What do you think?
Rate this book
The Public Square
Sex and Secularism
How secularism has been used to justify the subordination of women
Joan Wallach Scott’s acclaimed and controversial writings have been foundational for the field of gender history. With Sex and Secularism , Scott challenges one of the central claims of the “clash of civilizations” polemic―the false notion that secularism is a guarantee of gender equality.
Drawing on a wealth of scholarship by second-wave feminists and historians of religion, race, and colonialism, Scott shows that the gender equality invoked today as a fundamental and enduring principle was not originally associated with the term “secularism” when it first entered the lexicon in the nineteenth century. In fact, the inequality of the sexes was fundamental to the articulation of the separation of church and state that inaugurated Western modernity. Scott points out that Western nation-states imposed a new order of women’s subordination, assigning them to a feminized familial sphere meant to complement the rational masculine realms of politics and economics. It was not until the question of Islam arose in the late twentieth century that gender equality became a primary feature of the discourse of secularism.
Challenging the assertion that secularism has always been synonymous with equality between the sexes, Sex and Secularism reveals how this idea has been used to justify claims of white, Western, and Christian racial and religious superiority and has served to distract our attention from a persistent set of difficulties related to gender difference―ones shared by Western and non-Western cultures alike.
Joan Wallach Scott’s acclaimed and controversial writings have been foundational for the field of gender history. With Sex and Secularism , Scott challenges one of the central claims of the “clash of civilizations” polemic―the false notion that secularism is a guarantee of gender equality.
Drawing on a wealth of scholarship by second-wave feminists and historians of religion, race, and colonialism, Scott shows that the gender equality invoked today as a fundamental and enduring principle was not originally associated with the term “secularism” when it first entered the lexicon in the nineteenth century. In fact, the inequality of the sexes was fundamental to the articulation of the separation of church and state that inaugurated Western modernity. Scott points out that Western nation-states imposed a new order of women’s subordination, assigning them to a feminized familial sphere meant to complement the rational masculine realms of politics and economics. It was not until the question of Islam arose in the late twentieth century that gender equality became a primary feature of the discourse of secularism.
Challenging the assertion that secularism has always been synonymous with equality between the sexes, Sex and Secularism reveals how this idea has been used to justify claims of white, Western, and Christian racial and religious superiority and has served to distract our attention from a persistent set of difficulties related to gender difference―ones shared by Western and non-Western cultures alike.
240 pages, Hardcover
Published October 31, 2017
19 people are currently reading
365 people want to read
About the author
Joan Wallach Scott
57 books88 followersJoan Scott is known internationally for writings that theorize gender as an analytic category. She is a leading figure in the emerging field of critical history. Her ground-breaking work has challenged the foundations of conventional historical practice, including the nature of historical evidence and historical experience and the role of narrative in the writing of history, and has contributed to a transformation of the field of intellectual history. Scott's recent books focus on gender and democratic politics. Her works include The Politics of the Veil (2007), Gender and the Politics of History (1988), Only Paradoxes to Offer: French Feminists and the Rights of Man (1996), and Parité: Sexual Equality and the Crisis of French Universalism (2005). Scott graduated from Brandeis University in 1962 and received her PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1969. Before joining the Institute for Advanced Study, Scott taught in the history departments of Brown University, the University of Illinois at Chicago, Northwestern University, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Rutgers University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 4, 2025
Поразительная в своей однобокости книга, которая вовсе не освещает со всех сторон вопрос пола и секуляризма, а сводится к одной мысли, которую авторка любовно оглаживает со всех сторон: а на западе-то тоже есть мизогиния! Вау, вот это новость!
А вы знали, вы знали, что ограничения прав женщин и шариатский суд таковы, каковы есть, из-за влияния «немецкой юридической мысли»?
