Production in the Mughal Era” (1526 -1857C.E.)
And then in the chapter “Women and Industrialization”
7) Handout 4L “Women’s Declining Economic Status in Colonial India” (ca 1800-1914 C.E.)
8 ) Handout 4M “Gender Roles, Nationalism and Colonial India” (ca 1800-1914 C.E.)
In the Handout 2S, the opening sentences are – “As the Hindu caste system, developing complexity over time, became India’s most distinctive social characteristic, women’s status was entwined in its strictures….” Now this is definitely a correct statement of facts. However, compared to the treatment given for other regions (viz Islam & Islamic regions), the handouts related to India has a distinctive negative bias, and does not really tell of what was the condition of women before Mauryas & Guptas. Also, the generalization is to the extreme that clubs the two empires separated by time of nearly 600 years.
Firstly for India, the condition of women during the (Rig) Vedic period is totally left out. This means that examples of women enjoying a high social status, equality of women in different spheres (including equal rights of political participation in political bodies like Gana & Vidatha; sexual freedom & freedom to choose in marriage etc), examples of learned women like Gargi, Ghosa, Apala, Maitreyi who excelled in philosophy, literature & poetry – all these are left out.
Secondly, the differentiation that should have existed between the condition of women during Mauryan period and Gupta period has been left out. It is written in 2S, that reform movement of buddhists that opposed brahman priesthood “accepted men and women of all castes as well as outcastes as candidates for spiritual enlightenment.” Now this relates to the Mauryan times, but one cannot understand from the text of what period it relates to, when such reform movement occured. This also means, that the equality of women during Mauryas has been in a way subterfuged and clubbed with the worsening position of women (in general) during the Gupta times. Also, this means that things like women holding positions of BodyGuards for the (Mauryan) emperor gets left out. It leaves out that during Mauryan period, women played important role in spread of Buddhism outside India (eg. one of the daughters of Ashoka (as far as I remember) was also instrumental in spread of Buddhism to Sri Lanka. Also by account of Megasthenes, purdah system was not known in India during that time.
Thirdly, in the sweeping generalisation also gets left out is the high position in royalty that some of the women held during the Gupta period itself. For example, during the Gupta times, there were other neighbouring kingdoms in which women ruler (a relation of the Guptas) ruled independently.
To the Handout 2T, the heading says, “Female Property Rights in Mauryan and Gupta India: The Laws of Manu”. Interestingly, the concluding lines of the previous Handout 2S (correctly) said, “the Laws of Manu. Compiled between 200 and 400 C.E. from traditional social practices, these laws express the Brahman males’ ideal of female subservience.” This clearly shows that the heading of 2T itself is faulty – it conveys a false impression that manus code was active even during Mauryan times . Manu was a post Mauryan pehonomena. Moreover just as there is Manu’s code, there are codes by other sages like Yajnavalka, Narad, etc. All these are also called the Smriti texts. In the other smriti texts (other than Manu), different sages (or social code makers) have given different rules- some of them give women rights of equality to men in different instances. In my opinion, perhaps, Manus code became more popular (even notorious) because of its severity, while those of others are not much known, even while they form important part of the traditional social laws.
Handout 2U says, “Still, women shared with men a position in the Indian religion pantheon. The cult of the mother-goddess, which had originated in the Harappan era, revived during the Gupta era stronger than ever. The Hindu female deity, know as Devi, was celebrated by both men and women as the source of cosmic power, bestower of wishes, and symbol of fertility.” While this is correct, it would have been perhaps better if this thing had been mentioned in the previous Handout, that even while Gupta period was developing codes like Manu, cults of Mother Goddess had revived during that time. However such thing is mentioned only with reference to the period 1000-1400 CE.
Next, I found it strange that the name of Razia Sultan has been left out. She was the women ruler (not an adjunct to any Sultan, as in case of Nurjahan later on during Mughal times) during the Sultantate times (mid 13th century), and had the khutba read in her name. She ruled for nearly four-five years.
Also, intereatingly, Nur Jahan, the virtual ruler during the times of Jahangir, is again absent in the Handout 3N. This is despite the fact that not so consequential figures (compared to Nur Jahan) during the times of Babur & Humanyu find mention. (ref- “There is little doubt that women of the Mughal court played central roles in the power games, often murderous, that shaped the history of medieval India.”). Also while the role of women in textile is given in the Handout 3Q, again Nur Jahan is absent. Nur Jahan during her times was the fashion trend setter of her time, and gave rise to different kinds of fashion clothes. She was also closely associated with manufacture of different kinds of perfumes.
In handout 4L, while it covers the period 1800-1914, (and represents fairly well the conditions in general). It again fails to mention anything of the role of women in power (eg. Jhansi, Kittur, Lucknow etc) who reisisted British rule and died fighting British forces in battlefield. (compare this to the African case, where such details of resistance to colonization have been mentioned)
Finally in Handout 4M, it says, “Many nationalist reform movements continued to think of women not as individuals, but as wives and mothers.” This I would say as a mis-statement. Gandhian scholars on this list would verify, how in the Gandhian movements, women took part as equal to men. How the Gandhian non-violent movements, (like the Salt Satyagraha) brought women out from their homes to the streets in large numbers. Isn’t it interesting to note that India from the very first day of independence in 1947 granted right of equal franchise to women – while even a (developed & advanced) country like Switzerland did that only in 1971.
Equally to the Gandhian movement, in the parallel revolutionary movement that went alongwith the Gandhian movement, women participated as equal to men. Women were to be found in different revolutionary organizations- some of them even underwent long incarceration at Andaman. Not only this, but the revolutionary “Indian National Army” (INA) that became famous under the chiefship of Subhash Chandra Bose, had a full fledged womens combat regiment (the commander of that regiment Lakshmi Sahgal was also the candidate for the last Presidential elections in India)
All this certainly shows (in my understanding) that the assertion in the World History text does not represent correctly Indian womens role and contribution even during the 20th century. Whether it be ‘social reform movements’ or whether it be ‘political nationalist movements’, women have been in the forefront in asserting their abilities and in their contribution to the world around them. It is perhaps the society (and history books) that does not recognise (or undermines) their contributions.
As a concluding note, while the whole work is quite commendable, it would have been better if along with quotations from different books in form of handouts, the editors would have added a paragraph of their own comments to each handouts, so that the vital things left out in the handouts would have been covered. This would have also meant better (and unbiased) representation, and balance in treatment – whether it means balanced treatment to different religions or balanced treatment to different regions. – after all, balance does not come in merely putting up a region or religion as part ofworld history – but how sensetively the subject matter is handled, and to what extent the subject matter deals with the objectives laid out, that I again recapitulate- “multiple point of view”, “uncover bias”, and “understand…, why something happened.”.
