Contents:
Stickney - - Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 6: Identity, Autonomy, and Public Reason. Feminism, Postmodernism, and Psychological Research. Lisa Cosgrove - - Hypatia 18 3: Dalit Yassour-Borochowitz - - Ethics and Behavior 14 2: Feminism, Identity and Difference. Timing Feminism, Feminising Time. Feminism, Femininity, and Popular Culture.
Joanne Hollows - A Reader in Feminist Theory.
'This is an ambitious book. It seeks to develop a clear theory ofdifference(s) on which to ground feminist epistemology andpractice. Hekman's contention is that. Description. This key work addresses one of the most central and controversial issues in contemporary feminist theory: the problem of difference.
A Feminist Perspective on Stroke Rehabilitation: The Relevance of de Beauvoir's Theory. Mappings Feminism and the Cultural Geographies of Encounter. Susan Stanford Friedman - Contesting the Core Concepts of Feminist Theory. Judith Grant - - Routledge. Contemporary Feminist Critique and Cultural Analysis. Geraldine Pratt - - Temple University Press.
A redefined e pistemology must include: But, we have learned from Code that any efforts to limit or remove context are doomed to eventual failure. As long as Epistemologists continue to be willing to recognize we need knowers in order to have knowledge, then knowers will bring with them their contextuality, including their gender. I move on to some pragmatist concerns, as John Dewey recommended philosophy let go of Epistemology many years ago, and his theory of inquiry serves as an example of an e pistemological theory.
Epistemologists are supposed to be concerned with the judging of reasons and reasons theories, ideas are usually described as being in contrast to experiences practice. Thus we find some philosophers argue that we cannot trust our experiences and must tune into our ideas Idealists , while others describe our experiences as our source of knowledge Empiricists. Overall, ideas have held a higher status in the Euro-western world, as being more abstract, objective, and general than experience, which is judged to be more immediate, subjective, and concrete.
When treated as separate, contrasting entities then philosophers can ignore their transactional qualities, and again attempt to avoid issues concerning context, values, and power. These two concepts form the epistemological and metaphysical netting that catches up the classic pragmatists philosophical ideas. James clings to the Subject as an individual, which makes him more vulnerable to relativism charges. Dewey embraces a democratic community of inquirers model, which is the direction feminists recommend, yet he reaches out to science as a method for solving doubts, and we found above that feminists have much to say about the inability of science to be objective and impartial.
Classic pragmatists do not address adequately issues of power, and we already know that feminists have much to say to insure we understand the connections between power and knowledge. Postmodernists contribute significantly to our understanding of the connections between power and knowledge as well. His discussion on context is also a way into understanding his concept of experience. Dewey defines context as including background which is both temporal and spatial and selective interest.
Contextual background is what we take for granted, which is tacitly understood, as we draw our attention to that which we are immediately thinking of, through our selective interest. Surrounding, bathing, saturating, the things of which we are explicitly aware is some inclusive situation which does not enter into the direct material of reflection. It does not come into question; it is taken for granted with respect to the particular question that is occupying the field of thinking. Since it does not come into question, it is stable, settled.
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia becomes Africa's first elected woman leader and the first black female president in the world. Impartiality is the requirement that theories must be evaluated on the basis of evidence and the extent to which they fulfill other epistemic values. In fact, the boundaries between these two epistemological approaches standpoint and postmodern feminism are often unclear, if they exist at all. New York Public Library. Cutcliffe and Carl Mitcham eds. For her, this separation of the knower from the world of facts the known is based on a false metaphysics that separates experience from existence. Feminist Equity Critiques 3.
This task of making the familiar strange is what standpoint theorists suggest is the role of the marginalized, the outsider who has been oppressed by the background context. Dewey argues that while we can learn to question our background context, we can never completely escape our background context, anymore than we can step outside of our own skins in order to see them from an outsider perspective. We can only get partial glimpses. This attitude is what determines the questions we choose to ask and the way we choose to go about answering our questions.
This bias is what causes us to notice certain qualities and not others, and to attend to certain experiences and not others. The opposite of subjective is not objective, but rather the merely repetitive. The fallacy of unlimited extension or universalization occurs when philosophers try to move beyond the limiting conditions that set up a contextual situation to a single and coherent whole.
He then points out examples of the harmful effects caused from ignoring context in the accounts given of the history of thought. This is again an example of ignoring context. There exists at any period a body of beliefs and of institutions and practices allied to them. In these beliefs there are implicit broad interpretations of life and the world. These interpretations have consequences, often profoundly important. Dewey adopted from Peirce his notion of meaning, that our conceptions are analyzed in terms of the consequences of our action. According to Peirce, we cannot separate our ideas from our experiences.
Peirce argues that we determine how clear our concepts are by running them through a functional test, grounding them to experience. Thus, meaning is defined in terms of its effects. In Experience and Nature Dewey describes experience this way: He goes on to say experience is:.
He recommended we turn toward a theory of inquiry, which is best presented in his book Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , He argues that logic is a naturalistic theory and a social discipline biological and cultural influences , that logic is a progressive discipline that involves a circular process. It is inquiry into inquiry. Inquiry is due to doubts — when doubts are removed, inquiry ends. That is a tautology, a truism. But if we take knowledge to have a meaning of its own apart from inquiry , then inquiry becomes subordinated to this meaning. Dewey rejects a priori principles for logic that determine the character of inquiry.
The conditions for logic are to be determined in inquiry. In other words, Dewey presents a contextual theory of logic as inquiry. For Dewey, logic is the method of intelligent behavior. Inquiry has a common structure or pattern that Dewey discusses in many of his books see for example Democracy and Education , ; Experience and Education , This structure is similar to the scientific method.
Dewey does not distinguish between common sense and scientific inquiry, for he says the difference is in the subject matter difference in the problems , not in their basic logical forms and relations. First we have doubts or questions, the institution of a problem. The indeterminate situation evokes questions and attracts our attention. However, no situation is completely indeterminate, some of the constituents of a situation must be assumed to be settled.
Then we search out the constituents to help us define the problem. Next we search for a possible solution, an idea, a suggestion, which we test out to determine if it settles our doubts. When our doubts are settled, our inquiry of this particular situation ends. Dewey describes, late in his life, how he used an historical approach to help elucidate his original contribution.
In other words, he tried to give a larger, historical context to the philosophical ideas he was trying to bring into question. By taking a larger view, he hoped to make what we take for granted seem strange, and questionable. On hindsight, he says: A little less time on placing his theory within the context of others before him, and more time on explaining his in particular less time on the problem and more on the solution might have gone a long way. He shows that a problem that appears to be unsolvable if its terms are placed in an ontological context, collapses when treated in the context of inquiry.
Dewey points out that what has helped science make such great headway in its methods and conclusions is its experimental conduct, and the fact that even its best theories remain hypothetical in their status Dewey A hypothesis used to mean that which was beyond doubt or question, and now its meaning has radically changed to an assertion that is subject to verification or proof. It helps us question our specific interests as well as our background assumptions.
It stands up to the test of time as a way of establishing knowing and meaning, for it starts with experience and it is never beyond questioning itself. It represents a form of naturalistic e pistemology for it still strives to yield warranted assertions that are not arbitrary, yet it does not rely on a priori principles to do so. Clearly, Dewey does not embrace a transcendental view of Epistemology.
In fact, he is very critical of Epistemology due to its a priori principles and its metaphysical assumptions. But this does not mean that Dewey does not use e pistemology, for certainly he gives reasons to justify his arguments and evidence to warrant his claims.
Relation signifies the existential connections of things, a dynamic and functional interaction, and it also signifies the logical relationships of terms. We speak of the overlapping and interconnecting of concepts and meanings that have reference to each other, and we describe how things affect each other existentially. Relationships can be personal, one-on-one exchanges as between a teacher and a student, a parent and their child, or two lovers.
We also use the term relational in a general manner, as with social relationships between a citizen and their country, or the relationship of men to women. We speak of relations in terms of kinship, that so-and-so is related to someone else, and we say we can relate to someone else meaning we feel sympathy toward that person. We can compare our experiences to the other. The plural use of the term, relations is even used to mean sexual intercourse. I find it an advantage, not a disadvantage, that relational means connections in so many ways.
My hope is that its many uses will remind us of the transactional nature of knowing in the Deweyian sense of the term. The connection is not just accidental or incidental, in the sense that we do not just bounce off of each other like marbles when they hit each other in a shooting game. I want to emphasize that relations are transactional in that we affect each other, dynamically and functionally, and each is changed as a result.
When we understand we are one with the universe, then we can begin to understand how connected we are, as knowers, not only to each other, but to our products as well, our knowledge. Knowledge is made, by us, as products of this process of knowing. The mystical, mysterious, poetic kinds of qualities that emerge in discussions on relationality are really more of a reflection of our language and thoughts than on the concept of a relational e pistemology itself.
Language is used to classify and clarify. Our terms help us separate and straighten out our ideas. We use words to differentiate and distinguish, and what I am trying to do here is bring things together.
I want to emphasize how things overlap, associate, integrate, refer, compare, connect, relate to each other, and in that relating, how things affect each other, and change each other. Our language tends to strive to create demarcations, either this or that, and I want to try to soften these marks and show how things are both and , to unify. It is also steeped in the classic pragmatist focus on addressing context background and selected interest. I describe knowers as fallible human beings who are connected to knowledge, in a knowing relation. I question that a general account of knowledge, based on a priori standards for justification, is possible.
I do not have the Right Answer. I offer truths, that are assertions warranted by as much evidence as I can muster, with the understanding that our criteria and standards are socially constructed and therefore fallible, and corrigible. I do not deny the need to justify claims, I just deny that any justification I can offer has transcendental force. It is important to address questions about what counts as good evidence, and criteria used to help us make decisions and solve our problems.
As we continue to strive for solutions, to inquire, problem solve, and constructively think, e pistemological questions will continue to arise. Can we avoid these? I am not letting go of e pistemological concerns, just the concept of Epistemology that assumes absolutism, even in a non-vulgar form.
I present knowing as a relational process between the knower and the known, steeped in strong contextuality. I walk down this path as a fallible social critic who understands that we can redescribe what has already been described, we can recreate and envision anew, we can reform, but we need each other to help us in this process. Not one of us, alone, knows the Answers. I invite your contributions to the conversation, for as Dewey points out, inquiry only ends when we have solved all of our problems, and answered all of our questions, and we are a long way from there.
Not only do I think we will never get to that point, I doubt it is even a desirable point to reach. Disharmony, discontent, and diversity help us continue to grow and further our knowing. Luckmann , , The Social Construction of Reality: Feminist Epistemologies , New York, Routledge, The Later Works, , Vol.
Discovering Reality , Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co, Africa, and North, Central, and South America are continents in the Western hemisphere of our world, and yet they have their own cultures and traditions which predate European influence. The Politics of Epistemic Location. A discussion of feminist standpoint theory was published in the Winter edition of Signs.
Interaction "assigns equal rights to both factors in experience — objective and internal conditions. Any normal experience is an interplay of these two sets of conditions. Later in the same chapter, Dewey goes on to say: