Skip to main content
Log in

Spinoza’s Conception of Personal and Political Change: A Feminist Perspective

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By focusing upon three figures: a trade unionist, who can no longer understand or reconcile himself with his past misogynist behaviour; Spinoza’s Spanish poet, who loses his memory and can no longer write poetry or even recognise his earlier work; and Spinoza’s lost friend, Burgh, who became a devout Catholic, I draw out Spinoza’s description of radical change in beliefs. I explore how, for Spinoza, radical changes that involve an increase in our powers of acting are conceived differently from those changes that reduce our power. These transitions—which can be viewed as both personal and political—are not symmetrical because of the way in which they can be understood in relation to selfhood. To highlight the originality of Spinoza’s argument on personal change, I then compare it with that of his contemporary John Locke, who in Chapter 27 of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding famously theorises the maintenance of personal identity. I draw out one common aspect of the work of Étienne Balibar and of Janet Coleman to compare the ways in which Spinoza and Locke produce different answers to the same questions: how do we conceptualise our encounters with bodies and with ideas? How do these encounters affect our identity over time? In the final section, I switch from analysing personal (but also political) change to consider political change itself, by juxtaposing Warren Montag’s Spinozist analysis of the will, with Carole Pateman’s feminist critique of contract and consent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Passages from Spinoza’s (1985) Ethics (E) will be referred to by means of the following standard abbreviations: initial numerals stand for part or book numbers, ‘a’ for ‘axiom’, ‘c’ for ‘corollary’, ‘p’ for ‘proposition’, ‘s’ for ‘scholium’, ‘lem’ for lemma, ‘pref’ for ‘preface’, and ‘app’ for ‘appendix’; ‘d’ stands for either ‘definition’ (when it appears immediately to the right of the part of the book), or ‘demonstration’ (in all other cases). Hence, ‘E 1d3’ is the third definition of part 1 and ‘E 1p16d’ is the demonstration of proposition 16 of part 1. For the Latin and Dutch text of Spinoza I rely on Spinoza, Opera [G], 4 vols., ed. Carl Gebhardt (1925).

References

  • Balibar, Étienne. 1997. Spinoza: From Individuality to transindividuality. Delft: Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balibar, Étienne. 1998. Identité et différence: l’invention de la conscience; an essay concerning human understanding  II, xxvii, of Identity and Diversity. Points 367. Paris: Seuil.

  • Balibar, Étienne. 2013a. Identity and difference: John Locke and the invention of consciousness, ed. Stella Sandford; trans. Warren Montag. London: Verso.

  • Balibar, Étienne. 2013b. Lockean concepts: A philosophical and philological glossary. In Identity and difference: John Locke and the invention of consciousness, ed. Stella Sandford; trans. Warren Montag, 71–124. London: Verso.

  • Castel, Robert. 2003. From manual workers to wage laborers: Transformation of the social question, ed. Richard Boyd; trans. Richard Boyd. New Brunswick, N.J.; London: Transaction Publishers.

  • Coleman Janet. 2005. Pre-modern property and self-ownership before and after Locke. European Journal of Political Theory 4 (2): 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curley, Edwin M. 2010. Spinoza’s exchange with Albert Burgh. In Spinoza’s ‘Theological-Political Treatise’: A critical guide, ed. Yitzhak Y. Melamed and Michael A. Rosenthal, 11–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Spinoza, Benedictus. 1985. Ethics. In The collected works of Spinoza, ed. Edwin M. Curley; trans. Edwin M. Curley, vol. 1.2, 408–617. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • de Spinoza, Benedictus. 2008. The collected works of Spinoza, ed. Edwin M. Curley; trans. Edwin M. Curley. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • de Spinoza, Benedictus. 1925. Opera [G], 4 vols., ed. Carl Gebhardt. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1988. Spinoza, practical philosophy, trans. Robert Hurley. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1990. Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza, trans. Martin Joughin. New York: Zone Books.

  • Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gatens, Moira. 1995. Imaginary bodies: Ethics, power and corporeality. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatens, Moira, and Genevieve Lloyd. 1999. Collective imaginings: Spinoza, past and present. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, Thomas. 1998. Leviathan, ed. John Charles Addison Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Israel, Jonathan Irvine. 2001. Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity, 16501750. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

  • James, Susan, Genevieve Lloyd, and Moira Gatens. 2000. The power of Spinoza: Feminist conjunctions. Hypatia 15: 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1988. Locke: Two treatises of government, ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Locke, John. 1993. An essay concerning human understanding, ed. John W Yolton. New edn, abridged/abridged and ed. John W. Yolton. London: Dent.

  • Macpherson, Crawford Brough. 1962. The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, Thomas Carson. 1977. The Spinozistic attributes. Philosophia 7: 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital: Volume 1: A critique of political economy. Trans. Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Classics.

  • Montag, Warren. 1999. Bodies, masses, power: Spinoza and his contemporaries. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montag, Warren. 2017. A parallelism of consciousness and property: Balibar’s reading of Locke. In Balibar and the citizen subject, ed. Warren Montag and Hanan Elsayed, 157–181. Critical Connections. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Pateman, Carole. 1980. Women and consent. Political Theory 8 (2): 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, Carole. 2002. Self-ownership and property in the person: Democratization and a tale of two concepts. The Journal of Political Philosophy 10: 20–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, Carole, and Charles W. Mills. 2007. Contract and domination. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Janice. 2015a. Law and the philosophy of privacy. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Janice. 2015b. Hobbes’ frontispiece: Authorship, subordination and contract. Law and Critique. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-015-9165-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Janice. 2020. Humility, acquiescentia and subordination: A Spinozist response to Jean Hampton’s feminist Kantianism. Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy 32.

  • Sharp, Hasana. 2011. Spinoza and the politics of renaturalization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford, Stella. 2013. Introduction. The incomplete Locke: Balibar, Locke and the philosophy of the subject. In Identity and difference: John Locke and the invention of consciousness, ed. Stella Sandford; trans. Warren Montag, 9–86. London: Verso.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janice Richardson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richardson, J. Spinoza’s Conception of Personal and Political Change: A Feminist Perspective. Law Critique 31, 145–162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-019-09255-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-019-09255-6

Keywords

Navigation