Reply to comment

I must admit that I was less interested in the content of Keller's article than in Harding's. It was because Keller's article felt to be a critique of theoretical mindset while Harding was arguing for a pragmatic change. I like interventions. And while Keller's piece was interesting and a fun read and I agreed with her emphasis on the physicist's obsession with being the connection between the world and theory, Harding had a concrete solution. And I liked that.

Reading Harding was also a bit depressing. It was published in 1991. And the changes she hoped for have not occurred. But I was also frustrated by the limits of her intervention. She was arguing that science must have as its aim, socially responsible goals. However, the key element she was leaving out of her critique was that of capitalism. After all, even if government, nonprofit and academic institutions commit themselves to funding socially responsible science, where's the motivation for Joe CEO?

A big part of me is frustrated by reading these women. They have great arguments, to me, but if they're only being read in the context of a women's studies course, what then? How is institutional change created? They have addressed what is wrong in great detail, proposed some very theoretical solutions and explanations, but not a game-plan for how to fix it.

Flora