“The Great Lawsuit” is an essay by Margaret Fuller, an American writer known for her contributions to transcendentalism and the women’s rights movement of the 1800s. It was first published in 1843 in The Dial, a journal she edited at the time. Fuller expanded the piece to create Woman in the Nineteenth Century, a book published in 1845.

An early example of feminist writing and a vehicle for transcendental ideas, “The Great Lawsuit” centers on concepts such as the equality of all people and humankind’s struggle to reach an elevated state of being. Fuller argues that men and women should have the same set of rights, including the rights to own property and vote. She praises abolitionist principles throughout the essay, noting how American women face many of the same impediments as slaves in the South.

At the start of “The Great Lawsuit,” Fuller wonders if humans will ever reach an enlightened state that allows them to have a closer relationship with the divine. She compares humankind’s current state to slumber. As people’s eyes remain shut, selfishness runs rampant, keeping them from achieving a higher form of existence.

Fuller views this divine state as an inheritance and posits that transcendence to this state is the destiny of the human race. As she states, “the highest ideal man can form of his own capabilities is that which he is destined to attain” (Paragraph 8). Perfection—especially the perfection of divine love—should be humankind’s goal, she adds, citing the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible’s New Testament. How to seek this perfection is a matter of debate. Some believe that the intellect is the best route, while others believe that lived experience is the preferable method, even if mistakes are made along the way. Another group advocates waiting for answers quietly and patiently.

There are many evil forces at work that impede humans’ progress toward enlightenment, Fuller says. She sees numerous examples in the United States, where “the cross, here as elsewhere, has been planted only to be blasphemed by cruelty and fraud” (Paragraph 17). One of the most glaring examples is slavery. She stresses that everyone is born equal and free, despite the country’s “monstrous display of slave dealing and slave keeping” (Paragraph 19). Nevertheless, the United States has inherited some of Europe’s worst qualities, including patriarchal attitudes and a tendency toward violence and abuse. These qualities underpin some of the nation’s worst practices, including widespread mistreatment of women, indigenous peoples, and individuals of African descent.

Fuller notes that women have been leaders in the American anti-slavery movement, putting their principles into action. Equality is for all, including women and people of African descent, so it makes sense for women to join abolitionist efforts. Similarly, it makes sense for abolitionists to fight for women’s equality.

That said, there are plenty of naysayers. Fuller says opponents of equality tend to frame advocates of equality as people bent on destroying the nation’s prosperity and the family unit. These opponents tend to be men who insist that their wives are content with their lot in life. Likewise, they tend to believe that a man is, by nature, the head of his household and thus able to determine what is right for his wife.

Fuller acknowledges that not all men think they should make decisions for their partners. She notes that many “are considering whether women are capable of being and having more than they are and have, and whether, if they are, it will be best to consent to improvement in their condition” (Paragraph 31). But as they ponder these questions, women remain subjugated. For instance, if a man dies without creating a will, his wife inherits only part of his estate, much like a child would. Despite being a partner in the marriage, the woman “does not hold property on equal terms with men” (Paragraph 34). Thus, when men die or desert their families, women must often bear an undue financial burden. This often leads them into debt, substandard housing, and other problems. The notion that men’s opinions are more valid than women’s allows this problem to persist, Fuller argues.

Problems like these are unlikely to be solved unless women can represent their own interests in public, Fuller says. Simply put, it is unlikely that men will put their self-interest aside and adopt this cause on women’s behalf. Opponents of this viewpoint argue that all men are influenced by the women in their lives, but the proper place for this activity is in the privacy of the home. Further, allowing women to actively engage in public discourse would clash with their motherly roles; cause pandemonium at the polls; make homes less beautiful; make legislative institutions less dignified; and make women less appealing because women would lose the delicate qualities that beguile so many men.

Fuller responds that women can advocate for their interests with grace and dignity whether in public or in private. The real problem, she says, is that some men fear that women’s actual wishes differ from the wishes men say women have. Fuller also attacks the notion that bringing women into the public sphere would lead to chaos, noting how plenty of women visit the theater, attend meetings, and more with no ill effects on their homes. She takes issue with a common remark, “You cannot reason with a woman,” often uttered by men whose wives provide “not only all that is comfortable and graceful, but all that is wise in the arrangement of their lives” (Paragraph 42). This type of man cannot be trusted to control a woman’s destiny or even to ensure that she is treated justly, except when sentiment drives him to do so. And even sentiment is an imperfect means of achieving justice. Just as it is wrong for one man to enslave another, it is wrong for a man to limit a woman’s freedom, even if he does so with good intentions.

