Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and L. Lind-af-Hageby [1]
Abstract
The political views and topics of concern to public figures Olympe de Gouges (1748−1793), Emma Goldman (1869−1940), and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby (1878−1963) differ widely. However, by using a perspective of feminist tradition of freedom of speech, numerous commonalities in work and personas emerge. Indeed, these thinkers, writers, and activists may be viewed as fellow partly privileged rebellious performers; liberators of public space by open-mindedness, dissolvers of traditional borders circumscribing the agora, self-liberators voicing dissent also in relation to their own peer groups and/or movements.
Historical scholarship, informed by feminist theory, has emphasized how the position of the historian is a location for interpretation and assessment, and a battleground of power enactments. This feminist theoretical view often entails a visiting or revisiting of the past from situated knowledge sites of possible objectivity, critically engaging in cross-temporal and cross-continental conversations.[2] As a feminist, informed by queer studies and studies of multifaceted marginalization, I employ the method of observing actions and writings diverging from hegemonic norms (discourses) and normativity (material acts, relations, institutions) concerning gender and politically marked positions, and categories, including non-human animals and nature.[3] In this chapter, I intend to highlight the position of feminist stage dissidence in the life and work of the politically active writers and speakers Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby.
Free speech may be interpreted as formal and political freedom of speech, and as individual and collective bodily expressions, that offer possibilities for reflections about public space, personal space, natural space, and non-human space. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Brigitte Mral, Andrea Lundsford, Christine Mason Sutherland, Rebecca Sutcliffe and other scholars have developed standard rhetoric history by emphasizing the many women orators from past centuries and their struggle to express themselves publicly.[4] Inspired by Candance Falk’s analysis of Emma Goldman’s stage presence as political theatre and Janie Venpée’s analysis of Olympe de Gouges’ missions as a drama, my vantage-point is to accentuate proto-feminists or feminists who were outspoken in public but were stigmatized and/or silenced by society and/or by their own movements.[5] Such studying of life-dramas may be of value theoretically by inviting conversations about past and contemporary societies and events and for the (r)evolution of feminist research. Informed by feminist theatre and performance analysis, I highlight two acknowledged political thinkers, together with a public speaker and author famous in her days, thus merging in thought two time periods and two continents: the playwright and writer during the French Revolution, Olympe de Gouges (1748−1793), the lifetime speaker, thinker, editor, and writer in the American, and Russian, class struggle, Emma Goldman (1869−1940), and the speaker, editor, writer and anti-vivisection proponent in the early decades of the 20th century, Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby (1878−1963).[6] I perceive the three public figures’ respective transformations of public space as liberating performative acts: writing philosophy about or for the stage; ascending and speaking on stage; creating and occupying new arenas or politics; widening the social space by bringing one’s voice, and body, from the outskirts to centre stage.[7]
In studying the literary activist performers in their most active periods, differences show; however, many unities surface as well; brilliance of thought and action, misunderstanding, and defamation, in their time and from posterity. Olympe de Gouges was stigmatized in the writings of French historians and was not researched until the last decades of the 20th century. However, she wrote the first European declaration of women’s rights with the words declaration and women’s rights in the title, Déclaration des droits de la Femme et de la citoyenne (1791), condemning the institution of human slavery, connecting it to the “unjust and powerful interests of Whites”.[8] Emma Goldman, famous and provocative for her emancipative message, in Clare Hemmings’s words, “the larger-than-life-anarchist”, has been significantly researched.[9] Yet she may still be viewed as a dogmatic advocator of violence though she was one of few sympathizers of the Russian revolution who criticised its violence.[10] Lizzy Lind-af- Hageby has mainly been overlooked in our time despite her status as an acclaimed public debater and speaker. She was also a known feminist and peace activist in her time, a founder of an international diplomatic agency for the protection of animals and a presenter of August Strindberg to English-speaking audiences by writing the first biography on today’s world celebrated dramatist and author.[11]
In an earlier work I discussed Emma Goldman’s and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby’s respective publications on August Strindberg, here I invite the playwright Olympe de Gouges to join their imagined company of public figures with a passionate relation to theatre and the stage as a public political space.[12] By exploring these three performers in terms of employment of the stage as a place to share ideas and propositions, I stress their expansion of the stage as an expanded miniature democratic agora. Hence, past, present, and future are momentarily dissolved into what the theatre and performance scholar Jill Dolan calls the “utopian performative”, a social and political self-realization of the performer(s) and the audience.[13] Indeed, by observing unifying aspects of these three self-liberators, i.e., Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, they come to exist, for a moment, on the same stage, challenging notions of public space by artistically airing topics of political concern, voicing dissent also in relation to their peer groups and/or movements, defying the political rulings of their time, yet in unsolvable dispute with one another.
To grasp the phenomenon “political women on stage”, it is helpful to reminisce on the ancient and longstanding Western social and political tradition of prescribed female silence, as it existed under a father, husband, or brother’s jurisdiction; in the home, in the street, and on the stage; in the workplace under the rules of the private owner and the laws of the state and the municipality. Of specific interest in this context is the silencing of female voices that express authority or independence and women that are heard and seen by others. This tradition of silencing is clearly and early visible in European literature. An example, discussed by Mary Beard in Women and Power, is Homer’s The Odyssey from the eighth century BC, Telemachus commanding his mother: “[G]o back up into your quarters, and take up your own work, the loom and the distaff […] speech will be the business of men, all men, and of me most of all; for mine is the power in this household”.[14] Another example is the Bible’s exclusion of the female category from the range of self-governing voices, including leaders, teachers and preachers, declaring, in Corinthians: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in the church”.[15] A human categorized into the female class speaking and instructing others has been interpreted as being “[A] shame to themselves, as being contrary to the natural modesty and bashfulness of the sex, and a shame to the church, to the non-members of it, and especially to the elders, and more experienced part of it, to be taught and directed by a woman”.[16] To recall the longevity of the tradition in Europe, the attitudes against mathematician and lecturer Hypatia (350-370 – 415 A.D.) of Alexandria are a good example. Hypatia was expelled and killed for her ontological sceptical belief, and for her refusal to abide to the early Christian silencing of female instructors of men. And it was reiterated many centuries later, by the young French Republic in relation to Olympe de Gouges, executing her by guillotine four days after the decree of October 1793 which banned the category of women from organizing and taking part in formal politics.[17] In the USA, it was directed against the Afro-American businesswoman Maria W. Miller Stewart (1802−1879), promoter of women’s rights and the abolition of slavery, first woman to speak to audiences of both women and men, black and white, when she must stop her work due to the racism and gynophobia that afflicted her.[18] Maria W. Miller Stewart’s pioneering public speaking was followed by Sojourner Truth (1797−1883), Angelina Grimké (1805−1879), and Sarah Parker Remond (1826−1894), the last-mentioned active in both the USA and England, all of whom lectured in favour of women’s rights and abolition but were forced to end speaking on stage due to threats, even arson, from the public.[19]
On a scale measuring personal autonomy and authority, the stage, as a public space, constitutes the emblematic location for political enactments of privileged storytelling. From this viewpoint, women on stage perform as bodies contesting the ancient body of power. This subject is touched upon early by Aristotle in his book Politics; the legitimate citizen and speaker at the agora is the one fulfilling the criteria of being human, exteriorly male, adult, non-slave, not labourer, of wealth, normally shaped in relation to the elite group, native and from the centre of society.[20] In their respective time-periods, neither meeting the traditional criteria for full citizenship and speaker agency, Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind-af- Hageby made the personal political by explicitly advocating free speech and defying contemporary regulations. Formal freedom of speech was denied to Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby when she had been defeated in a libel suit and had to change her and her partner Leisa Schartau’s investigative The Shambles of Science (1903) because of a chapter giving witness to painful experiments on animals.[21] It was similarly refused to Emma Goldman as a speaker when she contemplated subjects that were considered illegal. Her promotion of free love and sex, contraception, and organizing unions, advising starving people to ask for work and if not given work, to “take bread” since it was everyone’s “sacred right” was regarded dangerous to the state.[22] So was her incitement of young men to resist military service in World War, and her general message of anarchism and women’s emancipation.[23] Freedom of speech was also denied to Olympe de Gouges as a female intellectual criticizing the breaching of the constitution of 1793 (the right to criticize the government).[24] Ensuing her arrest in the early autumn of 1793, Olympe de Gouges stated that she had been robbed of her liberty: “In the seventh article of the Constitution, is freedom of opinion and of the press not established as the most precious heritage of mankind?”.[25]
Theorizing about political performance, Judith Butler’s argues that the performative is a result of physical acts, perceived of as direct action, demonstrations of everyday behaviour.[26] Building upon Butler’s thinking Aldo Milohnić stresses the “aesthetic dimension to political activity” by becoming part of the tradition “of using one’s own body as a means of political action”.[27] Similarly, Chantal Mouffe’s argues that “critical art is art that foments dissensus, that makes visible what the dominant consensus tends to obscure and obliterate”.[28] In this context, the performances of Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby indeed created critical art on stage “aiming to dismantle or challenge the categories that are made invisible through privilege”.[29] In their ɶuvres, aesthetic intent showed directly. For example, Olympe de Gouges’ choice of form of expression in her social and naturalistic theatre dramas insisting that the white actors should wear black make up and Emma Goldman’s blend of “several oratorical styles” in her “associative and free-flowing” lectures.[30] Among other things, Emma Goldman invented gestures to stop the police from arresting her, chained herself to the platform, thus symbolically muffling herself with handkerchiefs.[31] Famously, she insisted on the right of everybody to dance and enjoy “beautiful, radiant things” particularly “flowers, for instance, music, the theatre”, as Goldman herself describes in her autobiography Living My Life.[32] Lastly, to mediate her political message in a diplomatic way, Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby practiced humour and self-directed moulding of gestures and oratory in the style of Cicero’s (106−43 B.C.) rhetorical performance.[33] This style included corporal diction and gestic aesthetics docere (argument), delectare (entertain), movere (with poetic language touch the audience emotionally) from his book Orator.[34]
To plan for the usage of the theatrical platform implies a mutual understanding between the performer/playwright, the organizer, and the audience. However, to enter the stage proved to be a struggle and Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby were in their time met with hindrances in diverse forms. Olympe de Gouges debated and quarrelled her way to the prestigious Comédie Française in defiance of the fact that the theatre did not permit female playwrights, the staging of her slavery-critical drama was postponed for years, and when eventually played, slave-owners and colonists acted against her to make it unsuccessful.[35] Emma Goldman was stopped by laws, regulations, and physically by the police, and, on several occasions, she was sentenced to prison for her public speaking.[36] Finally, Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby spoke during rallies and disturbances aimed at silencing her and she was sued for her writing.[37] Thus, the professional airing of political issues on stage – the usage of space traditionally permitted only to men of power – was met with harassments, sabotage, threats, fines, prison sentences, and/or extradition, even execution. To voice their respective views publicly and freely as women entailed being criticized or censored also by one’s respective peer groups. Other revolutionaries, including fellow women, and actors at the theatre, in the case of Olympe de Gouges; fellow anarchists in the case of Emma Goldman’s critique of Lenin for excessive violence and for the suppression of differing opinions in the Russian revolution; the press, and antagonists, in the case of Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby’s complaints about her being “attacked” and “misrepresented” and her organizations afflicted by “infiltration”.[38] To both belong and not belong became a familiar liminal place; the three women held a dissenting position also in relation to their family. For example, Olympe de Gouges disputed her biological father because he did not openly acknowledge her as his daughter, his denial inspiring her to successfully campaign for the formal acceptance of les enfants naturel, children born outside of wedlock.[39] Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby revolted against the urgings of her relatives to get married and establish a traditional family, living all her life with other women, and non-human animals, writing to her brother: “How in heaven, you in these times of enlightenment, dare to advise me to start a family, I can’t say!!! Do I not have a ‘home’!!!”.[40] Finally, Emma Goldman rebelled against her authoritarian and violent father, and as a 16-year-old emigrated to the USA to live with her sister and work in a glove factory. She later concluded in regard to family life, that “Marriage is to Love as Capitalism is to Labor” thereby further developing Olympe de Gouges credo in her Déclaration from 1791 that “Marriage is the tomb of trust and love”.[41]
Transgressive in their overall approach, all three respective authors embraced a new language, simultaneously by choice and by necessity. Olympe de Gouges’ mother tongue being Occitan did not deter her from publishing and presenting as a playwright in French. Emma Goldman’s mother tongues were Yiddish and Russian, but she wrote and spoke in English, German, and French, and toured in the USA and Europe, writing her acclaimed study in English on the modern drama in which she commends the dramatist August Strindberg.[42] Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, with her mother tongue Swedish, wrote about the theatre, and held speeches in English, French, and German, and published the first Strindberg biography in English.[43]
Regarding the topic of free speech, Olympe de Gouges asserted that a human voice, since it had been created by nature, ought never be corrected.[44] In a similar vein, Emma Goldman heralded freedom of speech as a natural human right to be expressed by individuals and the people rather than given by the state.[45] Correspondingly, Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby debated and spoke freely on stage without a manuscript.[46] Sensitive to injustices, voicing both rational and emotional critique in public, Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind- af-Hageby were all pungent writers commenting on their personal existence in the female category. Furthermore, I argue, that what they have in common is a disputing of what might be called the ideology of exteriorism, prejudgements regarding the relationship between personality/traits and the exterior body. A good example is Olympe de Gouges in stating when meeting a person who had disseminated condescending and false stories about her:
”Monsieur, I have listened to your silly ramblings with the calm of a philosopher, the courage of a good man, and with an observant eye. I am this Madame Gouges, whom you have never known, and whom you are not made to know, but profit from the lesson I am teaching you; men of your kind are common and easy to find but understand that it takes centuries to make women such as myself.”[47]
Similarly, Emma Goldman, responded to a union official at an automobile plant in a Labor hall in Detroit 1919 after he had introduced her as an orator to the audience by stating that her name contained the words “gold” and “man” because she was a speaker of authority:
”By the introduction of our good chairman, I can see that he is a man. The conceit of the male that when you think deeply and express yourself with intensity, you must be manly and not womanly. I want to tell him that I know any amount of men who neither think nor express themselves in any shape or form!”[48]
And Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, member of the suffrage organization Women’s Freedom League, analyzing the normative realms of women and men in “Sex and Evolution”, in her series of lectures during the struggle for women’s suffrage, at the Queen’s Hall in London 1914:
”We don’t know ’woman’ as yet. We only know a creature whose human qualities have been stifled at the expense of her sexual qualities […]. The whole idea of what woman can do and cannot do is entirely one of geography, of circumstances, of environment, of convention.”[49]
Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby were categorized as white women in their respective time periods, and they reacted to this station by objecting to the norms and rules of prevalent society. For instance, Olympe de Gouges became one of the very few public women during the French Revolution to speak in favour of the abolition of slavery, Emma Goldman consistently accentuated social class as the foremost oppressive factor and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby praised the hybrid human existence in her book Mountain Meditations, and Some Subjects of the Day and the War from 1917:
”They forget, our apostles of the creed of separateness, that the States of to-day are built upon a vast mixture of races and nationalities. They forget also that nationality is not a fixed and immovable quantity. Like personality, it is alive and changing, susceptible to influence and experience, liable to psychic contagion from the thoughts and emotion of others. There is no pure nationality. Hybrids are regarded as inferior creatures, as biological outlaws. The truth is, we are all hybrids.”[50]
Following Sara Ahmed’s theory of “how spaces can take on the very qualities” given to bodies becoming white or failing to do so, applying it to qualities of normatively gendered and racialized bodies, one may suggest that for most centuries in Western history, open spaces were inherited as white privileged hetero human able-bodied male.[51] In contrast, bodies perceived as belonging to the female category, performing, moving, acting freely in the open, were in general, and in political discourse, denigrated, regarded as shameful and lesser worthy performances of the minor human, adjacent to the largely nullified categories of animals and nature. In terms of self-creation, the three literary thinkers challenged and negotiated the collision between the inherited space of the fully-worthy speaking human and the female performative of silence and absence versus the female performative of occupying space on stage and in the streets. Emma Goldman questioned society’s highly hypocritical view of sexuality, and even regarded contemporary prostitution as a somewhat better prison compared to what a married woman had to endure in the home with its unpaid work and sexual slavery.[52] Comparably, Olympe de Gouges advocated free love and took sides with the women of the Parisian streets.[53] Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby was active against the regulation of prostitution.[54]
Olympe de Gouges, the “single mother”,[55] declared her membership in the female category, while questioning, even playing with, the categorization, defending general equality by referring to non-human animals and nature, proclaiming what one might today call the evolutionary truth of the common denominator, the transforming parity: ”I am an animal without equal; I am neither man nor woman, I have all the courage of one and sometimes the weaknesses of the other.”[56] In asserting herself as neither sex, and both sexes, one might say that Olympe de Gouges threw down the gauntlet of resistance to feminists in the future – our present – for instance Judith Butler in Gender Trouble describes current human conditions: “[B]eing sexed and being human are coextensive and simultaneous; sex is an analytic attribute of the human; there is no human who is not sexed; sex qualifies the human as a necessary attribute.”[57] By embracing the terms “animals” and “nature”, Olympe de Gouges defied the majority of her contemporaries and their interrelated disparaging of the categories of women and coloured people; and non-human animals, and nature; and, instead, in solidarity, she acknowledged all of humanity’s parity in the larger realm of Animalia or Metazoans.
In their respective performative acts on stage, Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby represented the outskirts of the polis, the peripheral site and dimension in relation to the democratic agora but close to nature; the place of the politically excluded human and non-human; the space where services, products, bodies, and natural resources are exchanged and exploited. As a case in point, Emma Goldman, in writing in her journal Mother Earth, uses the passenger ship and its hierarchical structure to highlight environmental destruction and injustice:
”Must the Earth forever be arranged like an ocean steamer, with large luxurious rooms and luxurious food for a select few, and underneath the steerage, where the great mass can barely breathe from dirt and poisonous air? Neither unconquerable external nor internal necessities forces the human race to such life; that which keeps it in such condition are ignorance and indifference.”[58]
The three literary activists merged locations – the formally political stage with the formally non-political off-stage, the centre with the periphery, the agora with the stoa, and beyond. Thus moulding a geographical space reparative of commons, a utopian blending of citizen actors with non-citizen actors, the marginalized majority with the minority of wealth and influence, humans with non-humans. Employing their personal talent and acquired skills, responding to unequal and/or exclusionary politics, the three political presenters, to use the thinking of Sara Ahmed, made absence visible by “aiming to dismantle or challenge the categories that are made invisible through privilege”.[59] Their work and life dramas elucidated the status and position of the partly privileged dissident, the one in-between, the “established outsider”;[60] a disclosing of the complex existence of endeavouring to dislocate a socially and politically subordinate position, tearing down the fences for others in the audience to do the same, pointing to the possibilities and difficulties of solidarity with one’s own and with other categories relegated by society. Thus, the stage transformed, from being a place of white human male privileged power, into a place for self-creation, doing persona in one’s own desired way, airing thoughts and ideas for new audiences to agree or disagree with. In their performative action, they liberated themselves from the female slavery of muteness, acting against, and negotiating, formal and informal gender performances, speaking themselves into “intellectual self-confidence”, “freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation”,[61] receiving approval, and severe critique, from their movement/collective and family; to subsequently, and at the end of the day, find themselves rather alone. In an appreciative article in Mother Earth about Olympe de Gouges’ contemporary Mary Wollstonecraft, Emma Goldman shared her experience and insight into the tragic condition of the pathfinder:
”In conflict with every institution of their time since they will not compromise, it is inevitable that the advance guards should become aliens to the very one[s] they wish to serve; that they should be isolated, shunned, and repudiated by the nearest and dearest of kin. Yet the tragedy every pioneer must experience is not the lack of understanding – it arises from the fact that having seen new possibilities for human advancement, the pioneers cannot take root in the old, and with the new still far off they become outcast roamers of the earth, restless seekers for the things they will never find.” [62]
In one sense, and to follow Emma Goldman’s view, one may agree that Olympe de Gouges, Emma Goldman, and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, each in their own way, lived the life symbolic of the pathfinder, the “outcast roamer of the Earth”. In another sense and following the idea of the utopian performative, it may be suggested that these open-minded trailblazers, personally and publicly, did find what they searched for; an open space – the stage – in which to rest in temporal available galaxy; the bodily revolutionary moment of free thinking and acting, opposing any attempt of putting anyone, or anything, in (their) place.
Notes
[1] An abridged version was presented, by the author, Lisa Gålmark, at the Symposium of Feminist Philosophy: Rethinking Public Space, Nordic Summer University and Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, Oslo University 8-10 March 2018. This version is accessible on academia.edu (2022).
[2] Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1988, pp. 575-599.
[3] Tiina Rosenberg, Queerfeministisk agenda (Stockholm: Atlas, 2002); Kimberlé W. Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine”, University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 1989, No. 1, Article 8; Angela Davis, Women, Race & Class (New York, NY: Random House, 1981). Concerning the power-marked relationship between humans and non-humans, the author L. Gålmark’s view is found in Skönheter och odjur: en feministisk kritik av djur – människa-relationen (Stockholm & Göteborg: Makadam, 2005) and “Aristotle Revisited: Anthro-Androcentrism and Meat Normativity”, in Ragnhild Sollund (ed.), Global Harms: Ecological Crime and Speciesism (Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publ., 2008), pp. 87-108.
