Emma Goldman, Woman Suffrage

In Woman Suffrage (published 1911), anarchist thinker and activist Emma Goldman (1869–1940), radically argues that women’s suffrage is not a panacea for women’s, and more broadly, society’s, liberation. In fact, Goldman posits that it can sometimes serve as a distraction or even source of control. Goldman supports this case in three ways: First, the narrow-minded focus on universal suffrage serves as a “fetish” wherein people wrongheadedly hold views that actually keep them enslaved. Second, gaining the right to vote only means so much, or can only go so far, within the confines of the structural conditions people find themselves. And third, contrary to the gender ideology of the time, Goldman did not believe in the inherent moral superiority of women and therefore did not believe women would add some mystical purification to the electoral process.

Goldman’s arguments are rooted in analysis that seems to have been proven broadly correct by the test of time. However, I think Goldman’s argument made too little of the kinds of gains that, while on the road to a more radical remaking of society, would serve to alleviate the pains that women suffered while disenfranchised. Women gaining the right to vote, and gaining more power in electoral politics more broadly, has helped to improve the lives of women in many ways. These include crucial issues like bodily autonomy, greater economic, social, and political equality, etc. Moreover, revolutionary remakings of society, in the vision of Goldman’s, are not guaranteed to succeed. Much suffering and harm can, and should, be reduced while on the road to a more radical remaking of society.