Situated Knowledges

This week, when I perceived the difficulty of the Grosz and Harding selections, I shut down. I did not want to post until I was confident in what I wanted to say. I suppose it's the classic perfectionist mind-set: it's better to do nothing at all then to do something badly. Luckily, the past couple of classes explained the readings to me well enough that I feel I've gotten my confidence back and am no longer trying to avoid thinking about the subject.

I am mentioning this anecdote because I also had this unproductive response extremely frequently in reaction to attempting physics problem sets. I hadn't learned techniques of getting around this road block then. Instead I would resolutely (and comically to my friends) avoid anything to do with class during these times. I would hear a professor's voice and literally sprint up a flight of stairs straight to my room and lock myself in, mid-conversation with a friend. Taking risks and admitting weakness are not things that came naturally to me. I had to learn to it when I came to Bryn Mawr. Perhaps this could be a useful intervention in the sciences? I know risk taking has certainly been discussed as a masculine behavior in our readings.

On another note, I would like to really push Grosz's idea of accepting the existence of multiple truths/perspectives. I would push harder and say that multiple truths would not destroy scientific practice, but broaden it. It feels (ha!) very important to me that this idea of the existence of multiple perspectives be respected and not approached as a challenge for scientific missionaries.

Flora

When I think of the stereotypes of gender and the stereotypes of science, I am pretty much immediately drawn to look at science as a masculinely-identified discipline. When we define, or see women as a more inferior subject in the world, physically week, less scientifically driven, it directly affects this idea that if we are socialized in shaping our bodies, our experiences in doing so, will impact how we mature on an intellectual level.

Even though it seemed evident that the two feminist articles pertain much more to the world of social sciences, i felt that it wouldn't be all that difficult, quite frankly looking at the gendered nature of schools of thought and comparing them to each other!

When I read both articles, one thing that really struck me was the emphasis on language and its link with the development of gendered ideas, however I feel that the authors could absolutely do with more hard evidence to substantiate exactly what they were saying. With Grosz, she sort of outlines her article for us, and then the reader gets lost in the dense language of her article, which is even more ironic, when she is talking about language herself!

Here's my biggest problem: I guess, because I have been reading feminist theory for a few years now, I get really tied up trying to decide whether the material I am reading is 1st wave, 2nd wave, 3rd wave! I identify strongly as a third wave feminist, and sometimes reading things that seem blatantly 2nd wave, make me feel very overwhelmed and frustrated.

-alex

All I could think about while reading the articles was the ivory tower syndrome, and how so much of academia is aimed at people within their narrow field of interest. Most of the readings-- especially Grosz's-- were lost in a sea of absolutely unnecessary jargon.

So if I've totally missed the point of the articles, let me know. Because I feel a bit, uh, overwhelmed.

I've heard arguments like Grosz's before; where the world view is inherently male because the male is the intellect, while the female is at the mercy of her body. I haven't heard it put in quite that form, especially not with bodies being neutral. If the male is the intellect, isn't the female fulfilling a negative, nonintellectual role? Especially as the female is prone to being hysterical and irrational, as the argument goes.

I'm not entirely sure where she was going with that, though. I see how the feminine and the masculine perspectives can change things in the social sciences, but not so much the hard sciences-- at least not in the terms of "knowledges." Then again, I'm not sure what she means by knowledges, as it doesn't seem to be any knowledge that I'm aware of. I know that I'm not particularly philosophically minded, but... did I miss something there?

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?