Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T01:04:09.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Minimally Decent Philosophical Method? Analytic Philosophy and Feminism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Ann Garry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay focuses on the extent to which the methods of analytic philosophy can be useful to feminist philosophers. I pose nine general questions feminist philosophers might ask to determine the suitability of a philosophical method. Examples include: Do its typical ways of formulating problems or issues encourage the inclusion of a wide variety of women's points of view? Are its central concepts gender-biased, not merely in their origin, but in very deep, continuing ways? Does it facilitate uncovering roles that gender, politics, power, and social context play in philosophy as well as in other facets of life?

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 10 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Analytic Feminism , Summer 1995 , pp. 7 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Addelson, Kathryn Pyne. 1991. Impure thoughts: Essays son philosophy, feminism, and ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Addelson, Kathryn Pyne. 1993. Knowers/doers and their moral problems. In Feminist epistemologies. See Alcoff and Potter 1993.Google Scholar
Alcoff, Linda, and Potter, Elizabeth eds., 1993. Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Antony, Louise M. 1993. Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In A mind of one's own. See Antony and Witt 1993.Google Scholar
Antony, Louise M., and Witt, Charlotte eds., 1993. A mind of one's own. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Atherton, Margaret. 1993. Cartesian reason and gendered reason. In A mind of one's own. See Antony and Witt 1993.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1961. A plea for excuses. In Philosophical papers, ed. Urmson, J. O. and Warnock, G. J.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bar On, Bat‐Ami. 1993a. Engendering origins: Critical feminist readings in Plato and Aristotle. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bar On, Bat‐Ami. 1993b. Modern engendering: Critical feminist readings in modern western philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bordo, Susan. 1987. The flight to objectivity: Essays on Cartesianism and culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Borradori, Giovanna. 1994. The American philosopher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226066493.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1989. The impact of feminism on epistemology. APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 88 (2): 25–29.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duran, Jane. 1991. Toward a feminist epistemology. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Flax, Jane. 1987. Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs 12 (4): 621–43.10.1086/494359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Marilyn. 1975. Male chauvinism: A conceptual analysis. In Philosophy and sex, ed. Baker, Robert and Elliston, Frederick. Buffalo: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Frye, Marilyn. 1992. Willful virgin. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.Google Scholar
Garry, Ann, and Pearsall, Marilyn eds., 1989. Women, knowledge, and reality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 1992. Doing philosophy as a feminist. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 91 (1): 112–15.Google Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 1993. On being objective and being objectified. In A mind of one's own. See Antony and Witt 1993.Google Scholar
Holland, Nancy J. 1990. Is women's philosophy possible? Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1992. Secrets of life, secrets of death. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 1994. Naturalizing epistemology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Bradford, M.I.T.Google Scholar
Langton, Rae. 1993. Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (4): 293–330.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1984. The man of reason: “Male” and “female” in western philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1993. Maleness, metaphor, and the “crisis” of reason. In A mind of one's own. See Antony and Witt 1993.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Rita C. 1992. Speaking from the heart: A feminist perspective on ethics. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Meyers, Diana Tietjens ed., 1993. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy. 92 (2).Google Scholar
Moulton, Janice. 1989. A paradigm of philosophy: The adversary method. In Women, knowledge, and reality. See Garry and Pearsall 1989.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows: From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1993. Epistemological communities. In A mind of one's own. See Antony and Witt 1993.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Linda J. ed., 1990. Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1981. Philosophical explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 1991. Gendered reason: Sex metaphor and conceptions of reason. Hypatia 6 (2): 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 1994. Recent work in feminist discussions of reason. American Philosophical Quarterly 31 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1982. Philosophy in America today. In Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Scheman, Naomi. 1993. Engenderings: Constructions of knowledge, authority, and privilege. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sherwin, Susan. 1989. Philosophical methodology and feminist methodology: Are they compatible? In Women, knowledge, and reality. See Garry and Pearsall 1989.Google Scholar
Trebilcot, Joyce. 1994. Dyke ideas: Process, politics and daily life. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy ed., 1992. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy. 91 (1).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical investigations, 3d ed. Trans. Anscombe, G.E.M.New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar