AI-generated from sources
The utility trap: From domestic duties to global development goals
In Brief
- The historical debate over women's education was split between training for domestic utility (serving the family) and providing education for personal self-sovereignty and economic independence.
- Modern international gender equality initiatives often frame empowerment as a utilitarian tool for achieving macro-level goals like economic stability or peacebuilding.
- This ‘New Utilitarianism’ risks perpetuating the historical tendency to define women's value by their usefulness to a larger system, rather than their inherent rights.
- True fulfillment of women's rights requires policy grounded in the principle that individual development is an end in itself, not merely a means to an external social or economic goal.
Main authors
The purpose of women's education has been a subject of persistent debate, shaped by evolving conceptions of a woman's role in society [1]. Historically, this discourse has been dominated by a fundamental tension between two competing visions. The first, and for centuries the most prevalent, regards education as a tool to perfect a woman's performance within her 'natural' domestic sphere, equipping her to be a more effective wife, mother, and household manager [2, 3]. The second, a more radical view, posits education as the essential path to a woman's intellectual, economic, and personal liberation, enabling her to achieve self-reliance and participate fully in public life [4, 5, 6].
This historical dichotomy finds a modern echo in the arena of international development and gender equality programs [7, 8]. The contemporary language of 'women's empowerment' has been widely adopted by global institutions, framing gender equality as a prerequisite for economic growth, peacebuilding, and sustainable development [9, 10]. While this shift represents a significant expansion of woman's perceived sphere of influence from the home to the global stage, it also raises a critical question. Has the underlying logic truly changed, or has the concept of female 'utility' merely been recalibrated on a global scale? Examining this evolution reveals that the debate over whether women's advancement serves their own intrinsic development or the functional needs of a larger social or economic order remains as relevant today as it was in centuries past [11].
Education for the Home: The Woman as Domestic Architect
The traditional doctrine of female education was anchored in the belief that a woman's primary duties were inextricably linked to the home . This perspective, articulated by thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, held that a woman's education must be planned entirely in relation to man and family [12]. Its purpose was not intellectual exploration for its own sake, but practical training for her roles as wife and mother, responsible for the health, morals, and early education of her children . Within this framework, a woman's value to the country was measured by her faithful discharge of these home duties, which were seen as the cornerstone of good government and happy communities .
Consequently, the ideal curriculum for young women was centered on 'vigorous practical utility' [13]. Writers and educators advocated for instruction in domestic economy, household sciences, and the arts of managing a home, viewing these subjects as indispensable components of a proper female education [14, 15]. Such training was not seen as intellectually limiting but rather as a contribution to a well-ordered life, providing the skills necessary to run an efficient household and create a harmonious domestic environment [16, 17]. This practical focus was intended to ensure that women could successfully perform what was considered one of their most important functions .
The benefits of a domestically-focused education were seen as manifold. It was believed to exalt and refine a woman's mind, enabling her to contribute to the happiness of those around her and to fulfill her roles as daughter, sister, and parent with greater skill [18]. By cultivating domestic virtues, this education was thought to sweeten family life and realize the essential elements of a true home . Skills like sewing, for example, were framed not just as chores but as valuable resources against the potential idleness and ennui of country life, combining utility with personal occupation [19]. The overarching goal was to produce women who were creditably prepared for the common life that society had prescribed for them [20].
Beyond the Household: Education for Self-Sovereignty and Economic Independence
A powerful counter-narrative emerged to challenge the confines of the domestic sphere, rejecting the premise that a woman's education should be exclusively tailored to the needs of others . This new perspective posited that the primary purpose of education is the development of the individual . This idea aligned with broader liberal principles championing the free development of individuality as a leading essential of well-being for all persons [21]. Proponents argued that women, like men, possessed an intellect that would display its full power when given the resources and responsibility to do so [22]. The old adage that a woman must be ignorant to be useful was cast aside as a relic of a superstitious past .
Central to this revolutionary view was the link between education, economic independence, and dignity. Activists argued that destitution was a primary cause of dishonor for women, and therefore, education must become a 'tool to their hands' rather than a mere 'decoration' . The demand grew for every young woman to be trained in a business or profession, enabling her to earn an independent livelihood and achieve self-support [23, 24]. This was not simply a practical matter of earning a living; it was presented as a moral imperative. Denying women a complete education or the right to property was equated to blinding or maiming them, fundamentally crippling their ability to function as sovereign individuals [25].
This call for economic self-reliance was inseparable from a demand for full intellectual and social freedom . By becoming self-reliant through higher education and profitable labor, it was believed that women could stand as peers to men, realizing the 'dreams, the hopes, the prophesies of the inspired women of by-gone centuries' . This vision represented a fundamental shift from education for service to education for self-sovereignty . It was through the assumption of responsibility—for her own education, her children's future, and her role in the world—that a girl was transformed into a woman in the fullest sense, shaking off the 'shackles of a false education' to stand upright as a free moral being [26].
From Domestic Economy to Global Economy: The New Utilitarianism
In the twenty-first century, the discourse surrounding women's roles has expanded to a global scale, with international bodies and national governments championing gender equality as a core component of their development agendas . This modern framework explicitly links the empowerment of women and girls to macro-level goals such as conflict prevention, peacebuilding, humanitarian response, and economic progress . The United States, for instance, has advocated for women's empowerment to be a dedicated goal on the global development agenda, supporting the participation of women in parliaments, schools, and economies .
The rationale underpinning this global push often remains utilitarian, albeit on a larger scale. The United Nations, for example, encourages the use of sport as a 'vehicle' to achieve gender equality and empower women, positioning their advancement as a means to foster broader development . The argument is that ensuring women and girls can participate on an equal footing is 'transformative' for their societies, communities, and families . This approach frames investment in gender equality as a strategic tool for achieving common goals, much as earlier arguments framed domestic education as a tool for creating a stable home and nation [27].
This modern, instrumentalist approach risks perpetuating the historical tendency to define women's value by their utility to a larger system. While the goals—such as eliminating violence against women and closing the gender gap—are laudable, the justification often centers on the benefits that accrue to society rather than on the inherent rights of women themselves [28]. This echoes the long-standing critique that praise of female enlightenment has historically been a celebration of her improved usefulness to others . The danger is that 'empowerment' becomes another form of prescribed utility, recasting woman as an asset for the global economy rather than as a sovereign individual whose development is an end in itself .
The trajectory of the debate over women's education reveals a persistent focus on utility, a concept whose application has expanded from the confines of the private household to the vast expanse of the global political and economic stage . The fundamental tension between education for the benefit of others—be it family or nation—and education for a woman's own self-realization has been a constant undercurrent . While the language has evolved from 'domestic economy' and 'home duties' to 'gender equality' and 'global development goals', the underlying question of why women should be educated and empowered continues to shape policy and public opinion .
The contemporary international consensus on promoting women's rights represents an undeniable and historic advance, creating unprecedented opportunities and legal frameworks for equality . However, a critical understanding of this movement requires acknowledging its continuity with past utilitarian arguments. The ultimate fulfillment of women's rights may depend on moving beyond this framework entirely. The goal must not only be to make life more 'useful,' but to embrace the principle that the 'free development of individuality' is a primary essential of human well-being and a necessary condition of any true civilization, for women as for men .