[4] Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric, Vol. 1 (New York: Praeger, 1989); Brigitte Mral, Talande kvinnor: kvinnliga retoriker från Aspasia till Ellen Key (Ödåkra: Retorikförlaget, 2011); Christine Mason Sutherland & Rebecca Sutcliffe (ed.), The Changing Tradition: Women in the History of Rhetoric (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1999); Andrea A. Lundsford (ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the Rhetorical Tradition (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, 1995).
[5] Candace Falk, “Emma Goldman: Passion, Politics, and the Theatrics of Free Expression”, Women’s History Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2002; Venpée, Janie (1999) “Performing Justice: The trials of Olympe de Gouges”, Theatre Journal, Vol. 51, 1999, pp. 47-65. I use here the term “feminist” philosophically to signify a person who, regardless of the time period, forwards or is sympathetic to the emancipation of women in society.
[6] Early works observing Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby: E. Westacott, A Century of Vivisection and Anti-Vivisection: A Study of their Effect Upon Science, Medicine and Human Life during the Past Hundred Years (Ashingdon, Rochford, Essex: C.W. Daniel, 1940); John Vyvyan, The Dark Face of Science (London: M. Joseph, 1971); Coral Lansbury, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England (University of Wisconsin Press, 1985); Mary Ann Elston, “Women and Anti-vivisection in Victorian England, 1870–1900”, in Nicolaas A. Rupke (ed.), Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987); Hilda Kean, “The ‘Smooth Cool Men of Science’: The Feminist and Socialist Response to Vivisection”, History Workshop Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1995, p. 20; Richard D. Ryder, Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism (Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989); Hilda Kean, Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800 (London: Reaktion Books, 1998). In Swedish the author Ivar-Lo Johansson discusses Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby in a short story in Nunnan i Vadstena (Stockholm: Bonnier, 1973) and Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby’s work is focused on in Elisabeth Gålmark, “Shambles of Science, Lizzy Lind af Hageby & Leisa Schartau, anti-vivisektionister 1900˗1913/14” (History Department, Stockholm University, 1996, printed by Federativ 1997) with a version in English: Lisa Gålmark, “Women Anti-vivisectionists: The Story of Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Leisa Schartau”, Animal Issues: Philosophical and Ethical Issues Related to Human/Animal Interactions, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2000.
[7] For ground-breaking feminist theatre and performance theory in English-speaking academia, see Sue-Ellen Case (ed.), Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre (Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990); Ellen Donkin & Susan Clement (eds.), Upstaging Big Daddy: Directing Theater as if Gender and Race Matter (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1993).
[8] Olympe de Gouges, “Reflexions sur les hommes nègres”, in Doris Y. Kadish & Françoise Massardier-Kenney (ed.), Translating Slavery, Gender and Race in French Women’s Writing 1784–1823 (Kent, Ohio, and London: Kent State University, 1994), p. 229.
[9] Clare Hemmings, Considering Emma Goldman: Feminist Political Ambivalence and the Imaginative Archive (Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2018), p. 1.
[10] Emma Goldman, Den dansande agitatorn: texter i urval av Anita Goldman (Stockholm: Federativ, 1980), p. 152 and p. 156.
[11] Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, Be Peacemakers: An Appeal to Women of the Twentieth Century to Remove the Causes of War (London: A.K. Press, 1924); Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, August Strindberg: The Spirit of Revolt, Studies, and Impressions (London: Stanley Paul, 1913).
[12] Lisa Gålmark, “‘The Spirit of Revolt’, Lizzy Lind af Hageby, Emma Goldman och August Strindberg”, in Strindbergiana, Vol. 29 (Stockholm: Atlantis, 2014), pp. 37-58. In English: www.academia.edu/37925645/The_Spirit_of_Revolt, retrieved 2020-06-07.
[13] Jill Dolan, “Performance, Utopia, and the ‘Utopian Performative’”, Theatre Journal, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2001, pp. 455-479.
[14] Homer, The Odyssey, Book 1, ca 8th century B.C., pp. 358-9; Mary Beard, Woman and Power: A Manifesto (New York & London: Liveright Publ., 2017), p. 4.
