Skip to main content
×
×
Home

SITUATING FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGY

  • Natalie Alana Ashton and Robin McKenna
Abstract

Feminist epistemologies hold that differences in the social locations of inquirers make for epistemic differences, for instance, in the sorts of things that inquirers are justified in believing. In this paper we situate this core idea in feminist epistemologies with respect to debates about social constructivism. We address three questions. First, are feminist epistemologies committed to a form of social constructivism about knowledge? Second, to what extent are they incompatible with traditional epistemological thinking? Third, do the answers to these questions raise serious problems for feminist epistemologies? We argue that some versions of two of the main strands in feminist epistemology – feminist standpoint theory and feminist empiricism – are committed to a form of social constructivism, which requires certain departures from traditional epistemological thinking. But we argue that these departures are less problematic than one might think. Thus, (some) feminist epistemologies provide a plausible way of understanding how (some) knowledge might be socially constructed.

Copyright
Corresponding author
natalie.ashton@univie.ac.at and rbnmckenna@gmail.com
References
Hide All
Anderson, E. 1995 a. ‘Feminist Epistemology: An Interpretation and a Defense.’ Hypatia, 10(3): 5084.
Anderson, E. 1995 b. ‘Knowledge, Human Interests, and Objectivity in Feminist Epistemology.’ Philosophical Topics, 23(2): 2758.
Anderson, E. 2004. ‘Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce.’ Hypatia, 19(1): 124.
Anderson, E. 2017. ‘Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/feminism-epistemology/.
Armstrong, D. M. 1973. Belief, Truth and Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ashton, N. (Ms). ‘Relativising Epistemic Advantage.’
Bloor, D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bogen, J. and Woodward, J. 1988. ‘Saving the Phenomena.’ Philosophical Review, 97(3): 303–52.
Boghossian, P. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cartwright, N. 1980. ‘The Truth Doesn't Explain Much.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 17: 159–63.
Clifford, W. K. 1876. ‘The Ethics of Belief.’ Contemporary Review, 29: 289309.
Clough, S. 1998. ‘A Hasty Retreat from Evidence: The Recalcitrance of Relativism in Feminist Epistemology.’ Hypatia, 13(4): 88111.
Clough, S. 2003. Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Clough, S. 2015. ‘Fact/Value Holism, Feminist Philosophy, and Nazi Cancer Research.’ Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 1 (1).
Collins, P. H. 1986. ‘Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought.’ Social Problems, 33(6): S1432.
Daston, L. and Galison, P. 2010. Objectivity. New York, NY: Zone Books.
Dretske, F. 1971. ‘Conclusive Reasons.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49(1): 122.
Duhem, P. 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Feldman, R. and Conee, E. 1985. ‘Evidentialism.’ Philosophical Studies, 48(1): 1534.
Feyerabend, P. 1958. ‘An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Experience.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 58: 143–70.
Franklin, A. 2015. ‘The Theory-Ladenness of Experiment.’ Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 46(1): 155–66.
French, M. 1978. The Women's Room. New York, NY: Jove.
Fricker, M. 1999. ‘Epistemic Oppression and Epistemic Privilege.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 29: 191210.
Goldenberg, M. J. 2015. ‘How Can Feminist Theories of Evidence Assist Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making?Social Epistemology, 29(1): 330.
Goldman, A. 1976. ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.’ Journal of Philosophy, 73: 771–91.
Goodman, N. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Hanson, N. R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harding, S. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Harding, S. 1993. ‘Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: ‘What is Strong Objectivity?’’ In Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (eds), Feminist Epistemologies, pp. 4982. New York, NY: Routledge.
Harding, S. 1995. ‘‘Strong Objectivity’: A Response to the New Objectivity Question.’ Synthese, 104(3): 331–49.
Hartsock, N. 1983. ‘The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.’ In Harding, S. and Hintikka, M. (eds), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, pp. 283310. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Hartsock, N. 1985. Money, Sex and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism. New York, NY: Longman.
Hartsock, N. 1997. ‘Comment on Hekman's ‘Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited’: Truth or Justice?Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2): 367–74.
Hume, D. 2007 [1748]. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Millican, Peter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Intemann, K. 2010. ‘25 Years of Feminist Empiricism and Standpoint Theory: Where Are We Now?Hypatia, 25(4): 778–96.
Janack, M. 2010. Feminist Interpretations of Richard Rorty. University City, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1977. ‘Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.’ In Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 320–39. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lennon, K. 1997. ‘Feminist Epistemology as Local Epistemology.’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 71(1): 3754.
Longino, H. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. 1994. ‘In Search of Feminist Epistemology.’ The Monist, 77(4): 472–85.
Longino, H. 1997. ‘Feminist Epistemology as a Local Epistemology.’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 71(1): 1936.
Longino, H. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lukács, G. 1971. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Medina, J. 2012. The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, L. H. 1990. Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. 1951. ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism.’ Philosophical Review, 60(1): 2043.
Quine, W. V. O. 1969. ‘Epistemology Naturalized.’ In Quine, W. V. O. (ed.), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, pp. 6990. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. 1986. ‘Reply to Morton White.’ In Hahn, L. and Schilpp, P. (eds), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine, pp. 663–5. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Roach, M. 2009. Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Rorty, R. 1981. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Roth, P. 1999. ‘The Epistemology of ‘Epistemology Naturalized.’Dialectica, 53(2): 87110.
Smith, D. E. 1997. ‘Comment on Hekman's ‘Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited’.’ Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2): 392–8.
Wallen, K. 1990. ‘Desire and Ability: Hormones and the Regulation of Female Sexual Behavior.’ Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 14(2): 233–41.
Wallen, K. 2000. ‘Risky Business: Social Context and Hormonal Modulation of Primate Sexual Desire.’ In Wallen, K. and Schneider, J. (eds), Reproduction in Context, pp. 289323. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wylie, A. 2003. ‘Why Standpoint Matters.’ In Figueroa, R. and Harding, S. (eds), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology, pp. 2648. New York, NY: Routledge.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Episteme
  • ISSN: 1742-3600
  • EISSN: 1750-0117
  • URL: /core/journals/episteme
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 296
Total number of PDF views: 73 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 443 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th April 2018 - 21st August 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.