Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

rmalfi's picture

but... how?

Ok, so I have to say that I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this epistomology stuff. I get what Grosz and Harding say, but I have trouble understanding how you would apply their arguments in order to actually change science.... Their arguments seem much more relevant to social sciences, where it is more straightforwardly (to me, at least) pertinent to understand multiple perspectives (heterogeneous, Harding calls it) and to actively contextualize in order to get at a "truth" or multiple "truths." For me (and I'm sure this has to do with years of training and structured cirriculum), it is very hard to understand how we can use the feminist perspectives and critiques decribed to actually change science, to actively engage the field (and members within the field), and to ultimately create a methodology which is not inherently biased (by the dominating, singular view, produced through generations of control over a subject). Both authors touch on ways this could be acheived, but no one provides concrete examples of what they mean, and this bothers me. Grosz talks about language and history. This makes sense -- put things into context by talking about a more comprehensive science history, that includes women. And yes, change language so that it is also more inclusive (change the way we talk about our bodies, for instance). But... how do we start to do this? How do we introduce new language, or the veiled concept of "projects" that Harding speaks of. Harding claims that we have to pursue projects that establish feminist standpoint theory into the way we think, and into our scientific method.... but how? And what does this accomplish exactly? She speaks in lofty terms about how "the sciences have been blind to their own sexist and androcentric research practices and results" but she never really concretely says how to actively change this (in terms of natural sciences). I mean, maybe I missed something, but I genuinely don't get this! Call me an ontological realist or something, but I feel like if we are building bridges and making rockets fly... what does feminist or masculine perspective have to do with that, exactly?


To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
1 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.