Friendship
One of Astell's notable contributions to 18th-century ideas of female friendship rests on the political exigencies of forming alliances.[27] Jacqueline Broad views Astell's bond of friendship as more Aristotelian where alliances are formed for the sake of virtuous reciprocity.[28] However, Nancy Kendrick does not accept Broad's viewpoint. She feels Astell's "theory of friendship is determinedly anti-Aristotelian." Although Astell embraced the Aristotelian friendship of moral virtue, Kendrick claims that Astell treated "virtuous friends as those who love one another for who they essentially are" and not just for reciprocity's sake. Contrary to Aristotle, Astell contends that authentic virtuous friendship arose from the Divine Nature of God, thus becoming spiritual friendship. Furthermore, Astell, unlike Aristotle, saw this love in friendship extending toward one's enemies because Divine Love embraces all of mankind.[29]
Education for women
Having never received a formal education, Astell believed that women should be educated in a spiritual environment, away from society with only other females. She felt the world was so corrupt because of being under male dominance that women should receive an education free of male influence.[30] Although she suggested creating a school for women in her first proposal, she never saw its creation in her lifetime.
Astell argued that women should receive an education equal to men and should be able to refrain from marrying if they so desire. If they should marry, then they must be subjected to the will of their husbands.[31]
Astell believed in the importance of educating women and argued for their intellectual development. In her works, particularly "A Serious Proposal to the Ladies," she advocated for the establishment of educational institutions specifically for women. Astell recognised that education was crucial for women to attain social and intellectual independence, allowing them to break free from the constraints imposed by patriarchal society. Astell challenged prevailing notions that women were intellectually inferior to men. She asserted that women possessed the same innate intellectual potential as men and argued for their right to access knowledge and learning opportunities.[9] Astell emphasised the need for women to cultivate their minds and engage in intellectual pursuits, encouraging them to pursue subjects traditionally dominated by men, such as philosophy and theology.
Astell criticised the limited educational opportunities available to women in her time, which often focused on domestic skills and accomplishments. She advocated for a comprehensive education that would enable women to participate in society, engage in intellectual discourse, and contribute to the public sphere.[9]
Marriage
Astell viewed herself as self-reliant and took pride advancing her mission to rescue her sex without the help of male authority, whom she felt kept women in a place of subjugation.
Astell's Some Reflections upon Marriage, goes into the experiences of women in early modern marriages, with a specific focus on the separation of Hortense Mancini from her abusive husband.[32] Astell asserts that marriage’s current state is far from its original sanctity as a holy institution established by God due to the moral deficiencies of human beings, specifically men.[16] She warns women against blindly submitting to their husbands' will and advocates for the education of women to fortify their virtue and reason.
Scholars have suggested that Astell's Reflections contain a veiled political subtext challenging the Whig theorists of her time to extend the same authority granted to husbands in the domestic sphere to sovereigns in the state.[33] By questioning the acceptance of submission and obedience to authority in the home, but not in the state, Astell presents an ironic challenge to Whig opponents. As a result, Astell concluded that Whig theorists should practise passive obedience to their political leaders.
George Ballard, Astell's eighteenth-century biographer, stated that although she never married, she had been proposed to by an eminent clergyman but the marriage negotiations broke down, leaving Astell disappointed.[3]
Religion and politics
Astell makes jabs at John Locke critiquing An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and The Reasonableness of Christianity, along with other works she regards as deist or Socinian. She attacks his scepticism of the scriptural truth and divinity of Jesus Christ, objecting strongly that Christ is merely an 'extraordinary person,'[34] and that there is no difference between the Christian and Islamic belief in God. In sections 2 and 3 of The Christian Religion, Astell focused on "Duty to God" and "Duty to Our Neighbour," Astell presents all humans 'are brethren' and sinful pride leads us to treat others as 'creatures of a different species.' This thought rests alongside her beliefs in the essential nature of hierarchical distinctions, which she explains by stating that God's works 'do not necessarily possess the same degree of perfection.'[34]
Some have questioned how Astell could be both a feminist and a High-Church Tory given her disapproval of Locke's political views and her opposition to Whig theories of liberty, resistance and tolerance. At first glance, her support for a political party that fights freedom of conscience and other perceived dangers to the Anglican church seems in opposition with her advocacy for women's freedom of judgment. Scholars have seen that Astell's feminism is not founded on liberal political objectives but rather on intellectual premises.[16] This explains why, at the time, she did not demand complete political equality for women.
Having been exposed in her youth to civil unrest and riots in the streets of Newcastle is probably what helped develop her interest in politics. She had idealised King Charles I and viewed his successors, William and Mary, as "illegitimate" rulers to the throne of England.[35] Her Tory politics and English patriotism led her to reflect that 'it is better some innocents should suffer than the majesty of government, and herein the divine authority should be violated."[19][34]
According to Astell's Anglican political theology, all subjects are required to adhere to the notion of passive obedience, which mandates that they must willingly surrender to political authority.[36] When they are unable to do so openly, they must submit to the punishment for it. Even if the crown had dictatorial authority, Astell argued that political subjects were never entitled to oppose the monarch.[37] Locke criticised Astell's views on natural law and the right of resistance in his First Treatise, published in 1690.[38]
Astell maintains that while Locke considers self-preservation to be a fundamental right, it only involves preserving the immortal soul. Therefore, humans are only allowed to act in ways that will ensure the safety of their souls from judgment, in accordance with natural law.