Fuller says it might not be so bad for men to make decisions for women if people lived in a society where men truly acted as friends and brothers to women, but that is simply not the current reality. Not all women feel a need to hold positions of power or be particularly vocal about their needs in public, she adds. Women do, however, need to be able to grow, use their intellect, and apply their talents fully and freely. There are many obstacles preventing this from happening in American society, Fuller says. One of the most important involves the way girls and women are educated.

Most women, Fuller argues, are discouraged from becoming self-reliant. She feels fortunate that her own father did not fall into this trap. Fuller compares herself to Miranda, a major character in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Like Miranda, she is the daughter of a man who had “no sentimental reverence for woman, but a firm belief in the equality of the sexes” (Paragraph 47). Instead of teaching their daughters to look to others for direction, opinions, and explanations, these fathers encouraged them to look inward and find her own. They also respected their daughters and expected them to develop the same virtues they would expect sons to develop: courage, honor, fidelity, and sound judgment. By building self-reliance early on, both Fuller and Miranda were able to cultivate self-respect, clear minds, and peace within.

Though Fuller recognizes the value of self-reliance, she realizes that many of her contemporaries—men in particular—view it as a flaw in women. Even when men appreciate the strength or independence of a woman’s thoughts, they tend to praise the woman for being “manly” (Paragraph 55). Plus, such praise is rare and tends to be uttered in surprise. Fuller explains that too many men yearn “to be lord in a little world, to be superior at least over one” (Paragraph 59).This keeps them from recognizing women’s contributions or acknowledging that women are destined for transcendence. Fuller sees this as evidence not that men are evil, cruel, or incapable of finding redemption, but that they haven’t yet become “elevated being[s]” (Paragraph 63).

Fuller notes how the writers of history have tended to overlook women, giving future generations the impression that women have little wit or intelligence to offer civilization. Even historical women with some name recognition—Aspasia, Sappho, and Eloisa, for example—are not well-known to most. Despite this, contemporary women known for their beauty and grace, namely actresses and singers, tend to receive more attention than women whose accomplishments have little association with physical attractiveness or conventionally-feminine behavior. For this reason, it is difficult for female authors to garner attention, even though their accomplishments are likely to be appreciated, Fuller says. It is even harder for women whose accomplishments happen in other realms of society.

To encourage the proper recognition of women, Fuller advocates creating a “free, genial atmosphere for those of a more timid sort, fair play for each in its own kind” (Paragraph 67). She is not suggesting that all women are timid but that there be ways for a variety of women to gain recognition, not just the aggressive ones. She also recognizes that men also face “artificial obstacles,” but that these obstacles have typically “grown out of his own imperfections” (Paragraph 68). What’s more, men have a habit of placing obstacles in women’s paths, creating a need for redress.

Fuller also notes how even the most unsavory men often have fond, sentimental memories of their mothers. But this sentimentality doesn’t yield more opportunities for women to pursue what they deem important or fulfilling. Fuller suggests that placing too much emphasis on motherhood downplays other roles of honor women have held throughout history: goddess and keeper of divine wisdom, to name a couple. She rejects the claim that prominent women from the ancient societies of Egypt, Rome, Greece and other regions in fact assumed subordinate roles, noting how the concept of victory is consistently personified as female and how the Madonna is one of the most revered figures in Catholicism.

Women must be free to determine what they want, state it openly, and actively pursue it, Fuller argues. She states that “the only reason why women every assume what is more appropriate to you [men], is because you prevent them from finding out what is fit for themselves,” adding that “were they wise fully to develop the strength and beauty of woman, they would never wish to be men, or manlike” (Paragraph 82). She also notes that men and women have more similar status when both are enslaved, for each is nothing but “a work-tool, an article of property” (Paragraph 82).

Similarly, women are unlikely to achieve equality until they have more status in their marriages. Fuller notes how some of the world’s most famous western poets, the ones who pioneered ideas such as chivalry and romantic love, had marriages of convenience. Even as these ideas have gained traction, the purpose of marriage is a contentious subject: “A great majority of societies and individuals are still doubtful whether earthly marriage is to be a union of souls, or merely a contract of convenience and utility” (Paragraph 96).

If women were viewed as men’s equals and fellow travelers on a spiritual quest, this would not be the case, she says. But at present, a woman tends to have two options: her father arranges her marriage and gives her few choices in the matter, or she chooses her own husband but feels compelled to marry someone who will protect her and provide her with a home for her to oversee, as custom dictates.