[15] The Bible, 1 Corinthians 14:33–35.
[16] Interpretation in Albert Barnes Notes on the Whole Bible: Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible. For a contextual reading which mentions the existence of stigmatized female prophets in Corinth: Expositor’s Greek Testament; see also Mral, Talande kvinnor, pp. 24˗25.
[17] Lisa Gålmark, Revolutionens rosenvatten: Olympe de Gouges feministiska humanism (Stockholm: Dela förlag, 2016), p. 50.
[18] Mral, Talande kvinnor, pp. 123-124.
[19] Mral, Talande kvinnor, pp. 122-141; Sirpa Salenius, An Abolitionist Abroad: Sarah Parker Remond in Cosmopolitan Europe (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016).
[20] Aristotle, Politics, translated by Benjamin Lowett with Introduction, Analysis, and Index by H.W. C. Davis (Mineola, NY: 2000); Gålmark, “Aristotle Revisited”, pp. 90˗92.
[21] Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby with Leisa Katherine Schartau, The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology, (London: Ernest Bell, 1903).
[22] Emma Goldman, Living My LIfe: In Two Volumes, Vol. 1 (New York: DOver Publ., 1970, orig. publ. 1931), p. 123.
[23] Goldman, Living My Life. See also Donna M. Kowal, Emma Goldman: Public Womanhood, and the Sex Question (Albany: State University of New York, 2016).
[24] Lisa Gålmark, Rosewater of the Revolution: Olympe de Gouges Feminist Humanism, translated by the author with Alan Crozier (Stockholm: Dela, 2020), p. 47. The constitution from 1793 may have been the first in the world to grant freedom of speech including the liberty to criticize the government.
[25] “Olympe de Gouges au tribunal révolutionnaire”, (1793) in Olivier Blanc, Olympe de Gouges (Paris: Tallardier, 2014), p. 104.
[26] Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theatre”, Theatre Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, 1988, pp. 519˗531.
[27] Aldo Milohnić, ”Direct Theatre and Radical Performance”, Performance Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2005, pp. 47-48.
[28] Chantal Mouffe, “Artistic activism and agonistic spaces”, Art & Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2007, p. 4. See also Diana Taylor, “Performance and Politics”, Global Studies in Culture and Power, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2014, pp. 342-343.
[29] Sara Ahmed, “A Phenomenology of Whiteness”, Feminist Theory, 8:2 (2007), pp. 149-150.
[30] Gålmark, Rosewater of the Revolution, p. 41; Christine Stansell, American Moderns: Bohemian New York and the Creation of a New Century (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000), p. 132 and p. 128.
[31] Falk, “Emma Goldman: Passion, Politics, and the Theatrics of Free Expression”, p. 13.
[32] Goldman, Living My life, p. 56 and p. 32.
[33] Daily Mirror, “Modern Portia’s Record Speech”, 3 April 1913; Nya Dagligt Allehanda, “Den moderna Portia”, 15 April 1913; Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, “Problems of the Women’s movement, A Series of Four Lectures, by Miss Lind-af-Hageby, February 1914”, transcript.
[34] Marcus Tullius Cicero, ca. 46 B.C., Cicero on the Ideal Orator, translated, with introduction, notes, appendixes, glossary, and indexes by James M. May & Jakob Wisse (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/orator.shtml#69, retrieved 2020-06-07.
[35] Marie-Pierre Le Hir, “Feminism, Theater, Race: L’esclavage des noirs”, in Doris Y. Kadish & Françoise Massardier-Kenney (eds.), Translating Slavery, Gender and Race in French Women’s Writing 1784–1823 (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University, 1994), pp. 65-83.
[36] Howard Zinn, Emma: A Play in Two Acts about Emma Goldman, American Anarchist (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2013), p. xiii and p. xvi.
[37] Gålmark, “Shambles of Science”, p. 36 and p. 17.
[38] Lisa Beckstrand, Deviant Women of the French Revolution, and the Rise of Feminism (Madison: Fairleigh-Dickinson University Press, 2008), p. 120; Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1923; Emma Goldman, My further Disillusionment in Russia (New York: Doubleday, 1924); Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, letter to Anna Lenah Elgström-Collijn (London 17 February 1928), National Library of Sweden (KB1/L 94); Johan Börtz, ”Lizzy Lind af Hageby 75 år”, Djurens rätt, No. 3, 1954, pp. 1-3.
[39] Sylvie Steinberg, “Et les bâtards devinrent citoyens: La privatisation d’une condition d’infamie sous la Révolution française”, Genèses, Vol. 3, No. 8, 2017, pp. 9-28; Olympe de Gouges, “Déclaration des droits de l femme et de la citoyenne”, (1791), in John R. Cole, Between the Queen and the Cabby, Olympe de Gouges’s Rights of Woman, Appendix, facsimile, pp. 6-24.
[40] Gålmark, ”Shambles of Science”, p. 62; Emilia Augusta Louise (Lizzy) Lind af Hageby, www.skbl.se/en/article/LizzyLindafHageby, Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon (article by Elisabeth Gålmark), retrieved 2020-06-07.
[41] Stansell, American Moderns, p. 120; Cole, Between the Queen and the Cabby, Appendix, facsimile, p. 16.
[42] Gålmark, “‘The Spirit of Revolt’”; Emma Goldman, The Social Significance of the Modern Drama (Boston: R. G. Badger, 1914).
[43] Gålmark, “‘The Spirit of Revolt’”; Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, August Strindberg: The Spirit of Revolt: Studies and Impressions (London: Stanley Paul, 1913).
[44] Sophie Mousset, Women’s Rights, and the French Revolution: A Biography of Olympe de Gouges (London: Transaction Publ., 2007), pp. 34-35.
[45] Kowal, Tongue of Fire, pp. 6-7 and pp. 57-58; Emma Goldman, Anarchism and other Essays, orig. 1910 (Middlesex: Echo Library, 2007); Lisa Gålmark, “Talets teater – Emma Goldman”, Opulens, 27 September 2017.
[46] Gålmark, ”Shambles of Science, p. 49.
[47] Olympe de Gouges, Écrits politiques 1792–1793, tome II (Paris: Indigo & Côte-femmes, 1993), p. 103; Gålmark, Rosewater of the Revolution, p. 40.
[48] Falk, “Emma Goldman: Passion, Politics, and the Theatrics of Free Expression”, p. 12.
[49] Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, “Problems of the Women’s movement, A Series of Four Lectures, by Miss Lind-af-Hageby, 5th February 1914, Sex and Evolution”, transcript, p. 17 and 19, cited in Gålmark, “Shambles of Science”, p. 49. In English: Gålmark, “Women Anti-vivisectionists”, p. 17.
[50] Lizzy Lind-af-Hageby, Mountain Meditations, and Some Subjects of the Day and the War (London: George Allen & Unwind Ltd, 1917), p. 149.
[51] Ahmed, “A Phenomenology of Whiteness”, p. 156.
[52] Emma Goldman, The Traffic in Women and Other Essays on Feminism (Hadley, MA: Times Change Press, 1970).
[53] Gålmark, Rosewater of the Revolution, p. 15 and p. 41.
[54] Emilia Augusta Louise (Lizzy) Lind af Hageby, www.skbl.se/sv/artikel/LizzyLindafHageby, Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon (article by Elisabeth Gålmark), retrieved 2022-10-21.
[55] Gregory Brown, “The Self-fashionings of Olympe de Gouges 1784˗1789”, Eighteenth Century Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2001, p. 386.
[56] Olympe de Gouges, “Pronostic sur Maximilien Robespierre par un animal amphibie”, in Œuvres complètes, philosophie, dialogues & apologues, tome II (Montauban: Cocagne, 2010), p. 139. See Lisa Gålmark, “Antroandrocentrismens giljotin: exemplet Olympe de Gouges”, Sosiologi idag, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2013, p. 21.
[57] Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (London: Routledge, 1990), p. 142.
[58] Emma Goldman, “Observations and Comments”, Mother Earth, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1906, p. 2.
[59] Sara Ahmed, “A Phenomenology of Whiteness”, pp. 149˗150.
[60] Brown, “The Self-Fashionings of Olympe de Gouges”, p. 386.
[61] Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays (New York: Dover, 1969), p. 211, as cited in Loretta Kensinger, “Speaking with Red Emma: The Feminist Theory of Emma Goldman”, in Penny A. Weiss & Loretta Kensinger (eds.) Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007), p. 261.
[62] Alice Wexler & Emma Goldman, “Emma Goldman on Mary Wollstonecraft”, Feminist Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1981, p. 114.
Photo: LG
© Arimneste Anima Museum # 35