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 selfidentical 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).