The latter option often turns into a type of marriage Fuller calls the household partnership. It is characterized by mutual dependence and practicality. The wife praises her husband for being a good provider, and the husband praises his wife for being an excellent housekeeper. Fuller identifies three other types of marriage as well. One is mutual idolatry. Here, the husband and wife succumb to personal and mutual pride as they “weaken and narrow one another” (Paragraph 102). Another, intellectual companionship, is characterized by mutual respect and the fulfillment of both partners’ needs for friendship and stimulation of the mind. Here, the husband and wife “meet mind to mind, and a mutual trust is excited which can buckler them against a million. They work together for a common purpose, and, in all these instances, with the same implement, the pen” (Paragraph 116). A final variant, religious union, incorporates features of the others and adds a spiritual dimension. Fuller describes it as a “pilgrimage towards a common shrine” (Paragraph 121). Men and women are likely to be equals in such unions, she says.

Next, Fuller argues that schooling for girls needs to be improved considerably. She asserts that high-quality education for girls is intrinsically valuable, but that it is not given nearly as much thought as education for boys. She says adults should give girls “as fair a field as boys” in education (Paragraph 126), and that “it should be acknowledged that they have intellect which needs developing” (Paragraph 127). Fuller laments common remarks about girls’ education being valuable because it provides better companions and mothers for men, deeming them selfish and patriarchal. Developing a girl’s intellect, she adds, helps her move toward perfection, a more noble goal than being a pleasing wife.

Fuller goes on to consider the plight of women who never marry, a group “contemptuously designated as old maids” (Paragraph 129). She suspects that having more self-reliant women in society might cause the population of older, unmarried woman to increase. Fuller views marriage as something natural and desirable, but she thinks an unmarried person can direct the energy he or she would devote to a spouse to God instead. She is aware that humans are flawed and that many unmarried people will not focus on the divine, but she doesn’t see an easy answer to solve the “problem” of unmarried people. Fuller thinks there are ways for older women to maintain youthful souls, for instance by tending to their spiritual lives, yet acknowledges that elderly women are viewed contemptuously because they are not perceived as youthful.

Returning to the topic of women’s education, Fuller notes that underdeveloped intellect makes many women susceptible to self-delusion: “When the intellect and affections are in harmony, when intellectual consciousness is calm and deep, inspiration will not be confounded with fancy” (Paragraph 143). She adds that women are blessed with a “magnetic element” that can be developed and used for good; in other words, women tend to have “intuitions [that are] more rapid and more correct” than those of men (Paragraph 145).

Though women often don’t receive educational opportunities equal to those of men, they often do have more time to read and contemplate, Fuller says. Additionally, women “are not so early forced into the bustle of life, nor so weighed down by demands for outward success” (Paragraph 150). Since they are not bound by the traditions of men’s intellectual activities, they have a unique opportunity to think in ways that are “unrestrained by the past” (Paragraph 151). Furthermore, Fuller feels the activities traditionally assigned to women make their lives more suited to looking inward and contemplating spiritual questions. She also feels heartened by the talents of female speakers such as Angelina Grimke and Abby Kelly and believes that more women have the ability to “speak for conscience’s sake, to serve a cause which they hold sacred” (Paragraph 157).

Fuller says that by gaining power and influence, women can shape society to better reflect what she regards as their nature. This would include reforms such as the enfranchisement of slaves and a greater orientation toward harmony, rather than the violence and abuse that accompanies the European patriarchal tradition.

Though Fuller believes that women naturally possess certain types of feminine qualities, she thinks that all people possess a blend of feminine and masculine qualities. She doesn’t see the masculine traits as threats; rather, the most serious threat to most people is being too focused on other people’s demands. This, she says, can alienate an individual from his or her nature and internal world. Periods of isolation can help resolve this issue, but it is also important to consider structural factors that lead people to look outward rather than inward.

Fuller argues that it’s especially important for women to guard against looking outward too often and too easily. This is why she says women should avoid being taught by men, most of whom are “under the slavery of habit” and prone to enforcing patriarchal norms and being blind to women’s perspectives (Paragraph 180). Instead, women must look within to find what they need and develop their most precious qualities. By living in this way, a “natural harmony” will establish itself, one where “Truth and Love are sought in the light of freedom” (Paragraph 196).

The essay comes to a close with Fuller dissecting the idea of virginal perfection. She takes issue with the notion that a virgin is the only possible symbol of womanly perfection. A woman should not be defined in relation to a man, she concludes. She must seek truth and achieve perfection independently, through her own inner journey.