Hostname: page-component-5f56664f6-c65qm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T13:26:03.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SITUATING FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2018

Natalie Alana Ashton  and
Robin McKenna
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 28 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. 1995 a. ‘Feminist Epistemology: An Interpretation and a Defense.’ Hypatia, 10(3): 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. 1995 b. ‘Knowledge, Human Interests, and Objectivity in Feminist Epistemology.’ Philosophical Topics, 23(2): 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1973. Belief, Truth and Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, N. (Ms). ‘Relativising Epistemic Advantage.’Google Scholar
Bloor, D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bogen, J. and Woodward, J. 1988. ‘Saving the Phenomena.’ Philosophical Review, 97(3): 303–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, P. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1980. ‘The Truth Doesn't Explain Much.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 17: 159–63.Google Scholar
Clifford, W. K. 1876. ‘The Ethics of Belief.’ Contemporary Review, 29: 289–309.Google Scholar
Clough, S. 1998. ‘A Hasty Retreat from Evidence: The Recalcitrance of Relativism in Feminist Epistemology.’ Hypatia, 13(4): 88–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clough, S. 2003. Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Clough, S. 2015. ‘Fact/Value Holism, Feminist Philosophy, and Nazi Cancer Research.’ Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 1 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. H. 1986. ‘Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought.’ Social Problems, 33(6): S14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, L. and Galison, P. 2010. Objectivity. New York, NY: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1971. ‘Conclusive Reasons.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P. 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. and Conee, E. 1985. ‘Evidentialism.’ Philosophical Studies, 48(1): 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1958. ‘An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Experience.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 58: 143–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. 2015. ‘The Theory-Ladenness of Experiment.’ Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 46(1): 155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, M. 1978. The Women's Room. New York, NY: Jove.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. 1999. ‘Epistemic Oppression and Epistemic Privilege.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 29: 191–210.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, M. J. 2015. ‘How Can Feminist Theories of Evidence Assist Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making?’ Social Epistemology, 29(1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 1976. ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.’ Journal of Philosophy, 73: 771–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1993. ‘Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: ‘What is Strong Objectivity?’’ In Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (eds), Feminist Epistemologies, pp. 49–82. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1995. ‘‘Strong Objectivity’: A Response to the New Objectivity Question.’ Synthese, 104(3): 331–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 283–310. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hartsock, N. 1985. Money, Sex and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 2007 [1748]. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Millican, Peter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Intemann, K. 2010. ‘25 Years of Feminist Empiricism and Standpoint Theory: Where Are We Now?’ Hypatia, 25(4): 778–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janack, M. 2010. Feminist Interpretations of Richard Rorty. University City, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, K. 1997. ‘Feminist Epistemology as Local Epistemology.’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 71(1): 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 1994. ‘In Search of Feminist Epistemology.’ The Monist, 77(4): 472–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. 1997. ‘Feminist Epistemology as a Local Epistemology.’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 71(1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukács, G. 1971. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Medina, J. 2012. The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. H. 1990. Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1951. ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism.’ Philosophical Review, 60(1): 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1969. ‘Epistemology Naturalized.’ In Quine, W. V. O. (ed.), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, pp. 69–90. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Roach, M. 2009. Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1981. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roth, P. 1999. ‘The Epistemology of ‘Epistemology Naturalized.’’ Dialectica, 53(2): 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallen, K. 1990. ‘Desire and Ability: Hormones and the Regulation of Female Sexual Behavior.’ Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 14(2): 233–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 289–323. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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. 26–48. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar