Episode 144: Emily Dumler-Winkcler on Mary Wollstonecraft

Emily Dumler-Winkcler brings our conversation into the modern period with her book Modern Virtue: Mary Wollstonecraft and a Tradition of Dissent (Oxford University Press, 2022). Dr. Dumler-Winkcler has some insights into the nature of tradition and how Wollstonecraft fits into the virtue tradition. Also, we discuss Wollstonecraft’s lesser known theological convictions which are often overlooked in scholarship on the early feminist. 

Timestamps:

2:15- What is the Virtue Tradition?

20:05- Wollstonecraft’s Connection to the Transcendentalists

32:02- Edmund Burke and the Vindication of the Rights of Men

55:19- Wollstonecraft’s Ethics

Charles Kim 0:00

Hello and welcome to a history of Christian theology. My name is Chad Kim. With me this week will be Dr. Emily doubler Winkler and Dr. doubler. Winkler has been writing on modern theology at a book called Modern virtue. And so she's writing on a Mary Wollstonecraft and her sort of the theology behind some of what Mary Wollstonecraft was writing about the the sort of early feminist thinker and philosopher and, and also, you know, theological thinker as Dr. Davila Winkler will show us. And Emily and I have known each other for many years, and we were at Princeton seminary together, she was my teacher preceptor, we called it but also now colleagues at St. Louis University. So it's a pleasure to reconnect with her and get to talk with her. And as we do jump, jump in even further into the modern period, what past the Reformation and towards the 18th and 19th century. But but a lot to think about what is modernism and, and why other scholars have not thought about the religious insights of Mary Wollstonecraft. But so it's a really thoughtful interview appreciated. Dr. doubler Winkler taking time to talk with me during this interview. So, we will have some more coming episodes coming out with Zack Hicks, and with Tom and Trevor, but those are still in the process of being recorded. But thank you very much for listening, please do rate us and review us on iTunes. It is always a pleasure to hear from you all. So thanks for listening. Without further ado, Dr. doubler Winkler is the new book with Oxford University Press. Modern virtue. All right. Well, this morning on the history of Christian theology I have with me, Dr. Emily doubler. Winkler, she is Associate Professor of constructive theology and Christian ethics at St. Louis University. She also holds the esteemed title, a former preceptor of mine, at Princeton Theological Seminary, where we first met, I don't remember trying to remember which class it was with a doctor bowling class,

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 2:15

probably. Yeah. So

Charles Kim 2:18

obviously, that is not the esteemed title, but she has lots of other accolades. And in this case, we're gonna be talking about her book, modern virtue, Mary Wilson craft, and a tradition of dissent with Oxford University Press. And it is a pretty sick tome of very evidently, I'm sure expanded from your dissertation. But some of the research began at Princeton seminary, where you did your PhD, and some work at Notre Dame as well. So you kind of had, you know, moved from the Presbyterian Protestant world to the Catholic world. And yeah, well, so thanks for coming on.

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 2:56

Thanks for having me. I'm happy to be here.

Charles Kim 3:00

So this is a little different. A lot of our lot of our conversations have been about sort of historical theologians, and historical, you know, Christian ideas and doctrines. So in this case, we're sort of thinking about virtue ethics. And I guess I was interested in your book, in part because it has ties to the virtue tradition, like Aquinas is very clearly a conversation partner, as is Augustine, who I happen to know, relatively well. But but it's this kind of idea. So what is, so maybe just, I actually didn't put this in the questions, and I'm sorry. But like, you know, so you call it modern virtue? But what broadly speaking, when people are talking about virtue, what does that mean? What is virtue ethics? And then maybe, you know, you have a very specific contribution of your own, in part also inspired by Wollstonecraft?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 3:55

Yeah, so I'm happy to say a little bit about the virtue tradition or traditions, which might be more appropriate, which is to say that virtue is just a very ancient way of thinking about moral formation and the moral life. So it traces back to we could trace it back to Plato and Aristotle are some of the earliest and most famous people in what is often considered the virtue tradition. So it's a way of thinking about the moral life that includes thinking about our formation and habits. So I tend to go back to Aquinas, his definition of virtue as one of the clearest and most simple which is that virtues are a form of good habits and habits in doing well and in living well, for Aristotle and the Udine monistic tradition. Of course, they think that virtues have something to do with human flourishing, the activity of virtue itself is a kind of human flourishing because it is a pursuit of the good through all sorts of different more specific virtues like justice, courage, love for Aquinas and the theological virtues. So the virtue tradition is long. It's I read. And what I'm trying to do in this book is to situate Mary Wollstonecraft and 18th century feminist thinker within that longer pre modern tradition and to think about the ways in which it's actually carried forward into modernity.

Charles Kim 5:15

Nice. So yeah, so then your, your, your contribution, then is this as Mary Wilson crafts relationship, and you call it a tradition of descent. So you kind of went through virtue, and I guess the way that you articulated it would fit long with what you call the virtues defenders. And then there are sort of the despisers. But yeah, so how, what is what is Woolston crafts place in this conversation?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 5:42

Yeah, it's a great question. And I think you are right to pick up on the kind of play on words in the title or the play on concepts in the title, there's actually two tensions or perceived tensions that I'm playing with. And one is the idea of modern virtue itself. And the other is this idea of a tradition of dissent. And so I can say a little bit about each of those, perhaps, with respect to modern virtue, there is a very common narrative that's been told by McIntyre, Milbank, Hauer was and others have kind of joined this way of thinking about pre modern virtues, which is to say that something happened to the virtues of modernity, we lost track of the tradition, there is this kind of great cataclysmic demise as McIntyre famously tells the story and after virtue. And so we lost track of this ancient tradition in modernity in this way of thinking and talking about the moral life. So part of what I'm trying to do is to challenge that idea, by saying, Actually, it's not quite as lost, or this way of thinking and talking about the moral life and moral formation, especially in Christian circles in Christian theological circles was not lost in modernity, even if it did start to splinter with a Protestant tradition. And even if there was a kind of pluralism that grew out of the modern world, and we can talk more about that, I'm trying to think about what it was that was carried forward into modernity and how that changed. The other idea is this tradition of dissent. And again, that's a kind of play on a potential contradiction, which is, what does it mean to have a tradition that is a dissenting tradition, or to dissent within a tradition. And I argue throughout that this virtue tradition is itself full of dissent from the very beginning, you have ways in which Aristotle's building on Plato and dissenting from Plato, you have ways in which then the early Christian church is very much building on this traditional way of thinking or Greek and Roman ways of thinking about the virtues and yet decentering in terms of what it means to be a distinctively Christian community. And so I, I am trying to argue in this book that something very similar is happening in modernity. In fact, it's really not all that new, it does take on certain new forms, and figures and thinkers like Wollstonecraft, but that the virtue tradition has really always been a tradition of dissent in that wider and more capacious sense. So I want to argue that the tradition of dissent is capacious and porous enough to integrate these pre modern traditions of the virtues. Christianity, Republican is Republicanism and even democracy with modern traditions of feminism, gender critical theory, liberation theology, some of the themes that come out of those communities, and even rights discourse in the modern era.

Charles Kim 8:28

Yeah, yeah, that's, that's helpful. I mean, it is interesting to think about, yeah, what does it mean? Like you said, the, you go back to Aristotle just made me think of my favorite quote, I don't know if he actually said it, but attributed to Aristotle that I love Plato, but I love the truth more. And, and so, you know, just sort of that idea, like every successive sort of generation or epoch is saying, well, there was some great things there. But but also, truth is probably worth pursuing one way or another.

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 8:59

Right, and I'm gonna borrow and adopt this idea from you, because I think it's great. That's the kind of tradition part right, I'm building on something that's already there. And yet, I'm gonna descend about this other thing. I'm going to push back on this other idea of this other concept. I think that human communities have always done that and same, and the virtue tradition is no different.

Charles Kim 9:17

Yeah. Well, and as I alluded to, in my introduction, we first met at Princeton seminary. And so you have a quote, right, right off the beginning from Charles Hodge. But maybe could you say a little bit about who Mary Wollstonecraft is, and what her you know, how she fits in this conversation. And also maybe her reception by people like Hodge and others.

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 9:41

Yeah, so we did meet at pts. And both Hodge and Samuel Miller show up in the early pages of the of the book in

Charles Kim 9:51

particular chapel, right?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 9:52

Yes, exactly. In part because they were very critical of her and I Do think that these are related questions. I mean, her she had very mixed reception in the US and in the UK. And she was also received early on, there's been some recent work showing that she was taken up and interpreted in early and read early on in Haiti as well and influenced some of the Haitian Revolution thinkers and leaders of the Haitian Revolution as well. So she did have a mixed reception. On the one hand, figures like Hodge and Miller were quite critical of her and were afraid that of course, she would lead to kind of the demise of, you know, the Christian tradition or modern verte what I'm calling about our virtue, but virtue in general, that this idea of women's liberation would really be a corrupting influence on the Christian community. And so they talk about how, you know, if she if her ideas were to take hold in society, we'd all be doomed. But they imagined the problem being things not just like kind of sexual liberation, which is often associated with feminism today. But things like women actually sitting on the seats of justice, right or being participants in the political community more broadly. And these were the sorts of things that Wollstonecraft was arguing for. On the other hand, she was very influential in the early feminist movement in the United States. She had a big influence on a range of people, some of the names that might be familiar to you, and the Roush and Bush, who was Russia, Bush's sister and actually a missionary in China and India. She wrote her dissertation on Wollstonecraft in Germany. And was, you know, bringing these ideas literally all over the world. It's there and Angelina Grimm key who were early feminists and abolitionists were very influenced by her work Virginia Woolf and a Goldman, a number of people and a number of early feminist thinkers and writers also, Lucretia Mott would keep the Bible and the Vindication of the Rights of Women on her coffee table at all times. So it was kind of a central conversation piece. And I love that anecdote, as well as Aaron and Theodosia bar to Burr, who has become very famous, of course, through the Hamilton plays as of late. They kept a massive portrait, one of the huge iconic famous op portraits of Wollstonecraft on their mantle, and they had one daughter, who they were determined to raise after the kind of pedagogical influence of Wollstonecraft. So a number of people in the American landscape were actually quite influenced by her thinking and her writing in the 19th century. If I can say something else about her mixed reception. I think this bears on the question that you asked earlier that which I didn't answer fully, which is that she has been canonical, so going to be on the 19th century in the more recent academic landscape. Wollstonecraft is canonical in a number of fields. So if you are in political theory, or political philosophy, moreover, if you are in history, politics, women, and gender studies, or feminist theology, and I even miss theology, actually, but feminist ethics more broadly, your feminist philosophy, you would be familiar with her work, she's just canonical in those traditions. What I was surprised by was that she's really relatively unknown in theological circles, and in Christian ethics more broadly. And so part of what I'm trying to do is to bring her into those conversations and to notice the ways in which doing so and being aware of this history would have to challenge and change a number of the stories we tell about modernity.

Charles Kim 13:31

Interesting. Yeah. You I noticed the the grim keys in there, and a guy who I know through another connection is writing a book on Francis Grimm key. So there's an early Presbyterian reformed guy who's like, kind of related to them. He's African American, or black. But they have I can't remember exactly how the story goes. But I saw grim key. And I was like, Well, that can't be right. But yeah, it's interesting, how connected so in some, in some ways Wilson craft, I think, even you know, has a role in that Apple start part of that has to do with abolition and and so it's interesting how much she has influenced all these other areas.

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 14:10

Absolutely. And conceptually, actually, she she links these ideas, she talks about how women I think she is, tries to be careful about not conflating the situation of the horrors of slavery at the time with the situation of women more broadly. But she does talk about women's role in the domestic life and families at the time as a form of slavery. And there are times in which for her the the protests and the resistance of those forms of women's oppression at the time, are very much linked up with her criticisms of slavery of the slave trade and of everything else related to slavery at that time in Europe and in the US. So those are definitely related in her critical assessment of oppression at the time.

