Helpsheet created for Phi 383W, Spring 2002.

Helpsheet on

SANDRA HARDING

--- Harding addresses the question: What attitude should a feminist take toward the Enlightenment tradition with its foregrounding of epistemology, and specifically of an epistemology that valorizes science and scientific progress?
--- NB: There is a broad debate going on today about the relative value of ENLIGHTENMENT philosophy and its valorization of science, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the set of anti-Enlightenment critiques roughly grouped under the term "POSTMODERNISM."
--- To put it all too crudely, the current debate pits science, epistemology, modernism, and "Enlightenment" philosophy (18th c. philosophy) over against postmodernist critics of Enlightenment thinking, of epistemology's attempts to justify some knowledge claims above others, and of "the science agenda" which claims to be one of progress.
--- Harding sees this broader debate, between Enlightenment critics and the science agenda as being RECAPITULATED, TO SOME DEGREE, WITHIN FEMINISM. After all, there are postmodern feminists and feminists who reject postmodernism and more or less accept the science agenda.
~ Some of the postmodern feminists she discusses: Flax, Haraway
~ Some of the anti-postmodernist feminists she discusses: Irigaray, Hartsock, DiStefano
--- HOWEVER, she also sees the conflict as less stark, once it is brought within feminism. After all, even feminist postmodernists can see the need for justificatory strategies (i.e., the need for epistemology); and, conversely, even feminists who support some kind of science agenda move away from Enlightenment versions of that agenda.
--- Why FEMINISTS DO NEED to develop justificatory strategies (i.e., EPISTEMOLOGIES):
~ ***Neither objectivism nor interpretationism is tenable
~ Since a new epistemology must be generated by feminists, they will need a decision procedure for "internal" use, i.e. for choosing the best alternative among those they generate.
~ A feminist epistemology is needed as a resource for developing less distorted knowledge and ending male domination.
--- What is HARDING'S OWN POSITION on the debate?
She argues for a "robust, principled ambivalence." Why? Because there really are conflicting needs among women today, and the "pomo versus science-agenda" debate is a reflection of these real conflicts. To deny the ambivalence, the tension, would be to deny an important social reality today.
--- Major feminist stances on epistemology today:
~ POSTMODERNISTS: reject epistemology as "grand theorizing
~ FEMINIST EMPIRICISTS: say the problem isn't science, it's badly done science
~ FEMINIST STANDPOINT THEORISTS: make a deeper critique of science agenda than feminist empiricists, but do not reject that agenda entirely: feminist standpoint epistemologists give some degree of epistemic privilege to the standpoint of the oppressed, arguing that the latter are in a position to develop a "double vision" that yields a more comprehensive view.
--- Advantages of feminist standpoint epistemology over feminist empiricism:
~ Empiricists think stricter adherence to scientific method can solve the problem; standpoint epistemologists disagree, claiming instead that no ahistorical principle of inquiry(including "scientific method") can adequately solve the problem, and also that science is permeated by political life. I.e., adherence to method doesnít mean we can be blind to history or to politics.
~ Feminist empiricists are less likely to insist explicitly on the value of a bifurcated consciousness (versus the Enlightenment ideal of the unified consciousness, the self-identical self as knower). They are also less likely to have a clear explanation of why women of color, e.g., must be explicitly brought into science if a less distorted body of knowledge is to be generated (since empiricism does not grant epistemic privilege to the standpoint of subordinate groups as standpoint epistemology tends to do).