Why standpoint matters

Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 26-48

  Wylie, Alison ^a  

^a Washington Universityst ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925789105     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315881010     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. Joseph Rouse, Engaging Science: How to Understand Its Practices Philosophically (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996);
2. Helen Longino, The Fate of Knowledge (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002);
3. Philip Kitcher, Science, Truth and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
4. Miriam Solomon, Social Empiricism (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001).
5. Susan Hekman, “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited,” Signs 22(2) (1997): 341.
6. Nancy C. M. Hartsock, “Comments On Hekman's ‘Truth and Method’: Truth or Justice?” Signs 22.2 (1997): 367-74.
7. Patricia Hill Collins, “Comment on Hekman's ‘Truth and Method’: Where's the Power?” Signs 22(2) (1997): 375-81.
8. Sandra Harding, “Comment on Hekman's ‘Truth and Method’: Whose Standpoint Needs the Regimes of Truth and Reality?” Signs 22(2) (1997): 382-91.
9. Dorothy Smith, “Comments On Hekman's ‘Truth and Method’,” Signs 22(2) (1997): 392-8.
10. Sally J. Kenney and Helen Kinsella edited a special issue of Women and Politics 18(3) (1997).
11. Katherine Welton, “Nancy Hartsock's Standpoint Theory: From Content to ‘Concrete Multiplicity’,” in Kenny and Kinsella (eds.), Politics, 7-24;
12. Nancy J. Hirschmann, “Feminist Standpoint as Postmodern Strategy,” in Kenny and Kinsella (eds.), Politics, 73-92.
13. Nancy C. M. Hartsock, “The Feminist Standpoint Revisited,” in The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays (Boulder, Colo.: West-view Press, 1998), 227-48.
14. Nancy C. M. Hartsock, “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism,” in S. Harding and M. B. Hintikka, eds., Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives On Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (Boston: Reidel, 1983), 293-5.
15. Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986), 24-29
16. Dorothy E. Smith, “Women's Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology,” Sociological Inquiry 44 (1974): 7-14.
17. J. Sherman and E. T. Beck, eds., The Prism of Sex: Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979), 137-87.
18. Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), 100-124.
19. Catherine M. O‘Leary, “Counteridentification or Counterhegemony? Transforming Feminist Standpoint Theory,” in Politics and Feminist Standpoint Theories, ed. Sally J. Kenney and Helen Kinsella (New York: Haworth Press, 1997), 65.
20. Evelyn Fox Keller, “Gender and Science,” Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought 1.3 (1978): 409-33.
21. Jane Roland Martin, “Science in a Different Style,” American Philosophical Quarterly 25(2) (1988):129-40.
22. Sandra Harding on ‘The Science Question in Feminism,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 13 (1987): 59-73.
23. Helen E. Longino, “Feminist Standpoint Theory and the Problems of Knowledge,” Signs 19(1) (1993): 201-12.
24. Saree Makdisis, Cesare Casarino, and Rebecca E. Karle, eds., Marxism Beyond Marxism (New York: Routledge, 1996), 89-118.
25. O‘Leary, Hirschmann, and Catherine Hundleby, “Where Standpoint Stands Now,” in Politics and Feminist Standpoint Theories, ed. Sally J. Kenney and Helen Kinsella (New York: Haworth Press, 1997), 41.
26. Amy Ihlan, “The ‘Dilemma of Difference’ and Feminist Standpoint Theory,” APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 94(2) (1995): 58-63;
27. Mary E. Swigonski, “Feminist Standpoint Theory and the Questions of Social Work Research,” Affilia 8(2) (1993): 171-83;
28. Julia T. Wood, “Gender and Moral Voice: Moving from Woman's Nature to Standpoint Epistemology,” Women's Studies in Communication 15(1) (1992): 1-24.
29. “The Scientific Domains of Feminist Standpoints,” Perspectives on Science 3(1) (1995): 49.
30. Helen E. Longino, “In Search of Feminist Epistemology,” Monist 77 (1994): 481.
31. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, “Objectivity and the Double Standard for Feminist Epistemologies,” Synthese 104 (1996): 351-81.
32. Helen E. Longino, Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1990);
33. Thomas S. Kuhn, “Objectivity, Values, and Theory Choice,” in The Essential Tension (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977);
34. John Dupre, The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunify of Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993)
35. Marc Ereshefsky, “Critical Notice: John Dupre, The Disorder of Things” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 25(1) (1995): 143-58;
36. Donna J. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminist and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991), 183-202.
37. Londa Schiebinger, Has Feminism Changed Science? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999);
38. Angela N. H. Creager, Elizabeth Lunbeck, and Londa Schiebinger (eds.), Science, Technology, Medicine: The Difference Feminism Has Made (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).
39. “Doing Philosophy as a Feminist: Longino on the Search for a Feminist Epistemology,” Philosophical Topics 23(2) (1995): 345-358.
40. P. Kitcher and W. C. Salmon (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 410-508.
41. “Unification and Convergence in Archaeological Explanation: The Agricultural ‘Wave of Advance’ and the Origins of Indo-European Languages,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 34 (1995): 1-30.
42. Nancy Cartwright, How the Laws of Physics Lie (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984);
43. Philip Kitcher and Wesley C. Salmon (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 349-56;
44. William C. Wimsatt, “False Models As Means to Truer Theories,” in Neutral Models in Biology, ed. M. H. Nitecki and A. Hoffman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 23-55.
45. Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (New York: Routledge, 1990);
46. “Learning from the Outsider Within,” in Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith A. Cook, eds., Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research (Bloomington Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1991), 35-9.
47. Robert K. Merton, “Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge,” American Journal of Sociology 78(1) (1972): 13.
48. Paolo Freire, Pedagogy for the Oppressed (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1982 [1970]);
49. Elizabeth McLean Petras and Douglas V. Porpora, “Participatory Research: Three Models and an Analysis,” The American Sociologist23(1) (1993):107-26.
50. Uma Narayan, “Working Together Across Difference: Some Considerations on Emotions and Political Practice,” Hypatia 3(2) (1988): 31-48.
51. Chela Sandoval, “U.S. Third World Feminism: The Theory and Method of Oppositional Consciousness in the Postmodern World,” Genders 10 (1991): 1-24.
52. Louise Rafkin, “What Housecleaners Know,” UTNE Reader (March-April 1995): 39-40.
53. Barbara Neely, Blanche on the Lam (New York: Penguin Books, 1992);
54. Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg, eds., Feminist Frameworks (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: McGraw-Hill, 1984), 202-9.
55. Alison Wylie, “The Engendering of Archaeology: Refiguring Feminist Science Studies,” Osiris 12 (1997): 80-99.
56. Margaret W. Conkey and Joan M. Gero, “Gender and Feminism in Archaeology,” Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1997): 411-37.
57. I develop this argument in more detail in “Doing Social Science as a Feminist: The Engendering of Archaeology,” in Science, Technology, Medicine: The Difference Feminism Has Made, ed. Angela N. H. Creager, Elizabeth Lunbeck, and Londa Schiebinger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 23-45.
58. I use the term gender schemas in the sense elaborated by Virginia Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999).
59. “Gender and Practice” in Gender and Archaeology, ed. Rita P. Wright (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), 199-280;
60. Margaret C. Nelson, Sarah M. Nelson, and Alison Wylie (eds.), Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 5 (Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1994).
61. Ian Hacking, “The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences,” in Science as Practice and Culture, ed. Andrew Pickering (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 29-64.