Charles Kim 14:58

Yeah, well, So you're, you know, another part, you know, there's lots of there are lots of different things going on in the book. And so it was, it was each chapter actually was relatively distinct in some ways. And so it was, it was fun to read in that way. Because I was like, Oh, well, this is something else I have to think about. So there's no way we can cover all the stuff that you go through. But one particular emphasis here, as you just said, was her religious and theological character. So could you say something about it? As I understand it, she has a kind of a she has a place in the oh, now losing the name like descent? Well, I keep wanting to say dissent. But that's about right. non conforming churches. So what what is her kind of religious theological background? Yeah, how does that find expression in her life?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 15:48

Yeah, you would be correct to say either nonconforming traditions or religious dissent. Those were both terms that were used to describe the 18th century religious dissenters or non conformists as they were called, I'll say a little bit about how they got that name, because I think, interesting background. But she started off in the Anglican Church and Anglican tradition, her family was not extremely devout. But she did start off in that tradition and knew it well. So those are the liturgies that she was most familiar with. And that influenced her early formation, she encountered communities of religious dissent. And specifically, leaders in those communities like Richard price, most famously perhaps, when she moved to Newington grain to found a girls school. And she was really taken with their ideas. It's not clear, to be honest, how much of their theology she adopted on board, or how much she did not. So one of the things that we could debate or could think about is whether or not she was thoroughly Trinitarian, or more Unitarian. Some have argued that she did become more Unitarian over the course of her life, and she certainly became more affiliated with those communities. She does not write a lot about Jesus, she doesn't write a lot about Christ's, so it'd be hard to say something about her Christology per se, right? It would also be hard to say something about her Pneumatology except that she does. And again, this is, you know, a criticism that some have waged against certain Christian circles. She does think a lot about Christ, eggs and clarity, and think about Christ as a model and Imitation of Christ as central to the moral life. Okay. And so what some of our earliest pedagogical Works has been misunderstood, in part, because they have not been understood as thoroughly theological. And I argue in the third chapter of the book, that she is really giving through this early pedagogical work for young girls specifically, it kind of female Christ figure for them to model themselves after. And William Blake understood this brilliantly he depict he was asked by Joseph Johnson, her publisher, to draw a frontispiece for the second and third publications or editions of this text. And he drew the main mentorian figure in the text. Her name is Mrs. Mason, he drew her in a cruciform pose. And many people have misunderstood this picture to be kind of condescending to the girls or kind of oppressive, you know, here, here, girls, her hands are outstretched over their heads. But in fact, it's William Blake understood perfectly that this was Wolstencroft depiction of a kind of female Christ model. And so she thinks a lot about the Imitation of Christ, she thinks a lot about the incarnation of Christ in our midst, and kind of ordinary scenes, this would become a huge theme theme among the romantics. And that dovetails on your question about Transcendentalism. But so those are some of the religious and theological themes that are very prominent in her work. She also was very much a, again a kin to the Romantics very much into finding God in all places. Some have thought that she was perhaps a pantheist, I would not go that far. I don't think that she's a pantheist or a pantheist. But I do think that she very much she, in fact, her husband, who wrote her memoirs, after she died, described her as connecting and communing with God in nature. And that was a theme from the very beginning. Even in these pedagogical works, the first thing that Miss Mason does with the girls is take them on morning walks, and when they return, they're told to thank God for this beautiful day, and to recognize God, kind of God's beauty and the gift of a new day. And two, by giving you know, God, thanks for the grace of another day to imitate Christ. So she wants all of these themes of being in nature of recognizing God's creation, recognizing the gift of life and imitating Christ, which are all very central themes in her work from the beginning to the end.

Charles Kim 20:05

So it does sound like there's at least some I mean, I was thinking like, you know, Ralph Waldo Emerson or some sort of American transcendentalist a little bit that like, you know, some of that finding God and nature, there's at least some, it felt somewhat similar, although this stark in mazzio Christie, as you argue in that chapter, you know, maybe doesn't fit as much in some of the at least the idea that I have of Transcendentalism. I'm not a scholar, that was just a, you know, just something I like when I read it. That was what pinged in my brain was that oh, that kind of has some reminiscence of this kind of, yeah, romanticism or something.

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 20:41

There are definitely connections and some of them are harder to trace directly to her and some of them are not I mean, William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, were very influenced by her. And Emerson was very influenced by both of them. So I have not been able to find a place where I can trace Emerson, where I can find you know, the Emerson was reading Wollstonecraft herself, directly influenced by her, but it's certainly the case that the people he was most influenced by in romantic circles were directly influenced by her. Yeah, same thing goes for Percy Bysshe Shelley, who would end up marrying her daughter that she died in childbirth with so Wollstonecraft died at 38 in childbirth with her second daughter, who had become Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, and Percy Bysshe. Shelley, of course, was influenced by both William Godwin who Wolstencroft married and by Wilson craft, and was an influence an influence on the transcendentalist. So there's definitely streams of intellectual thought that flow between Wollstonecraft and the transcendentalist. You're not wrong to pick up on that.

Charles Kim 21:49

Well, so you brought up her dying and childbearing, which kind of almost dovetails nicely with another thing that that I was thinking about, which was the sort of milieu from which she comes kind of, you know, the 18th 19th century England, I guess she did she die in 17. When did she die?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 22:07

It is 98. Yeah.

Charles Kim 22:10

Yeah. Okay. But there's a great quote from Virginia Woolf. Oh, and I sort of, I guess, I should also mention, I don't know what the book costs or where you get at your library, but you have wonderful pictures of the what you're describing from the cover of the book. And so you so those are, were interesting to look at my first thought was like, yours was like, Oh, this is a picture of Christ. Like, I did not think that it was sort of, like, I don't know, patronizing or something of the children. I just like, oh, yeah, clearly, that's they're trying to make her look like a Christ figure. Yeah, so well, and

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 22:46

this is, it's interesting that you would say that I think that, you know, the question of why it's controversial to read. Wollstonecraft is theological, is a really interesting one. But you the fact that you would look at this image and immediately see the cruciform pose or posture says something about your own theological training and your own theological situatedness, right. And the reality is that by the time that Wollstonecraft has been taken really seriously as a scholar, and not so much, being biography, she's over over biography, people been really fascinating her story. And so that has been taken up, kind of in each new generation, really, since she died. But since scholars have really been taking her up as a serious philosopher, it's mostly been among the fields that I already mentioned, right? The historians, the political philosophers, and the feminist philosopher, specifically, many of them by the mid 20th century, identifying themselves as more secular philosophers. So Susan Miller ocon, a really famous feminist philosopher coming out of Oxford, wrote her dissertation on Wollstonecraft, but was wanting to kind of reject or deny the religious aspects. And so she was not taken very seriously by religious thinkers or theologians until well, this is the first book length treatment on her religious, you know, the religious aspects of her scholarship. But it's also the case that that has started to shift and change recently. So reason scholars, political theorists, and historians have tried to attend more closely to her religion and theology. I argue that they get it slightly wrong in two different ways. And I use two different metaphors to depict that one is this. Some have tried to argue that theology is really foundational for everything else that she argues. Others have said, Oh, it's just mere window dressing. Sure, it's there. Like she talks about God, but it's not really meaningful to her arguments. I tried to use a different metaphor, which is the wardrobe of a moral imagination, to describe the ways in which the ology for her is this inherited tradition. It's like an inherited wardrobe like we were talking about early on, where you're going to bring certain ideas of this religious country To the forward. So that's again the way I think about or I think she thinks about religion and theology as a tradition that is inherited but always revisable and definable in the communities that we need to think about these theological claims with Yeah. So as she's going to think about, you know, the claims of Rousseau and Burke about women and theology, she's going to take certain aspects of their claims forward, and then she's going to contest others. So I think that's a more fruitful and helpful way of thinking about religion and theology and her work, then some of the more recent turn to like foundations or window dressing.

Charles Kim 25:34

Yeah. And I wouldn't be able to find a page, but it seemed like, does Edmund Burke use that same language of dress of dress tailoring? Is that where you got is? Or is that they misunderstand something

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 25:47

she know. Exactly. So she's I think she's borrowing this metaphor from Burke. It's it's a line actually, that comes out of his reflections on the revolution in France. Okay. Yeah, that's right. And so she's the she's taking that. And in fact, she's brilliant at doing this. I mean, it's a really brilliant internal critique of him in a way, right. And so let me take your way of doing moral philosophy and agree and cede that Absolutely. We're part of these inherited moral traditions where we adopt this wardrobe. And this is really I mean, it's really back to biblical language as well for thinking about the the virtues right, putting on Christ. Right, right, putting on the virtue, putting on the armor of God, those sorts of metaphors of clothing ourselves. And again, this is a way of thinking about habituation and formation and the virtues right? We clothe ourselves in these garments. Those metaphors go all the way back to the Hebrew Scriptures, right? That's nothing new. And she's more than happy to take on that metaphor, but to use it to critique his way of thinking about virtues in their own time.

Charles Kim 26:47

Well, my quote is going to risk. Oh, I think you use the phrase of over biography rising or something. But I just feel like I don't know that much about her life. So I was also fascinated by her life, but I guess, well, maybe I'll read the quote, and then you can, but you could also tell me so what, what are the problems with like, sort of overly being overly fascinated by your story, and not considering her ideas so you could push back on it, but the quote that I thought was interesting, because I happen to also love Jane Austen was, but if Jane Austen had lain as a child on the landing to prevent her father from thrashing her mother, as Wollstonecraft had done, her soul might have burned with such a passion against tyranny that all her novels might have been consumed, and one cry for justice. So this is Virginia Woolf categorizing Woolston craft, but sort of comparing her to her contemporary of some sort. Jane Austen, who does not have the same kind of drive that Wilston craft does. So maybe say a little bit about, you know, what is the at risk in putting too much emphasis on her story? But how does that also help us understand her? Maybe?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 27:53

That's, it's this is a fabulous question. I love this question. So thanks for that. Um, absolutely. I think Virginia Woolf is exactly right to notice that Wolstencroft biography definitely influenced her range of concerns and the kind of fire that animated her quest for justice, and her real passion for justice and for women to have justice in a certain way in her own time. So let me say a little bit about her biography. And then I'll say a little bit about why maybe the overemphasis has been problematic. So she was raised in a family where her father was a violent alcoholic, and and had multiple money issues and so spent whatever little family fortune they had, when she was young, spent it on alcohol, among other things, and other kinds of failed ventures, and would come home at night dealing, of course, I'm sure with the stress of all of this and would be her mother and so Wolstencroft did repeatedly lay and we find this out in part from her. Her husband, who wrote William Godwin, who wrote the memoirs, that she would lay in front of her mother's door to prevent these these beatings and thrashings because she, you know, wanted to protect her mother, she was not particularly close to her mother, in fact, or her mother, in part because her mother so favor of her older brother, and because of the situation of primogeniture, Wollstonecraft knew that she would get absolutely nothing and would be kind of on her own in terms of, you know, being married off or whatever else as a girl at the time. There was really no other way for her to survive or make a living. And so she was determined very early on to leave her family and to gain financial independence. She said very early on in a letter to one of her sisters that I am determined to be the first of a new genus. And that means a woman who could survive by writing who could make a financial living by writing. There were other women writers of her time, of course, like the Blue Stockings is a famous circle of women writers, but most of them were aristocratic. And so they did not write to survive. They didn't write for a living. Wollstonecraft left him very early on to found a girl school. A and that sort of that worked for a couple of years she founded it with a sister and a dear friend of hers. And then they ran into financial troubles for a host of reasons. She became a governess and went with a very wealthy family, the Knights bridge family, to Scotland and Ireland for a year that did not work out so well because she could not tolerate the aristocratic lifestyle. But she did learn German and French in order to teach German and French. She translated several works from German, French and Dutch. And so she was really an autodidact. During this period, she learned a great deal from some of the professors that she rubbed elbows with early on in life. So she was familiar enough with the academic life. And it's a Luers to have a sense of what that was like. The bell letras she read Milton early on the Bible, Shakespeare all of these were her tutors, but in pretty informal setting and informal way. So until she landed back with a religious dissenting community, she didn't have really any formal mentors or instructors in the Christian faith really, at all. And then she fell in with Joseph Johnson and a literary circle in London, who were Unitarians and influenced her thinking in those sorts of ways. But in other kind of more politically radical ways of thinking as well. Benjamin Franklin came out of these dinner party in and out of these, like dinner party circles that she was attending. So is a really prominent group of political thinkers and figures in England, who get together for these weekly dinner parties with JOSEPH JOHNSON, all that to say she ends up going, she wrote, she wrote the Vindication of the Rights of men in response to Edmund Burke's reflections on the revolution in France, expecting that it would be this, you know, celebration of the French Revolution and the ways that Burke had celebrated the American Revolution and the Irish revolution, she was aghast. And, as were all the dissenters that he had been so critical of the French Revolution. So she penned this Vindication of the Rights of men in 1790, sending pages as she wrote to her publisher. And it's just kind of this fireball of a of an essay of, you know, how dare you How could you not defend this political movement, but she wanted to go see for herself and she was really disappointed that the French did not vindicate women's rights, along with men's rights, when they wrote their own declaration of independence, for citizens and so she went to France, she was there in the middle of the, the height of the terror and the middle of the kind of worst parts of the reign of terror Messiah, Louis Right by on his way to the guillotine and describes this in vivid detail, one of her letters. So she did not lead an uninteresting life. It was kind of this wild. She in the midst of all of this, of course, she became, she does supposedly have a formal marriage contract, but was never really formally married to Gilbert MLA and American who was in France at the time and had her first child more or less out of wedlock with him. They were formally married to protect her because several British friends and French friends in their circle were being killed during this time. We're going to the guillotine and so as a kind of protective made of all that to say, she goes back to England rights and travel journeys through Scandinavia, and then returns and marries William Godwin, and has her second daughter with him. And this is, of course, the dot the birth that led to her own death. So she had it kind of a wild and intense 38 year journey in which she was really prolific given Yeah, length of her life, and kind of lack of educational training. But all of that was very influential. And of course, it would be helpful to say something about the her own zeitgeist, of course, which is that she was born into what scholars have called the Age of Revolution, the age of taste, the age of virtue and the age of democracy. For ages, maybe 18th century some people might want to think of as contradictory in certain ways, right? What does the age of taste and virtue have to do with the Age of Revolution and democracy, but these are truly all of the ideas that are in the milieu that she is wrestling with in thinking with as she is engaging these political and theological and moral questions over time. So that's a little bit about her biography. Do want me to still say something about the biography causation as I'm calling

Charles Kim 34:31

it? Yeah, yeah. So yeah, so yeah, what like so I guess I mean, I can probably guess a little bit but yeah, what is it about this that makes people maybe dismiss her or I don't know what why over biography rising is kind of a fear.

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 34:45

Yeah, I mean, I think in part it's the people were so at the time, of course, her life was quite scandalous. I mean, perhaps still is today but at the late 18th century, to have two children out of wedlock. She did marry William Godwin, right before she died. I And arrived before she gave birth, but they were not married at the time. They were both opposed to marriage, in part because of their philosophical commitments to all of these other things. Oh, definitely me. Sorry for that. You mute that. So that doesn't happen again. So her life, her life is fascinating. And in some ways, it's scandalous for these reasons of having children outside of wedlock, and yet, I think the danger is that then again, that that distracts from her ideas. So it's really unfortunate. I mean, I think it's, it's unfortunate on the one hand, but it's also really problematic for our disciplines in our field. Moreover, that she has not been taken more problematically as Vladek for field that she has taken seriously as a theologian, as a Christian ethicist, as a philosopher, because she really changes some of those conversations and challenges some of those narratives, and has a lot to offer. Um, I mean, a lot of the one of the narratives I'm trying to intervene in for my own field is that a lot of the virtue ethicist from McIntyre and her wife's and the others that I named have gone back to the pre modern tradition. But they haven't really imagined then the ways in which we would think about those virtues with respect to contemporary issues, and really determinate ways with respect to women, gender, sexuality, and some of those issues, to be sure, but also with respect to race and a number of issues that we need to think, you know, in more nuanced and complex ways about in our society today. And so, and on the other hand, I think a lot of feminist ethicists have assumed that the virtues cannot be a resource for thinking about the moral life today, because we'd have to go back and think about them the way that Aristotle did, or the way that Aquinas even did, in which they assumed a kind of inherent inequality between men and women. Right. And so I think that Wollstonecraft is a really wonderful and fruitful thinker, thinker for us to think with about all sorts of these questions, that challenge both some of the feminist presuppositions about virtue and some of the virtue thinkers presuppositions about feminists. And so trying to create that conversation, I think, is obviously at the heart of this book. But it's also a real loss to the current status of our fields, that she hasn't been taken more seriously as a thinker in those areas.

Charles Kim 37:25

Yeah. Just as you were kind of talking about her and you know, I think I recall that she was a governess and a teacher. But even the name Mrs. Mason reminded me like, so my kids go to a school that's called a Charlotte Mason school. And she's an English governess from the 19th century who is used to kind of as like a, it's kind of like a, I joke and call it Christian Montessori. But it's, but it just made me sort of think like, how different I like think of Charlotte Mason versus Mary Wollstonecraft, I don't know Charlotte Mason, that well, but it's sort of, you know, you sort of have this like idyllic English countryside, and the kids are allowed to go kind of play. And the governess teaches them a little French and a little German, and they have a tea party. And, you know, we all feel kind of noble or something. And, you know, and then hearing Woolston craft, you go, you know, obviously, that is, you know, way romanticize of a portrait of what life was like for people like Wilson craft, and what, you know, and but also, you know, so brilliant as you're saying, you know, three four languages translating, I mean, you know, that's, that's a ton of work. So, yeah, I don't know, it's just kind of interesting how we can have these these like, you know, sort of imaginations about a time period. You know, Jane Austen, you know, everybody's just going to dinner parties or whatever, trying to find a husband. But yeah,

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 38:50

yeah. And for Wolstencroft in those early pedagogical works, there is there is this kind of romanticization I think going on. I mean, Miss Mason, is definitely a governess akin to Wollstonecraft on governance experience, where she has the luxury of taking the children on a morning walk, you know, on the blades every morning. So it is it is formed, that particular work is formed somewhat by that experience in her own life of that kind of luxury. But she's also Ms. Mason, as this pedagogical figure is also constantly drawing the children to attend to poverty, and to those on the margins. And so right before she leaves them with their fathers is the end of the book, right before she leaves them with their father. They go and visit a few poor families and they bring them things, they bring them provisions, they encounter someone along the way that needs something. So the story so she weaves these stories into her pedagogy that's constantly bringing the children's awareness and actually tells a story about someone who's Bastille you know, someone a prisoner who's caught kind of unjustly in this space that they can't get out of I'm someone else who goes mad because of various losses in their life. So she's constantly putting, I think, mostly pedagogically appropriate stories and for the children to form their imaginations kind of beyond this idyllic world that they inhabit.

Charles Kim 40:16

Makes me think I Well, I've never read that. So it makes me want to kind of read that it just sort of, I don't know, be interesting to have like a book club at the Charlotte Mason school about Miss Mason and Will's the craft just a different way to think about, yeah, education and pedagogy. But it's not exactly

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 40:31

brothers Graham, but it's there are some elements in there.

Charles Kim 40:36

Good, good. Well, one question that that's just kind of like a sort of a palate cleanser are changing gears or something to get to know, an author, I always ask what is one thing that you once thought was true, but now think is false? Or one thing that you think is false that you once thought was true? And maybe how, what changed your mind?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 40:57

This is a great question. So I love that you ask your guests this, and they'll have to go back and listen to all of their answers. I so one thing that I I debated about which way to go on this, which one of those two to answer one thing that I think is true, but I once that was false, this is this might be cliche. And I wonder how many of your guests have given this answer. And yet, it's the it's the clearest thing in my mind that I could use to answer this question, which is that I now do, I am thoroughly convinced of evolutionary theory. And I once was not I was very much raised in a kind of mainline but mainline leaning like evangelical leaning mainline Presbyterian congregation. And I remember very distinctly in middle school, the, you know, the, the science classroom where the idea of evolution was being introduced, and how I really wrestled with it, because it seemed to conflict with my worldview, and what I knew about the creation of the world, and the kind of, you know, flannel board, Bible stories that I had been taught. And so it really wasn't until middle school that I was introduced to the theory of evolution and had to kind of wrestle with that. And it was a major awakening for me to begin to realize that these two stories did not have to conflict, that they weren't actually at odds that there was a way of reading the Bible as allegory. And, and of course, Augustine, and all sorts of other figures are onto this long before us. But like, that was a whole new idea to me, because it just wasn't one that I had been introduced. It was. So it was a new way of reading the Bible for me, and understanding interpreting scripture, but it was also a new way of thinking about the ways in which religious faith and Christian faith can cohere with the sciences, and don't have to necessarily conflict. So,

Charles Kim 43:01

yeah. No, I don't think I'm trying to think of anyone has talked about evolution. I've had lots of different answers. But I don't think I've had that one yet. I will say it is a central concern of the students that I teach at SLU, though, man, that's like the one thing they think they are certain that Christians all think one way, and they're surprised to find that most of maybe all the people that teach theology at SLU probably don't hold do a younger sixth day creationism kind of thing.

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 43:31

Right? I mean, what's wild to me is, you know, these were debates back in the 19 century, that were kind of rocking and roiling, you know, the evangelical and Christian community at the time then. And what's wild to me is that being raised in more evangelical communities today, I think some can sometimes insulate us from those questions until we get to college or until we're in high school until, right there's, there's a kind of introduction, introduction to these other ideas and ways of thinking about them. And so anyway, that was middle school for me.

Charles Kim 44:06

Nice. So this is maybe I don't know if this is a more critical question that I had, but it was I was sort of, as I was reading through, I was thinking about church and a little bit about Woolston craft, and where she fits. And so we talked a little bit about the dissenting tradition, but there is the there, there was a line in here, and I haven't on to 25 But actually, you don't see that but oh, actually it's 226 but there's the quote from Tertullian that is the blood of the martyrs is the seat of faith or the seat of the church, although neither of which are exactly what he says in his apology. He says it's the seat of Christians is the actual line. But But yeah, but it made me think about church so what is you know, we're talking about theology we're so what what role does one does the church play in all of this? And I in the way that I wrote the question, I meant And how are lost, who you've mentioned a few times who kind of has this central notion of the church and his thought, but he also never really wants to define it. Like he never really wants to tell you exactly what he means by it. And so yeah, so I just, it just made me wonder. I mean, and even in your conclusion, you talk a little bit about sort of praxis and the right things that a Christian does. But but I'd made me think like, what is the role of, of the of the church for Wilson craft or for you? Or how you know how that would fit into this? conversation?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 45:33

Yeah, that's a this is a great question. And I think your way of naming, however, was his own ecclesiology, I think is really helpful. It's it's a strong ecclesiology. But it's underdeveloped. It plays a very strong role in his work. And he's become increasingly aware of that I'm not aware of it, but just responsive to some of the criticisms about the sectarian nature of how some of his work has been taken. And I know he does want to resist and refuse that. But I think this kind of very strong church world distinction needs to kind of reiterate that at the same time, he's not always clear, as you say about what that exactly that means and what that calls Christians to it with respect to relationships with the other, or non Christians or even this kind of proverbial world. So anyway, let me say more about Wollstonecraft, and maybe my own as well. You're also right to note that there's a kind of blurring at times in the book between Wollstonecraft views and my own. And so perhaps that's not always perfectly clear. I'm happy to say more about both. I think on the one hand, it's really helpful context. I didn't spell this out earlier, when I said I would to understand a little bit of the dissenting Church and the non conforming church that Woolston craft ended up being becoming part of or joining, at least in terms of not formal membership, but in terms of just community. And that is the non conforming church in England. And so the non conforming church or the dissenters were really created by the Claritin codes in the 1600s, early 1600s, mid 1600s. So by the time you know, the late 18th century, this is actually a pretty long traditionalist 200 or so odd years of these non conforming communities developing. And they were created really, as a class of people, anyone who did not conform. That's how they got the name non conformance. Anyone who did not conform to the book of order of the Anglican Church in their worship services. And so this included Catholics, it included religious dissenters, as they became called, it included Jews, it included atheists, right. So it's really broad category non conforming, anyone who was nonconformity was simply this, this class of people who are not using the book of order and their worship services. The center's took on a particular label as they became non Trinitarian. And so there was a kind of, eventually there were laws and codes written about whether or not you were Trinitarian. And if you were Trinitarian, you had certain rights and privileges as a citizen, or non Trinitarian, you didn't. So there were all of these distinctions within that big broad umbrella of the non conforming community. But I think that's somewhat helpful background because Wollstonecraft was born in a time and introduced to communities in which the church kind of big see was all of these various dissenting communities who it was full of disagreement, right. So again, to think about a tradition of dissent is to think about, literally, these dissenting communities, these dissenting religious communities within England, who identified as Christian identified some as Trinitarian, some is Unitarian, but did not have certain political privileges at the time. And so I think that for wools, that shape that shaped Wollstonecraft own theology of the church, if we could say she, I don't think she has necessarily an ecclesiology, or at least it doesn't come out very strongly in her works. But if she had one, I think it would be pretty non institutional, it would be safe to say that her ecclesiology is non institutional in the sense that as I said earlier, she found God communing with nature, she found God in the kind of incarnate encounter with another person. So this kind of, you know, face of the other theology, identifying Christ in the least of these was very central to her own Christology, I think, and so that those ideas of the spirit really at work kind of anywhere and everywhere, and who knows where the Spirit blows, is, I think, very much central to her own notion of the Church, which is that it doesn't matter which side of the which dissenting line you're on or which book of order you adhere to, or don't adhere to. Right. So those sorts of questions were not central to her own concerns about the church at the time, I would say in terms of my own sensibility about the church and ecclesiology I happen to be I'm married to a Presbyterian pastor. And so, you know, I worship with this worshiping community that I have long identified with, ironically enough. But I wouldn't, I would say that my own ecclesiology is somewhat similar. I'm very much less concerned, as a Protestant theologian with whether someone is Calvinist or Lutheran or Catholic or whatnot. There's all of those dividing lines within the church. And I'm much more interested in how we how the Christian community writ large, thinks that following Christ, being followers of Christ, with our lives, as well as our theologies, and our ideas, shapes and forms us as a community. And so in that respect, I think Howard Walsh and I are very, you know, similar, I don't think he would have any objections to that way of thinking about or understanding the church as a formational. community. I think he is less aware of the kinds of internal disputes that become really important to churches, when they have to make decisions like can women be ordained? Or can you know, in in the segregation era, can blacks worship in the same communities as weights? I mean, these have split denominations, and they've split churches. And those are, those are questions that I think we have to take really seriously as we think about the church as a formational community.

Charles Kim 51:30

Yeah, yeah. We I was able to interview her was for the podcast, like a year ago or something, but I actually I don't think I asked him the question about what he thought was true or false. Although, excuse me, let's see. I think I was like, afraid to ask him to like, like, totally off the wall kind of question. I don't know why, but I really liked reading our wall. So I have like, you know, like, he's formed a lot of my thinking in some ways, but but aware of the criticisms that are worthwhile of, you know, like, say these notions of church and whatnot. So, but yeah, but anyway, so we had I do I do, you know, I've kind of I was at least for a time quite a Howard was fanboy

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 52:14

Oh, but against, you know,

Charles Kim 52:17

there was some there were some tweets going around, I like I like lurk on Twitter. I don't really tweet very much. And there was a whole bunch of stuff going around about people who are Howard Washington's or former Howard Washington's. And we had Jonathan Tran on here, as well. And Dr. Tran talked a little bit about how he sort of, you know, move beyond Howard lost in some ways, but then one of the return to Howard was in other ways. And so he was sort of interesting to hear him even his own journey as kind of a famous student of how we're wass where he kind of, you know, what he thinks about him. But, but he actually wondered if, like, basically, no one even talked about how are lost anymore, but

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 52:56

that's really interesting. I'll have to go back and listen to that as well. Um, he is on this grant that I'm going to meet up with in Rome very soon. So I'd actually love to listen to that before I go see him again. Yeah, I mean, I that's a good it's a fair question whether or not people talk about how Ross anymore. I think he has been so influential. And so in this next generation of scholars, I think there are a lot of people like Jonathan, who are carrying his legacy forward, but not necessarily doing so in direct conversation with how it was his ideas or works. For what it's worth. You bumped your microphone, so it's slightly off now. It might not be picking up there you go.

Charles Kim 53:33

Thank you. Yeah,

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 53:34

it was quieter. All of a sudden, I thought what happened?

Charles Kim 53:37

Oh, yeah, you know, my, my waving hands I knockin. Good. Yeah. So. Right. Well,

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 53:46

one more thing, which might be useful or helpful. I think one interesting question. And actually, how was this going to be responding to the book on Syndicate, which was kind of fun, so I'll have the chance to hear what he thinks about it. Jonathan? Tran actually texted me recently and said that her was had texted him about my book. But I think mostly positive. But we'll see. I'll be curious to hear what he has to say. And I suspect that this will be one area of conversation for us, which I really look forward to with him. I would love to know more from her was about his own sacrum ontology. Because I think one of the interesting things is that for Wollstonecraft, is that the Eucharist doesn't really play a big role for her, it felt like I can't think of a time when she talks about it or depicts it or, you know, reflects on the role of the Eucharist at all in her own formation really, at all, which is very interesting to me. And I do think that she has a sacramental theology. But again, like I was saying earlier, it's much more diffuse. It's kind of God in all sorts of material things like the natural world where we would wreck we're like, we're called to recognize God's grace and gift to us all the time and all of these different ways, right. But the Eucharist does not hold a specific place for her. And I think hearing more about the role of the Eucharist and her wants his own sacraments are in second mythology and ecclesiology more ever would actually be a helpful way of distilling maybe some of the differences. So,

Charles Kim 55:19

yeah, that's worth well, yeah. And I guess even that was I almost asked that very question. Like I said, there was a kind of charge towards the end, where you list a bunch of different ways that I think it's on 323 22. You know, whose church which Christ and then you go on the first task task of the church is, as Wilson craft suggests, to love God and neighbor as self through simple acts, stopping, stooping, befriending the half dead, disfigured, and disfigured for him in the ditch. And, you know, there's a very lovely prose and a description of what I would hope to live up to as a Christian, but I did notice there's yeah, there's not like a and communing in the Eucharist or sharing a meal or sharing, you know, a sermon or so, you know, some other elements of what Christians do when they gather, versus what they do when they go out. You might say,

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 56:12

Yes, that's very observant. And I think that that's true to her understanding of the ways in which the Christian life can kind of unfold, which is interesting, right? Do you think later, some would say some have argued that she left the church, I think that puts it too strong. She did not attend church regularly after her time in France, or really, during her time in France, I should say. And so it's true that she stopped attending church as a central part of her own formation. In one of the last pieces she wrote, but did not actually publish was published for her posthumously. She talks about, it's a it's a piece on poetry, that would be taken up, of course, by the romantics. And she taught she refers to this quote, it's it's citing revelation, this temple, not made with hands, in the end, in the culmination, in the eschaton, we will worship God in a temple not made with hands. And that I think, again, is very central to how she thinks we could and might, and perhaps ought worship God. Now, meaning that we can commune Wherever two or three are gathered, we can commune in nature, but it doesn't have to be this kind of formal worship service with a formal liturgy and those sorts of things. So that's, it's definitely true that for her that was that kind of that practice fell off.

Charles Kim 57:36

Yeah, well, the last thing that I, that really made me think a lot as I was kind of engaging with your book, and I walk my dogs and my kids a lot. So that's when I do my thinking. But I was thinking about, you know, your use of the term modern it, you know, at times, I know, that's an uncomfortable kind of label. You know, we do postmodern now. And that's kind of out of vogue, or contemporary, you know, there's all these labels that we put on ages. But you do talk about the so I know that that's not a great label, but you talk about the sort of self consciousness of modernity, and so like, if you're going to sort of recover a pre modern tradition of ethics or something, you're going to have to do so self consciously like Kant, in some sense, it can't be the same way that Aquinas received the tradition that he inherited, he doesn't have the same sort of modern self consciousness that we do. So could you say something about how, you know, yeah, how we should even frame modernity or frame kind of this? I don't know, legacy that we've inherited, I guess, I just said something my sister today about, you know, learning another language makes you aware of yourself in a different way. And I'd said that was a good thing. You know, but maybe it's not? I don't know. But yeah, it seems like it's a good thing to be self conscious, and to be at least aware of yourself as located in a different time, a certain time in place. But is that? Am I just espousing modernity there? Is that or what? You know, how does that? Yeah, so anyway, you could respond however you like?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 59:11

Yeah, this is a really fabulous question as well. And it's one that's the book calls for probably a longer answer in this regard. The My way of trying to answer that question, in the end is to mostly give a via negativa. I'm happy to say I think it's easier for me to say what modernity is not. Because it's so often caricature heard, as a number of things that I don't think it is, should be reduced to. So a quick list of those sorts of things include, you know, modernity is not a hard and fast break with the pre modern, it's not an abandoning or throwing out of the baby and the bathwater water of pre modernity. In fact, all sorts of ideas are carried forward. So I want to lift up the continuity as well. I think that's really important. It's not the illusion that we can start from scratch. I think Carabosse has described it that way. On this kind of just starting starting over, it's not a commitment to enlightenment rationality. Sure that was highly influential for a period of modernity. But that's I don't see that as at the heart of it. And I don't see the Enlightenment rationally as eclipsing other traditions like the virtues and aspect and other things that have become more prominent in recent times. I don't think that individualism, relativism, pluralism, all the isms are like, you know, as central to modernity or the modern as, as some people fear or think so. So that's my list of negatives. That's my via negativa. But I'm also happy to say I do think on the self consciousness thing, I was initially convinced by Hegel's account. This is Hegel actually that, that we kind of became conscious of ourselves in a new way in modernity. And I am not totally convinced of that anymore. I'm not convinced that we could say that we're any more self conscious of our own place in history. Then, Aquinas was, I mean, you know, Aquinas Asuma, is doing exactly this self consciously in a community and a pedagogical community taking all of these various resources, from theological and philosophical traditions and saying, Well, what do we make of it? What do we here now make of that in a very self conscious way? And so I am not sure that I mean, sure, there's a kind of new attention to history, and Kant and Schleiermacher, and those theological movements to be sure that 18th century but I'm still not sure I'm comfortable saying that we as moderns are actually more self conscious of what we're doing when we do theology than someone like Augustine, or Aquinas was. I do think that there's a new attempt to bring these traditions to bear in a new way. What the Protestant Reformation has to do with all of that imagery, I think it's still a really interesting question. I've read read Gregory's book on this the unintended reformation. And I think it's a little bit too dour about, you know, the influences of the Protestant Reformation on all sorts of modern isms that I just labeled and described. And, and so I don't think that his story, I don't think that significant parts of his story are nuanced enough, or careful enough about the complexity of modernity. I think he tends in a more makinde terian direction with respect to kind of thinking that all things go wrong in terms of moral discourse in in modernity. Whereas I think actually, many of those resources are carried forward and radicalized in certain interesting ways. Like they aren't Wollstonecraft. So, all of that to say, I think the easiest way if I was to give you a quick and ready definition of modernity, I think it's a series of debates about authority, who has it? And why and how, and how would we know? So those questions become really central to religious communities, obviously, in the Protestant Reformation, but then also to philosophical communities to scientific communities. And all of that becomes a pretty robust debate about who has authority and how we know.

Charles Kim 1:03:09

Yeah. Well, that's Yeah, that's very like said very interesting. Just thinking about the, you know, epochs are always hard. And you know, it's easy, it's easier to criticize, in some ways than to set one out. Because there are always going to be problems with it. But But yeah, it is, it is interesting to think about what like, say ways to characterize or frame our own our own time. I don't know, is there any final word that you'd like to offer listeners to history of Christian theology? About how, you know, what's one good thing to read from Wilston? Craft first, and, or, you know, ways in which like I said, I, I know the name, but I didn't know that much about her until reading your book. So I don't know some way that that you think something that you think would be beneficial for us to read from her and things that we might take from it?

Emily Dumler-Winkcler 1:03:58

Yeah, you're not alone. So most people have not heard of her. In fact, her daughter is much more famous for her for running Frankenstein. But I would say one of the best places to start with with Wollstonecraft, both because it's short. And because it's just such a dynamic piece is A Vindication of the Rights of men. She's more famous for her Vindication of the Rights of Women, which is quite long. And there are a few really kind of excellent chapters I could commend from that as well. But the Vindication of the Rights of men is a really powerful piece of hers, thinking about the relationship of rights and virtue, and this kind of inherited community, and how political and theological and moral ideas were all interwoven, and really wed in debates about the French Revolution, American Revolution, and, you know, kind of the Revolutionary era of her time, so I would start there.

Charles Kim 1:04:50

Awesome. Well, thank you so much. And the book is modern virtue, Mary Wilson craft and a tradition of dissent. And my guest has been Emily Miller Winkler, and I just want to Hey thanks again for talking with me thanks for having me all right so I'm gonna hit stop

Transcribed by https://otter.ai