В общем, будь я лет на 10 младше и с порохом в пороховницах, написала бы большой отзыв с цитатами и пульсирующей веной на лбу. Но мне лень. Единственная цитата из книги, которая передает всю ее суть:
«Гендерное неравенство не уникально для пост колоний, но является чертой современных национальных государств, на западе и востоке».
Любые слова тут излишни.
Отмечу только, что испытываю определенный оценочный кризис, зачем вообще сейчас читать такой нонфик, когда даже претендуя на непредвзятость, он максимально предвзят, а я потратила на него 12 часов своего времени, хотя могла бы просто скормить чатугпт.
А вы знали, вы знали, что ограничения прав женщин и шариатский суд таковы, каковы есть, из-за влияния «немецкой юридической мысли»?
В общем, будь я лет на 10 младше и с порохом в пороховницах, написала бы большой отзыв с цитатами и пульсирующей веной на лбу. Но мне лень. Единственная цитата из книги, которая передает всю ее суть:
«Гендерное неравенство не уникально для пост колоний, но является чертой современных национальных государств, на западе и востоке».
Любые слова тут излишни.
Отмечу только, что испытываю определенный оценочный кризис, зачем вообще сейчас читать такой нонфик, когда даже претендуя на непредвзятость, он максимально предвзят, а я потратила на него 12 часов своего времени, хотя могла бы просто скормить чатугпт.
July 24, 2020
This is a book with a massive scope. Scott largely succeeds in arguing her central thesis: that gender equality is nowhere near given in secularism, which itself is not static but an ever changing discourse that has carried various meanings for various political ends since the eighteenth century (or potentially slightly further back). The development of the modern world has not fostered some kind of automatic equality on the basis of sex or gender (or race or class). Ushering in modernity has actually led to the institution of patterns of inequality.
Much of the content of the book is theory and synthesis of other scholars’ work; it is light on primary source work and contextualization (by design). Though she acknowledges that, the massive scope of the work presents the temptation for overgeneralization, and she stumbles through that trap repeatedly. There is little movement towards nuance in understanding different versions of Christianity (or Islam) at any point in the analysis, or in carving out exceptions to any of her characterizations of modern liberal conceptions of agency, the individual, sex, and gender. I also found her guiding questions to be riddled with assumptions of secularization, i.e., that we do now exist in a modern world where supernatural religion and religion in general are no longer a major part of public life. She cites all kinds of scholars who fall into no such trap (Saba Mahmood, John Modern, Talal Asad, etc.) and who dominate the literature on the critique of secularism, but she does not apply their nuanced understanding of the messiness and slightly fantastical nature of secularism as thoroughly as most post-secular critique scholars have of late.
But those criticisms aside, Scott’s work is hugely generative for reflecting on how the advance of secularism has actually been tied up with the hardening of lines of gender, sex, public/private, reason/passion, and other dualities along which value and power are often allocated. She does the necessary and difficult (intensely controversial) work of challenging the dominant modern liberal western conception of agency, freedom, and sex that have coalesced to make Muslim women into the ultimate enemy of modern, free societies. She is particularly convincing in the last chapter, wherein she describes Western democratic society as privileging false notions of agency and choice—especially with respect to sex and physical desire—to a fault. In other words, the ability to discern your desires (usually sexual) and to act on them freely is now considered a primary condition for being eligible for participation in Western democratic society/public life. If we as good Western liberals (a phrase that encompasses all of American politics) detect any kind of restriction of choice, particularly sexual choice, we tweak.
For instance, Muslim women (or anyone following Shari’a) who do not have the social and religious license to freely act on their sexuality have become the image of oppression and the antithesis to modern Western liberal democracies as a result of that privileging of a specific, extremely recently created Western liberal notion of agency. I do not think that Scott recognizes the prevalence of Westerners who would take some issue with such a late twentieth century liberal idea of agency (which comes straight out of the sexual revolution of the sixties and Second Wave feminism and of the increasing “marketization” of every aspect of our lives, often termed “neoliberalism”). However, I thought she nailed it on the head that Western political and social discourse often trumpets sexual liberalization as the fruit of secularism, democracy, liberalism, and the West itself.
