Introduction and Historiography
In the years before the First World War, there was another war occurring in Great Britain. It was fought by various groups of women, ranging from a wide spectrum of nonviolent women who simply want- ed enfranchisement to radical groups actively militant against men and the British government. The main focus of this war, which began in the late nineteenth century and progressed, rather violently, into the twentieth century, was the parliamentary enfranchisement of women in Britain. The range of organizations and understandings of feminism in the late nineteenth century meant that it is hard to chart one path from nineteenth-century feminism to the suffrage movement in the early twentieth century.
The word “feminism” and what it meant to be a feminist continued to change as the movement developed through time. In the early twentieth century, the ideology of feminism coincided greatly with women’s suffrage. The values of Edwardian feminists carried over into the radical movements, and Emmeline Pankhurst embodied these traditionalist values through her radical movements with the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). Emmeline became the face of militant suffrage but carried with her a neo-Victorian femininity presenting her as a proper lady while also characterizing her as a woman-rebel with an iron personality. Emmeline Pankhurst, her daughter Christabel Pankhurst, and the WSPU represented the feminist movement that encompassed the stance for the enfranchisement of middle-class women. In order to accomplish their goal, Emmeline and Christabel facilitated numerous violent attacks within the British state, specifically in London.
Once the First World War broke out, women were faced with a choice between aiding their country or continuing their suffrage activism through a variety of organizations and means available at the time. Two women very clearly represent this dichotomy amongst the suffragettes once war broke out: Christabel Pankhurst and Sylvia Pankhurst. Though they were sisters and grew up with the same mother—with whom Christabel was more evidently aligned—they represent two very different views of what it meant to be a feminist, what the vote for women entailed, and how women should react to the First World War. Both were strong feminists and active participants in the suffrage movement and the war effort, but both fought in very different ways. When analyzing the Pankhurst sisters, their differences portray the tensions in feminism. Feminism itself is not a concept that means a singular concrete thing, as it has many different interpretations and ideological factions within the movement itself. To this point, feminism must not be viewed as one particular ideology.
This paper will discuss the activism of the Pankhurst family, beginning with the WSPU, because Emmeline Pankhurst was the matriarch of this historic suffrage organization. It is imperative to highlight Sylvia Pankhurst’s break from her family and the WSPU, which led her to create her own East London Federation of Suffragettes (ELFS) from a sect of the WSPU in East London. From this split came the ideologies of who should have the right to vote, and for Christabel and the WSPU, working-class women were not of primary concern. While still embodying physical femininity, Christabel fought for middle-class women because she believed they would be the ones who could persuade the parliamentarians to enfranchise women. Additionally, Christabel may have become a nationalist once the First World War commenced because she saw an opportunity to regain the good graces of the government so that when the war was done her initiative would be recognized.
In contrast, Sylvia actively spoke out against the war and fought furiously for women and children in Britain, more specifically in East London, who were economically affected by the crisis. To this effect, Sylvia was criticized by her sister and many other pro-war suffragettes for being too passive and a “slacker.”1 Additionally, Christabel and other pro-war suffragettes argued that nationalism exemplified the ideals of women’s suffrage and gave way to a new definition of feminism through what they believed to be patriotic. Patriotism itself is a complex concept because it warrants no universal definition, and it is very important to understand the word itself in the context in which it is utilized. Though Sylvia was a pacifist, this did not automatically render her non-patriotic. Rather, a close reading of her personal accounts suggests that she was quite patriotic, just not in the sense of holding national pride in the war effort for the fighting men abroad. Sylvia was patriotic because she fought for the people inside her nation, and she drew her patriotic stance from her pacifism and anti-war sentiment. Christabel was patriotic because she fought for the war effort by arguing that suffragettes needed to fight in the war, not on the front lines but on the home front, because otherwise there would be no country in which women could exercise their right to vote.
Women’s suffrage in Britain, the Pankhursts, and patriotism are not topics that are often overlooked by historians; in fact, the historiographies are rather extensive. Though these topics have been analyzed before, this essay will present Christabel and Sylvia Pankhurst in a more nuanced way than how other historians have classified these women. Often, the secondary literature classifies Sylvia Pankhurst as an anti-patriot because she was anti-war; however, it is problematic to describe her as non-patriotic because it limits the definition of the word.2 These historiographies fail to demonstrate how complex the idea of patriotism was at the time of the First World War. Historian Anthony Fletcher argues that patriotism did have a traditional notion, in that it engaged Victorian manliness and masculinity.3 Fletcher emphasizes the neo-Victorian masculinity that emerged from the First World War, as it was seen as a man’s privilege to fight for his country, but there was no conscription system in Britain until two years after the war began. Patriotism in this light is, in a way, attached to a male perspective, as it emerged from being a middle- and upper-class duty to fight for Britain, but men of all classes could indulge in national pride. Fletcher’s overall argument does not necessarily exclude women from the patriotic narrative, but it does not necessarily acknowledge women as being patriotic or having the capacity to be patriotic. It also suggests that the idea of all men fighting for the nation—and by extension, women at home also fighting for the nation—was very new and, therefore, contested.
Historians like Susan Grayzel highlight the theoretical explanation for feminist pacifism, which does not prove pacifists to be anti- patriotic.4 Grayzel asserts that suffragettes and females in general sub- scribed to pacifism because they believed there was an inherent connection between male or masculine power and the existence of war.5 Additionally, Grayzel emphasizes that women subscribed to pacifism during the war because women’s capacity to bear children made them, by nature, pacifists.6 This was an important aspect of the feminist argument during the outbreak of the war, but only some women maintained it during the conflict.7 However, for some women, the biological fact that women could bear children did not automatically mean that they had to be natural pacifists.8 Women who rejected the notion that they should be natural pacifists due to their biological reality often tried to “emancipate women on account of their maternal qualities in order to effect social and political change.”9
Yet, the view that the war itself emphasized the connection be- tween masculine power and feminine suppression prompted pacifists to argue that because women were viewed as the subordinate class within society, they could not take a nationalist standpoint, as it completely undermined the suffragette cause.10 Thus, Sylvia Pankhurst, as de- scribed by Richard Pankhurst in his biography about his mother, tried to persuade the ELFS to oppose the war.11 Due to her socialist ideological stance, Sylvia knew that the war would infringe on her socialist agenda because Parliament was consumed by the war. Therefore, there was an extra emphasis on pacifism because her East London initiatives and emphasis on class equalization were excluded from parliamentarians’ thoughts.12
The scholarly conversation regarding the Pankhurst family is quite extensive, and though this essay does not focus on an analysis of the family, it is important to mention the history of the family. Looking at the history of the family of suffragettes reveals how Christabel and Sylvia went on diverging paths as the suffrage movement progressed. The biography and analysis of Sylvia Pankhurst’s life coauthored by her son and Ian Bullock gives a detailed report on her personal life and the various movements in which she participated.13 Additionally, they discuss why Sylvia and the East London sect of the WSPU split from the larger organization, which reveals a great deal about the differences between Christabel and Sylvia. Though this source is mostly about the life and legacy of Sylvia Pankhurst, it does provide a fair analysis of Christabel Pankhurst and aligns well with the discussion made by Christabel in her personal memoir. Similarly, Martin Pugh’s analysis in The Pankhursts provides an extensive study on the lives of Emmeline, Christabel, Sylvia, and even their younger sister, Adela, who is not of- ten mentioned.14 Pugh’s examination of the Pankhursts is useful because it provides background and context to the primary sources this essay analyzes in extensive detail. Martin Pugh gives a detailed account of Christabel and Sylvia’s stance on the war and their connection to the war itself. He thoroughly examines Christabel’s change in attitude to- ward the war from it being God’s vengeance against masculinity to her nationalist, pro-war sentiments.15 Additionally, he distinguishes Sylvia’s unique anti-war sentiment from that of her sister.
Although it is imperative to analyze the scholarly discussion regarding the suffragette movement, the Pankhursts, and patriotism, it is important to note that the majority of this essay’s reasoning and analy- sis comes from a close reading of primary texts published by Christabel and Sylvia Pankhurst. To this effect, the framework of this analysis comes from Unshackled by Christabel Pankhurst and both The Suffragette Movement: An Intimate Account of Persons and Ideals and The Suffragette: The History of the Women’s Suffrage Movement by Sylvia Pankhurst. In these primary texts, an evident divergence in beliefs emerges. From Sylvia’s writings, it becomes clear that scholars have largely defined her pacifism as non-patriotic; however, she manifested an alternative form of patriotism from that of her mother and older sis- ter. To this point, it is necessary to examine primary sources to prove that although Sylvia was not pro-war, that did not automatically make her non-patriotic. In addition, Christabel’s “patriotism” is further questionable because it raises doubts as to the extent she was fighting for the men at war—was her pro-war sentiment a strategic movement for her class-based, and sometimes autocratic, suffrage agenda? This analysis will shed light on the concept of patriotism in regards to female involvement in the narrative, and it will examine the spectrum of patriotism in light of Christabel and Sylvia Pankhurst.
The WSPU Under Christabel Pankhurst and Sylvia Pankhurst’s Divergence
Emmeline Pankhurst and Christabel embodied the ideals of Edwardian femininity even during the most violent periods of the suffragette militancy campaigns. Both women dressed in classic Victorian middle- to upper-class fashion, keeping their outer appearances those of proper ladies. They wore conservative floor-length, high-necked dresses, and they pinned their hair up so that it was not messy or concealing their face. A necessary question that historians and scholars, like Ange- la Smith, ponder is how their outer appearance was so vastly different from their “women-rebel” and iron personalities.16 This question thus formed a difficult paradox that scholars are still exploring when analyzing the lives of Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst. On one hand, they were the perfect presentation of feminine figures in British society during the early twentieth century. On the other hand, they were tough women who, at times, were extremely violent when their suffrage cause was threatened.17 The historiography regarding the militant suffragettes is somewhat romanticized as a glorious struggle which women underwent to achieve their ends. Often militant suffragettes are described and depicted as martyrs of their time because they sacrificed themselves to state retaliation.18
Though the veneration and glorification of these militancy campaigns is interesting, the historiography frequently fails to point out how much terror these groups caused for the people within the state. Although both Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst were depicted as quintessentially womanly, they organized the use of violence and challenged the British state until the First World War. The wartime WSPU paper, Britannia, described Emmeline:
And so, one wondered whether there was anything feminine left in this woman-rebel with a glorious revolutionary past, who tolerated imprisonment and great political persecution. But she did remain a woman. It gives her figure a soft, romantic character...there surely is something in Mrs. Pankhurst which is both feminine and romantic. She is an ardent patriot in the best sense of the world...She is a new woman. There is strong feminine kindness in her, as well as dialectics and romanticism, revolutionary strength and natural kindness, political wisdom and touching womanhood.19
Christabel Pankhurst emulated her mother in this respect. She called for women to remember the dignity of womanhood, but counseled, “do not appeal, do not beg, do not grovel,” rather, “take courage, join hands... fight.”20
Photographs of Christabel portray her as a feminine iron lady, calling for women and men to fight for the vote with the WSPU. Scholar Angela Smith argued that Christabel was responsible for the anti- men sentiment amongst the WSPU, which proliferated throughout the suffragette movement and is arguably attached to modern day feminist movements.21 Christabel wrote, “A civilization made by men only is a civilization which defies the law of nature, which defies the laws of right government.”22 She criticized the British Government for neglect- ing to include women in the legislative process and the political narrative of Great Britain. To this point, in 1906—the year the Liberal Party came to power in the House of Commons—Christabel declared that the WSPU would be “scrupulously independent” from any alliance to a particular political party.23 Christabel’s initiative to sever political ties was mainly attributed to her descent into more conservative political leanings, and this decision was widely unpopular for a majority of women involved in both the WSPU and the East London effort led by Sylvia Pankhurst.24 Sylvia realized that suffrage was not only an issue of equality between men and women, but it was also a class issue, a hugely important distinction made within the suffragette movement.
The WSPU was created in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst and other women with strong ties to the labor and socialist movements in Britain through the Independent Labour Party.25 As the organization gained members, Emmeline and Christabel changed the WSPU’s original character regarding its political leanings due mostly to Christabel’s decision to use tactics which made it unlikely that working-class women would participate.26 The Labour Party more or less represented the interests of working-class people in British society, and Christabel initially argued that:
Critical murmurs of ‘stage army’ were being, quite unjustly, made by members of Parliament about the East End contingents, and it was evident that the House of Commons, even the Labour members, were more impressed by the demonstrations of the feminine bourgeoisie than the feminine proletariat. My democratic principles and instincts made me want a movement based on no class distinctions, and including not mainly the working class but women of all classes.27
Christabel argued that the upper-class women were more impactful in the eyes of Parliament than the middle- and working-class women. Although in her concluding sentence regarding this subject she does assert that she is, in a way, fighting for “women of all classes,” she would soon lend her support only to the “women of some classes.” In turning her back on the Independent Labour Party (ILP), Christabel, along with her mother, denied the importance of class as a subset of the suffrage movement.28 Thus began Christabel and Emmeline’s autocratic leadership with the mindset and movement towards a conservative political ideology in which the sole emphasis was on the vote, neglecting socioeconomic injustices and excluding entire classes of women and men from British society. Sylvia Pankhurst advocated not only for the enfranchisement of women, but also for the expansion of the vote on the basis of class. She contested her mother and sister’s divergence from giving equal rights and treatment to women who were of the working class. Though she did retain her loyalty to her mother and sister for a time, by at least 1913, and certainly at the outbreak of war, she had leaned far more left, while Emmeline and Christabel moved to the right.
Sylvia Pankhurst grew up understanding the importance of women’s suffrage, and was not, by any means, against the movement and the enfranchisement of women. Though she was not as prominent as her mother and older sister in the Women’s Social and Political Un- ion, she was a part of the operation of the organization’s artistic and literary publications from the start. The most famous piece Sylvia created for the WSPU was a motif of a female angel standing on her toes blowing a curved trumpet.29 There are two variations of the motif: one facing the left and one facing the right. Sylvia created other artworks that did become as iconic, but a great deal of her craft was dedicated to her depictions of working- and lower-class women in East London. She felt a deep connection to East London and the socialist movement in Britain, and there is scholarly debate regarding why she pursued an independent path from that of her mother and sister. The Pankhurst family itself is an area many scholars try to understand, but Ian Bullock and Richard Pankhurst endorsed scholar Patricia Romero’s observation and analysis of the complex relationship Sylvia had with her family, determining the source of the tension to come from her lifelong mourning of her father.30 They argued that Sylvia dedicated a great deal of her personal movement to continue along similar political leanings as her father, which were grounded in the ILP. Other scholars argued that her firm position to align with the ILP was due to her affair and secret relationship with Keir Hardie, the founder of the ILP.31 His socialism had a great influence on Sylvia’s expression of suffrage, and she began to work more with the East End campaign than the central nucleus of the WSPU. In an excerpt from her memoir, The Suffragette Movement, she elaborated on Keir Hardie’s denunciation of the “well-fed beasts” of the upper classes of British society in his parliamentary initiatives.32 Sylvia described the East End campaign as something that began “modestly.”33 She writes:
The East End was the greatest homogenous working-class area accessible to the House of Commons by popular demonstrations. The creation of a woman’s movement in that great abyss of poverty would be a call and a rallying cry to the rise of similar movements in all parts of the country. The members of the suffrage movement, militant and non-militant, had always been largely of the middle class, though the WSPU had begun otherwise. The influence of that taunt, militating against real support of the suffrage movement in working class circles, was ever a strong undercurrent....The existence of a strong, self- reliant movement amongst working women would be the greatest aid in safeguarding their rights in the day of settlement.
Unfortunately, Sylvia’s zealous attempt to fight for women of all classes led to her estrangement from Emmeline and Christabel. In 1913, the relationship between Sylvia’s East London Federation of the WSPU and the WSPU itself faltered. The only reason the relationship lasted as long as it did was due to the fact that Emmeline and Christabel escaped to Paris after a militant attack that would have cost them a great deal of time in prison.35 In 1914, Sylvia was summoned by her mother and sister to Paris, where the socialist sister and her East London Federation of the WSPU were effectively separated from the organization.36 The Pankhurst sisters, at this point, became completely divided in their suffragette aims. On one end of the spectrum was Christabel, the suffragette who emulated the ideals of Edwardian society and believed in the enfranchisement of the bourgeois, which shaped her outlook at the out- set of war. On the other end of the spectrum was Sylvia, the suffragette who believed in fighting for women of all classes as she integrated socialism and feminism, which laid the foundation for her perspective once Britain joined the First World War. Two sisters with very different ideological perspectives on suffrage had to make a decision in August 1914. Would they put aside their disagreements with the British state during the fighting years of the war, or would they continue on in their distinct pursuits? This interesting dichotomy, which began to emerge in the months leading up to the Great War, took full effect between the two daughters of Emmeline.
Christabel the Nationalist and Sylvia the Pacifist
Patriotism can take many forms and can have diverging mean- ings to different countries. Furthermore, it can manifest itself distinctly through differing movements within organizations. Classified as “the Years of Women’s Armistice,” women’s suffrage organizations, like the WSPU, decided to take a hiatus from their militancy. Christabel, still in Paris due to self-induced exile because of her arson attack on prominent British officials, was concerned about the vote for women as the war erupted in France and would surely soon reach Britain.37 At first, Christabel’s stance regarding the war was strong, but not in the same way it would later reveal itself to be. She argued that “this great war...is God’s vengeance upon the people who held women in subjec- tion.”38 However, Emmeline Pankhurst announced an end to WSPU militancy once Britain became involved in the war. Christabel and her mother declared an armistice with the government because “as suffragettes [they] could not be pacifists at any price.”39 Thus, Christabel flipped her view on the war as she and her mother declared support for their country, the very country that continued to refuse women the right to vote. However, the two sides—the government and the suffragettes—had mutual interests in the appeal for national unity. The government needed to focus its attention and resources on the war and not continue to grapple with the social unrest caused by suffrage militancy. Similarly, Christabel and the women who followed her asked, “What would be the good of a vote without a country to vote in?”40 Christabel’s extreme pro-war mentality caused controversy amongst WSPU supporters because many of the hunger-striking suffragettes who were released from prison were horrified by the news that the WSPU supported the war.41
To justify her change of heart regarding the WSPU’s relationship with the government, Christabel argued that the war had implications beyond politics; it was about the duty of women as citizens to protect their land and foster support for the men defending their land. She proclaimed:
How, it was asked, could we support a Government that had been torturing women and had opposed the women’s cause! The answer was that the country was our country. It belonged to us and not the Government, and we had the right and privilege, as well as the duty, to serve and defend it.42
The women of the WSPU from all sectors of society supported this position and would aid the effort in any way women were allowed. For example, Christabel discussed the presence of women in factories, as well as the role played by Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and Flora Murray, two WSPU members and doctors who played integral roles in establishing a military hospital.43 She claimed that militant women possessed the confidence to work in such roles for the war effort and that “the suffragette spirit had become generalized and expressed itself in women’s war service.”44 This nationalistic rhetoric did not sit well with many women who had participated in the suffrage movement. The very argument that Christabel used to demonstrate why she was pro-war, to fight and protect the country itself while not supporting the government’s interest, was reinterpreted by anti-war feminists like Sylvia Pankhurst. Sylvia and her East London followers actively continued the work to attain the vote for women but through strictly non-militant means.
Sylvia was deeply upset by her mother and sister’s choice to turn their backs on peace and initiate recruitment campaigns for war involvement.45 Emmeline and Christabel regained favor with Prime Minister Lloyd George when they demanded “compulsory national ser- vice for men and women alike.”46 Women began registering for war work to earn money to support themselves and their children while their husbands were fighting. Sylvia criticized the fact that not all women were granted access to this new work and that women were not paid equally to men who were doing the same work before they left for the war. Advocating for the East London women, Sylvia Pankhurst wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, which read:
Your reply to the WSPU deputation is highly unsatisfactory because, on your Government’s behalf, you still refuse to women the same pay as men whom they replace, except where the women are employed on piecework rates... the Government has refused to interfere with the law of supply and demand where the buying and selling of food is concerned.47
Sylvia advocated for women who could not afford to feed themselves or their children because their wages were less than promised, and the price of food skyrocketed due to the economic hardships that came be- cause of the war. Sylvia argued that Christabel and the WSPU aban- doned their feminism and became paranoid nationalists and puppets for the government. She asserted that:
The WSPU...had now entirely departed from the Suffrage movement. Giving its energies wholly to the prosecution of the war, it rushed to a furious extreme, its chauvinism unexampled among all the other women’s societies...Christabel demanded the military conscription of men, and the industrial conscription of women...48
Sylvia argued that Christabel had abandoned the suffrage cause to pro- mote the war, becoming a government pawn utilized to gain more war support from women.
In July of 1915, Lloyd George received a letter from King George V urging him to recruit Christabel and Emmeline Pankhurst to arrange an enormous procession to prepare women to undertake war work. The king believed that Christabel and Emmeline could mobilize immense numbers of women, persuading them to join the war effort.49 The hope was to gain the support of women who had once been followers of the WSPU but were anti-war. Sylvia spoke out with vigor against the London procession, claiming that women would still not get the work they needed because the government was not allowing all women access to jobs.50 The government paid for the procession and paid the nationalist Pankhursts to organize the event, and Sylvia called it treachery.51 She wrote in response:
The National Register was in being....Clearly, I must continue to op- pose it, and expose it....Clearly, I must declare that the “National Service” in industry the Government was proposing, was not the collective action of a free people agreeing on equal terms...but the enslavement of the many for the profit of the few. Yet, I was surrounded by masses of poor women who had taken war work...as the sole means of keeping them and theirs from starvation. Inevitably they passed to war work as peace employment failed.52
Sylvia’s left-wing political ideology was evident in her anti-war sentiment and emphasis on the struggle of the working class, especially for its women. Sylvia further spoke out against the government for allow- ing its people to suffer while it was too busy dealing with wartime efforts. In Unshackled, Christabel does not mention at all the economic struggles caused by the war for the women whose right to vote she had at one time championed. The WSPU and Christabel began to reflect more right-wing politics as the war dragged on.
Sylvia’s writings reflected a more realistic view, while her sister seemed to be more of an aggressive idealist. Although Sylvia fought for the vote, she remained hesitant about the government. Christabel argued that “votes for women [would] [come] in wartime.”53 To this effect, the suffragettes under Christabel and Emmeline would resume militancy after the war ended if women did not get the right to vote.54 In addition, Christabel declared that “no government could arrest and im- prison women who, in the country’s danger, had set aside their campaign to help the national cause.”55 Christabel’s perspective on suffragette involvement in the war is problematic because it was based on the assumption that the government would have to enfranchise women for their involvement in the war. Hindsight shows that women did not officially get voter equality until 1928, when the government passed the Representation of the People Act. Nevertheless, Christabel continued her pro-war nationalism that manifested itself in her writings in the re- named Suffragette newspaper, Britannia. She expressed her newly aligned conservatism with her ideas regarding the conscription of men to fight and the conscription of women to work.56 Sylvia strongly op- posed right-wing politics and felt that the WSPU were “sticking white feathers into the buttonholes of reluctant men.”57 She thought that no matter the stance women took regarding the war, it would not matter because men were going to be reluctant to accept feminism and women’s suffrage.
Two Sisters, Two Forms of Patriotism
In analyzing all of the primary source material, it becomes clear that both Christabel and Sylvia Pankhurst were patriots, but they fought for their country in two completely distinct fashions. Christabel, as scholarship can attest, is the more obvious patriot since she took a pro- war stance. She worked alongside the government to mobilize female support through her connections as the WSPU leader, and she became confident in her idea that the government would have to give women the right to vote after all they did for the war. Throughout her pro-war initiatives, she never seemed to lose her anti-male sentiment, as she referred to the war as God’s vengeance on men who oppressed women. What is bewildering is how she could think in such a manner but still fight for the blood of the sons fighting in the Great War. At the beginning of the war she seemed to swallow her feminist pride, but at the end she fully embraced a new loyalty to nationalism. Christabel justified herself by believing that once the war concluded, her efforts for the war, along with those efforts of thousands of women, would force the government to pass legislation that gave women the vote. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that Christabel denounced her left-wing socialism and advocacy for the working class and fought a very classist suffrage battle.
Pacifism, Angela Smith argued, was linked more to socialism, both of which Christabel rejected.58 She argued that pacifism was “a disease....[The pacifists] are a disease which comes of over-prosperity, and of false security.”59 In addition, Christabel argued that anyone who held with pacifism was pro-German.60 Christabel spoke about the destruction of Germans in 1917 and that she believed death would be a better fate than to be under the governance of Germany.61 By this logic, any pacifist in the eyes of Christabel was in fact pro-German, or at least anti-Britain. Christabel, along with many nationalist feminists, argued that because women could not represent their country on the front lines, they were not fully citizens.62 This argument does not take into consideration the many men who fought on the front lines and were also not yet enfranchised.63 Even though this line of argumentation is not altogether reasonable, Christabel utilized it as her justification to mobilize women to get involved at the home front.64
Christabel’s main focus of nationalism proliferated in her speeches and writings as she continued to argue that in order to win the war for women’s enfranchisement, there must be a country still stand- ing. In a speech delivered in October of 1914, she questioned anti- nationalist views by declaring, “Why should we [suffragettes] fight for British citizenship if we [do not] highly prize it?”65 Christabel’s argument is not unreasonable, as it is necessary to have a country in order to have the right to vote for said country. However, the issue with Christabel’s position of nationalism is that her writings neglect the sympathy and compassion for the women who suffered from the war.
Christabel was highly focused on spreading awareness for war- time work and the need to mobilize support for the war which was very important to the nature of the nationalism, but nowhere in her writings did she show concern for how the war would impact the home front. Instead, she emphasized the evils of pacifism, but never did much for the war effort itself other than reestablish a relationship with the British government and encourage women to register for war work. Even in this initiative, Christabel promised to help the government with a some- what selfish hope that they would have no choice but to repay her and the women who helped the war effort with enfranchisement. Christabel’s nationalism and rejection of pacifism does make her a patriot in the sense that she fought for her country, but it does not automatically ascribe to her the “right” form of patriotism, as there is no correct form of patriotism. Christabel seemed to care more about help- ing the men abroad and the government in the hopes that women, more specifically women of the middle- to upper-classes, would acquire the right to vote. Conversely, Sylvia tried to achieve equality and rights for women by the rejection of the war and the assistance of those who were deeply hurt by the brutality of the war.
Sylvia’s pacifism does not automatically exclude her from the realm of patriotism. She fought for her country but did so in a way that was pro-people, which in a way was pro-nation and anti-war. Sylvia, along with numerous other female pacifists, strongly opposed the war because of its intrinsic male power and violence against the people who had no part in the fighting. The East London working-class citizens were deeply impacted by the economic stress of the war and were not given equal treatment during wartime. Women of lower socioeconomic status did not have the means of achieving the same opportunities as women whose husbands were from the middle- to upper-class. Sylvia’s suffragette platform after she broke away from the WSPU highlighted the inherent working-class struggle and how feminism was not a movement exclusive to the middle- to upper-classes.
As emulated through Sylvia Pankhurst, it does not follow that women who subscribed to pacifism were not patriotic. To further examine and explain how pacifism is a form of patriotism, it is imperative to analyze a sect of women who aligned with pacifism and believed that it was in their nature as women to reject the physical brutalities of war. Frances Hallowes, the British author of An Address to the Mothers of Men, argued that the “gender-specific roles” of mother and son granted a special weight on women to reject the war.66 The rhetoric she used to justify her natural inclination towards pacifism asserted that all mothers were “mothers of men,” meaning that it was their duty to “[realize] deeply the worth and preciousness of life...Thus, the full tragedy of war can be only grasped by those who can imagine the silent agony of mothers.”67 Hallowes’ perspective of the war and her anti-war stance not only showed the agony the war placed on women—which is why women, especially mothers, were passive—but also revealed the maternal aspect of women.68
This maternal aspect is exclusive to women, and Susan Grayzel understood the importance of utilizing “maternalism” to prove that women could take a simultaneous anti-war and pro-nation approach to the situation.69 The war cost women the right to be mothers; the ability to create and house a life is a gift that only women can experience, and the physical force of war took the lives of their children.70 The war, in a way, stripped a mother’s womanly essence. To the view of these women, the anti-war approach was the only pro-nation option. Women who aligned with the passive approach believed that the only viable option to express their disdain for losing their sons in brutal bloodshed was an anti-war sentiment. Although a mother can never be stripped of either her “maternalism” or her title of motherhood, women who lost their sons because of the First World War believed that the war took their right to be a mother.71 To this point, it is said that due to maternalism and the ability to create life, women were more inclined to join pacifist movements because they did not want the lives they created to be destroyed by the masculine vengeance of war.72
The war further fragmented the feminist movement and pitted nationalists against pacifists. In 1915, Sylvia responded to the fragmentation in the suffrage movement over the war by attempting to unite her followers and pay homage to the mothers:
The Women’s Movement is the mother movement, the bringing to the service of public life of the whole world that which the best of mothers display toward their own children in wisest and tenderest moments. This must surely be the contribution of the Women’s Movement to human progress...Do not imagine that we can be mother- builders for the children of the future, if we believe in War and sweat- ing now, or are afraid to speak against these evils.73
Sylvia argued that the intrinsic virtue of mothers should automatically denounce war, as it was an “exploitation of women” and an abuse of the children women create.74 In addition, Sylvia’s argument is a bridge be- tween the protection of the sons in order to uphold maternalism and the argument that women are only good for childbearing. The latter argument’s logic stemmed from the belief that women were solely child- bearers, and the only concern others had was for their sons, not for the women themselves, which encroached on the inherent dignity of women; thus, it is imperative for women to reject the war.75 Rather than celebrating motherhood, feminists who believed that militarism and pro- war sentiment intruded on the rights of women argued that the gender-based divisions inherent to militarism focused more on the destruction of the sons. Women were again excluded by this logic, and, in this way, women believed war itself was their destruction, not just the destruction of their sons. To this effect, women should reject war because “it harmed them directly rather than relationally.”76
The pacifist movement is more complicated than simply asserting that those who subscribed to it were just anti-war. It is a multifaceted ideological movement, similar to the feminist movement itself. Nonetheless, women who were passive and anti-war were pro-nation because they were concerned with the sons fighting in the war and the mothers suffering from the indeterminate fate of their sons. Furthermore, the pacifist movement was pro-women because certain factions recognized the importance of emphasizing how the war was destructive towards women as well as towards men. The essence of women was on the line, as the war took from women what society for so long imposed on them. It took the lives of their sons, and, thus, took away an aspect imperative to motherhood. Opposing the war was patriotic because pacifists, like Sylvia Pankhurst, fought for the lives of people from their nation, rather than a war that took those lives.
Conclusion
The Women’s Suffrage Movement revealed itself to have differing perspectives regarding how to articulate the many manifestations of feminism, whether it was through violence or through nonviolent actions. Therefore, feminism cannot be defined as a single ideology, but rather a plethora of interrelated issues that manifest differently depending on one’s beliefs. The outbreak of the First World War revealed a choice that suffragettes faced regarding how they would respond to such an unprecedented event. Women had to choose whether to abandon their suffragette cause and turn towards the war effort or to continue on with their aspirations of enfranchisement, at risk from anti- patriotic claims against them. However, this paper demonstrates that just as there is no single definition for feminism, there is no single definition for patriotism. Rather, patriotism is a multifaceted concept that cannot be constrained to a nationalistic perspective.
By focusing on the lives and perspectives of Sylvia and Christabel Pankhurst, it can be determined that feminism in the twentieth century was complicated and contained many ideological tensions. These two women exemplify just two small facets of the women’s war before the Great War, but the main focus of this piece of work is to reveal that patriotism is not as simple as being pro-nation. Feminists struggled between pacifism and nationalism because the two extremes denigrated the view of the other. Christabel and the nationalists argued that being anti-war was anti-nation because pacifism was essentially the "slacker" stance, and Christabel went as far as to call pacifists pro- German. Sylvia and the pacifists argued that being pro-war was anti- feminist and anti-nation because war itself was inherently oppressive to women, and it negatively impacted the lives of those who had to suffer on the home front.
Patriotism is a word that has many different meanings. It means something different to every individual person and every individual nation. Though some may try to standardize the definition, as Christabel and Sylvia reveal, it is nearly impossible. The First World War brought about a great deal of change and arguably pulled the world into modernity. Additionally, it brought about a new notion of patriot- ism for scholars and historians to analyze. Being that it was the first total war experience, the women and men who were left at home had to keep the nation going by any means necessary. Whether people participated in the war effort or actively opposed the war in hopes to foster peace, people—more specifically women—had to make a choice. The tensions of the suffragette movement and the feminist movement in Britain transferred into tensions of pro-war and anti-war. Neither Sylvia nor Christabel epitomized the sole definition of patriotism, but they both represented the two extremes of the spectrum. In analyzing patriot- ism in light of the Pankhurst sisters, it becomes clear that one could be pro-war and pro-nation just as one could be anti-war but pro-nation. Both sisters fought for their country but in very different ways, whether they fought for the men fighting abroad or for the women who suffered from the war and the loss of their sons. These two sisters embodied two forms of patriotism. Both fought for the enfranchisement of women and for Great Britain, but in very contradictory ways.
