argued that the non-militants exploited the opening that the suffragettes had
forced through the wall of resistance to women’s suffrage.
Under Emmeline’s leadership the struggle for the vote became a spiritual
struggle, a holy war that would bring about not only enfranchisement for
women but also a just society where the sexual subjection of women was no
more. Contrary to the impression given by most historians, she upheld not only
the ending of women’s oppression but a wide programme of social change that
included the abolition of the exploitation of the working classes, and of the
sexual and economic exploitation of children. Even as a Conservative candi-
date, Emmeline still held to these dreams, hoping that the standard of living of
the working classes would be brought up to that of the bourgeoisie. But she did
not believe that such wide-ranging reforms could be achieved by state owner-
ship of the means of production and state socialism alone, but by some mix of
public and private enterprise which emphasised class co-operation rather than
class hatred. Her feminism therefore complicates the categories of feminism
with which we have commonly worked in the late twentieth and twenty-first
centuries and requires us to rethink those categories.
During the course of her leadership of the militant campaign for the right of
women to exercise the parliamentary vote, Emmeline Pankhurst could be auto-
cratic, defending the undemocratic structure of the WSPU. But such strong
leadership also attracted recruits to the cause, and won support. Further, her
autocracy contained a contradiction in that her followers were encouraged to
exercise their own independent judgment as to which militant acts they should
engage in, especially in local branches which were run more democratically.
Emmeline was not simply a tool in the hands of her eldest daughter, Christabel,
but an active participant in their joint decision-making. During the course of
the militant campaign, her leadership role changed so that from 1912, when
Christabel was in exile in Paris, she became the more powerful figure.
Emmeline Pankhurst’s part performing on the international stage has largely
been ignored. Yet she pioneered links with like-minded women overseas, espe-
cially in America and Canada, which helped her to develop a world-view of
women’s suffrage and women’s issues. Her feminism changed over time. As she
grew older and faced a world of social, economic and political changes, she
became an outspoken critic of the emerging communism, with its totalitarian,
non-democratic structures and advocacy of ‘free love’ which, she upheld, did not
bring dignity and equality for women. In particular, she believed that working-
class women would be exploited and made poorer by communism, which,
amongst other things, advocated the ending of marriage and increased the
double burden of home and employment responsibilities. These views, together
with her patriotic stand during the First World War and her later enthusiasm for
the British Empire, have made her unfashionable amongst present-day feminists
who, through the lens of the late twentieth century, associate feminism with
socialism, with peace movements, and with de-colonisation. But for Emmeline
Pankhurst, as for many other feminists of her time, militarism and imperialism
NICHE IN HISTORY