ENRICHMENT: Berkeley’s Views on Gender, Race, and Slavery

While not a great deal is known about Anne and her relationship with Berkeley, according to Berkeley:

I chose her for the qualities of her mind and her unaffected inclination to books. She goes with great cheerfulness to live a plain farmer’s life, and wears stuff of her own spinning wheel, and for her encouragement I have assured her that from henceforward there shall never be one yard of silk bought for the use of myself, herself, or any of our family.[1]

A.A. Luce writes that Anne Berkeley was a well-educated and highly cultured, intelligent and intellectually engaged. She may have been a follower of semi-quietists such as Fénelon and Madame de Guyon.[2] (Given Berkeley’s authorship of Ladies Library, it is clear that he too was also familiar with Fénelon). Berkeley wrote of Anne during their stay in America, “. . .my wife loves a country life and books so well as to pass her time contentedly and cheerfully without any other conversation than her husband and the dead.”[3]

A letter written by Elizabeth Montagu indicates that some of the “blue-stocking” ladies were particularly offended by Anne Berkeley’s “intire obedience” to Berkeley and her “perfect adoration” of the man. According to Montagu:

. . . Mrs Berkeley said such a Man as Dr Berkeley deserved uncommon attentions, & she thought it wd be strange presumption to oppose the design & inclinations of one so much superior to her, thus she dignified her choice, recommended her obedience & preserved unprejudiced the rights & privileges of other Ladies whose Husbands had not the like plea for their submission.[4] 

This “intire obedience” for which Berkeley had pled while troubling must be nuanced by the views Berkeley expresses about women in The Ladies Library. Presumably the author of the Introduction, Berkeley begins writing (as “a lady”):

Being by nature more inclined to such Enquiries as by general Custom my Sex is debarr’d from, I could not resist a strong Propensity to Reading; and having flattered my self that what I read dwelt with Improvement upon my Mind, I could not but conclude that a due regard being had to different Circumstances of Life, it is a great Injustice to shut Books of Knowledge from the Eyes of Women [5]

Berkeley goes on to cite the awful views about women found in works by men of letters. Berkeley writes of such writings, “I could not have believed from their general and undistinguished Aspersions that many of these Men had any such Relations as Mothers, Wives or Sisters . . .” He later writes, “They are perhaps in the right who speak of mere Women; and it is the business of ingenious debauch’d Men, who regard us only as such, to give us those Ideas of our selves, that we may become their more easy Prey.” In general, the views expressed The Ladies Library about the relationship between women and learning is consistent with his intellectual relationship with Anne Berkeley.  This does not, however, address this issue of “obedience.”

There are also deep tensions in Berkeley’s views about indigenous Americans and African slaves. Berkeley clearly rejects the early racist view that Africans are of an inferior race. He speaks of “an irrational Contempt of the Blacks, as Creatures of another Species” (Works VII, p. 122). Yet he speaks against this “irrational contempt” only to merely contest the refusal to baptize slaves, not against slavery itself. Indeed, he undertakes to oppose the view that baptism is inconsistent with slavery. He argues that baptism would only produce better slaves: “That Gospel Liberty consists with Temporal Servitude; and that their Slaves would only become better Slaves by being Christians” (Works VII, p. 346). The complaint that Berkeley does not object to slavery is not an anachronistic one, since an anti-slavery movement existed during this time. Indeed, his support of slavery cannot even be supported by a straightforward appeal to Christian scripture, since some already viewed the two as inconsistent.

Similarly, while Berkeley does not believe that this is essential to them, he nonetheless refers to native Americans as savages and speaks of “the many Torments and cruel Deaths which they daily inflict on each other” and “horrid Crimes they commit without Remorse” (Works VII, p. 345).  Indeed, he goes so far as to recommend kidnapping young “savages” from their parents in order to convert them before they are thoroughly corrupted. That said, after his stay in America, Berkeley’s eyes were opened enough for him to write:

Those native Indians, who are said to have been formerly many Thousands, within the compass of this Colony, do not at present amount to one Thousand, including every Age and Sex. And these are either all Servants or Labourers for the English, who have contributed more to destroy their Bodies by the Use of strong Liquors, than by any means to improve their Minds or save their Souls. This slow Poison, jointly operating with the Small-Pox, and their Wars . . . hath consumed the Indians, not only in our Colonies, but also far and wide upon our Confines. (Works VII, p. 121)

 So, he certainly does not endorse the view that native Americans deserve ill-treatment. Indeed, he sees the process of “civilization” and Christianity as goods which are deserved by all.

The questions of Anne’s “obedience,” Berkeley’s support of slavery, and his proposal to kidnap young native Americans need not be answered together, of course. Certainly, we do not have nearly enough information to well understand the relationship between Ann and George Berkeley. Yet, all of these issues do seem to be of a piece with Berkeley’s general philosophical-theological outlook. William Uzgalis, for example, has pointed to Berkeley’s political views (expressed in Passive Obedience).[6] This may illuminate, in part, Berkeley’s troubling views about the kidnapping of young native Americans and the slavery of Africans. One is likewise tempted to speculate that he may have held similar views about marriage (or at least his specific relationship with Anne). However, it may also be worth placing his political views within a larger context. Anne’s possible acceptance of quietism (or semi-quietism) may suggest that both Anne and George Berkeley held particular views about a divine requirement of passivity. Indeed, as we shall ultimately see, Berkeley’s own views about the communicative relationship between God and human being are suggestive an especially strong form of submission to God which may ground his other related view about submission.