Moreover, she demonstrates well how such notions of sexual emancipation have been imbricated in the increasing commodification of our cultures. Those who have been sexually emancipated are still not equal—in particular, Westerners pursuing and promoting sexual freedom as the road to gender equality are often still constrained by sexual asymmetries. In plain English, the celebration of sexual freedom often takes the form of celebrating the reality of female bodies being on greater and freer display for male eyes. Sexual emancipation can be and is co-opted then for (sexual) consumerism—the bodies of sexually liberated people are commodified, subsumed into one market or another, and somebody else gets to make a profit. Making a profit yourself, off of your own body, is then further encouraged. It is a powerful thing when one of the most prominent feminist historians and academics of the last few decades argues that we have really stepped in some ish with this prevailing notion of sexual freedom and agency. Basically, it’s not as rosy as many Westerners think.
Finally, I appreciated her insistence that the notion of a totally independent, self-governed agent is a myth. This has been secularism’s aim throughout almost all of its various iterations and ends: to craft particular versions of a totally autonomous agent, free from all outside influences and systems. That perfectly agentic self functions as the goal of the society and the state which manages life therein. But it can’t be done, team! We are small humans whose choices and selves are more constrained than we think!
Much of the content of the book is theory and synthesis of other scholars’ work; it is light on primary source work and contextualization (by design). Though she acknowledges that, the massive scope of the work presents the temptation for overgeneralization, and she stumbles through that trap repeatedly. There is little movement towards nuance in understanding different versions of Christianity (or Islam) at any point in the analysis, or in carving out exceptions to any of her characterizations of modern liberal conceptions of agency, the individual, sex, and gender. I also found her guiding questions to be riddled with assumptions of secularization, i.e., that we do now exist in a modern world where supernatural religion and religion in general are no longer a major part of public life. She cites all kinds of scholars who fall into no such trap (Saba Mahmood, John Modern, Talal Asad, etc.) and who dominate the literature on the critique of secularism, but she does not apply their nuanced understanding of the messiness and slightly fantastical nature of secularism as thoroughly as most post-secular critique scholars have of late.
But those criticisms aside, Scott’s work is hugely generative for reflecting on how the advance of secularism has actually been tied up with the hardening of lines of gender, sex, public/private, reason/passion, and other dualities along which value and power are often allocated. She does the necessary and difficult (intensely controversial) work of challenging the dominant modern liberal western conception of agency, freedom, and sex that have coalesced to make Muslim women into the ultimate enemy of modern, free societies. She is particularly convincing in the last chapter, wherein she describes Western democratic society as privileging false notions of agency and choice—especially with respect to sex and physical desire—to a fault. In other words, the ability to discern your desires (usually sexual) and to act on them freely is now considered a primary condition for being eligible for participation in Western democratic society/public life. If we as good Western liberals (a phrase that encompasses all of American politics) detect any kind of restriction of choice, particularly sexual choice, we tweak.
For instance, Muslim women (or anyone following Shari’a) who do not have the social and religious license to freely act on their sexuality have become the image of oppression and the antithesis to modern Western liberal democracies as a result of that privileging of a specific, extremely recently created Western liberal notion of agency. I do not think that Scott recognizes the prevalence of Westerners who would take some issue with such a late twentieth century liberal idea of agency (which comes straight out of the sexual revolution of the sixties and Second Wave feminism and of the increasing “marketization” of every aspect of our lives, often termed “neoliberalism”). However, I thought she nailed it on the head that Western political and social discourse often trumpets sexual liberalization as the fruit of secularism, democracy, liberalism, and the West itself.
Moreover, she demonstrates well how such notions of sexual emancipation have been imbricated in the increasing commodification of our cultures. Those who have been sexually emancipated are still not equal—in particular, Westerners pursuing and promoting sexual freedom as the road to gender equality are often still constrained by sexual asymmetries. In plain English, the celebration of sexual freedom often takes the form of celebrating the reality of female bodies being on greater and freer display for male eyes. Sexual emancipation can be and is co-opted then for (sexual) consumerism—the bodies of sexually liberated people are commodified, subsumed into one market or another, and somebody else gets to make a profit. Making a profit yourself, off of your own body, is then further encouraged. It is a powerful thing when one of the most prominent feminist historians and academics of the last few decades argues that we have really stepped in some ish with this prevailing notion of sexual freedom and agency. Basically, it’s not as rosy as many Westerners think.
Finally, I appreciated her insistence that the notion of a totally independent, self-governed agent is a myth. This has been secularism’s aim throughout almost all of its various iterations and ends: to craft particular versions of a totally autonomous agent, free from all outside influences and systems. That perfectly agentic self functions as the goal of the society and the state which manages life therein. But it can’t be done, team! We are small humans whose choices and selves are more constrained than we think!
October 21, 2018
Joan Wallace Scott takes on the political rhetoric that denigrates Islam as oppressive to women by contrast to the secular, sexually liberated West. In a dense, deeply researched book, she paints a broad historical narrative showing how sexism is integral to the development of the "secular" state. She argues that a focus on sexual freedom as a marker of gender equality obscures other, persistent inequalities, like economic inequality between men and women.
I feel like I'd need to reread this at least once more to fully get my head around her arguments - it's a very theoretical book, leaning heavily on Foucault and occasionally veering into Freud and Lacan.
I feel like I'd need to reread this at least once more to fully get my head around her arguments - it's a very theoretical book, leaning heavily on Foucault and occasionally veering into Freud and Lacan.
March 6, 2025
Really good overview. What Scott calls a polemic against the myth of a) secularism as inherently good for gender equality and b) the Big Bad Wolf of Islam oppressing women. Moves at breakneck speed from the 17th century to post-9/11, sometimes losing strength along the way, but overall an exceptional book and one that I would buy if it wasn’t like $50 for 180 words. Recommend if you are interested in the construction of gender in the secular West and/or interested in the weaponization of gender equality to justify Islamophobia.
January 12, 2022
I “grad school” read this book today for class prep. The introduction was really great, and I thought Scott did a great job of summing up recent scholarship on secularism and what she means by treating it discursively. I decided to assign the intro and at least one chapter to an upper level lecture course on the history of unbelief in the US. Particularly useful is her treatment in the 4th and 5th chapters of the ways that the cold war encouraged the western world to more closely identify with Christianity, and that when the cold war ended the west shifted its focus to Islam as its primary foil, especially when it came to matters religious and sexual. She also argues that secularism isn’t a guarantee of gender equality. I think others who are concerned with these issues will find her work instructive.
March 24, 2024
really great overview of the relation between gender and political secularism. it’s a great book to get one’s feet wet in both Scott’s theory of gender and to better understand how the secular is not a neutral ground but rather a politico-discursive project. it’s not too long either, which makes it a great intro book. this, of course, is also its downfall as Scott makes some pretty hefty claims at different points without too much space for evidence. she is also fast and loose with periodization and geography, which seems to increasingly he a hallmark of the genealogical method. still, very good!
Read
April 26, 2023i am thankfully done with Theo 278
October 17, 2024
Messy, broad, erudite beyond all reason, thought provoking and dense, if a bit reasoning in broad strokes at times
March 30, 2025
Scott uses history to show how secularism does not guarantee, nor has it always (or ever) been equated with gender equality. She in fact goes to great lengths to show that the opposite has been true - that gender inequality was an essential element to the rise of secularism with the separation of church and state, and that modern Western secularism simply enacted a new brand of subordination on women. Secularism really only became associated strongly with gender equality at the end of the twentieth century as a way to combat and measure the West against Islam.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews