Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:01:50.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individuals-in-Communities: The Search for a Feminist Model of Epistemic Subjects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Heidi E. Grasswick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminist epistemologists have found the atomistic view of knowers provided by classical epistemology woefully inadequate. An obvious alternative for feminists is Lynn Hankinson Nelsons suggestion that it is communities that know. However, I argue that Nelsons view is problematic for feminists, and 1 offer instead a conception of knowers as “individuals-in-communities.” This conception is preferable, given the premises and goals of feminist epistemologists, because it emphasizes the relations between knowers and their communities and the relevance of these relations for epistemic assessments. Furthermore, it provides a sense of epistemic agents as active reflective inquirers, capable of transforming and improving knowledge-seeking practices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , Summer 2004 , pp. 85 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcoff, Linda, and Potter, Elizabeth, eds. 1993. Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1995. The democratic university: The role of justice in the production of knowledge. Social Philosophy and Policy 12 (2): 186–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antony, Louise M. 1996. Sisters, please, I'd rather do it myself: A defense of individualism in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics 23 (2): 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, Annette. 1985. Postures of the mind. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Baier, Annette. 1994. Moral prejudices: Essays on ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barad, Karen. 1997. Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1987. Epistemic responsibility. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1995. Rhetorical spaces: Essays on gendered locations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duran, Jane. 1994. Knowledge in context: Naturalized epistemology and sociolinguistics. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Foley, Richard. 1994. Egoism in epistemology. In Socializing Epistemology, ed. Schmitt, Frederick F., 53–73. Lanham, Md.: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Garry, Ann, and Pearsall, Marilyn ed. 1989. Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 1989. On social facts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14 (fall): 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1983. Why has the sex/gender system become visible only now? In Discovering reality, ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science! Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra, and Hintikka, Merrill, eds. 1983. Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1985. Epistemic dependence. 32 82: 335–49.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. 32 88: 693–708.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1990. The division of cognitive labor. 32 87: 5–22.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Richard, and Duerden, Frank. 1996. A review of traditional environmental knowledge: An interdisciplinary Canadian perspective. Culture 16 (1): 71–84.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1977. The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. 1975. An essay concerning human understanding, ed. Nidditch, Peter H.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1994. In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist. 77 (4): 472–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovibond, Sabina. 1983. Realism and imagination in ethics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lugones, Maria. 1989. Playfulness, “world”‐travelling, and loving perception. In Women, knowledge, and reality, ed. Garry, Ann and Pearsall, Marilyn. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Catriona, and Stoljar, Natalie, eds. 2000. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyers, Diana T. 1989. Self, society and personal choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Meyers, Diana T. ed. 1997. Feminists rethink the self. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows! From Quine to feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1993. Epistemological communities. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1995. A feminist naturalized epistemology of science. 32 104: 399–421.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1997. Empiricism without dogmas. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson, and Nelson, Jack, eds. 1997. Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. 2000. Final report of the lnuit Bowhead knowledge study, Nunavut, Canada. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.Google Scholar
Potter, Elizabeth. 1993. Gender and epistemic negotiation. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scheman, Naomi. 1995. Feminist epistemology. Metaphilosophy 26 (3): 177–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Frederick F. ed. 1994. Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge. Lanhem, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, Kruger, Ann C., and Ratner, Hilary H. 1993. Cultural learning. 32 16: 495–552.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 1995. The values of science: Empiricism from a feminist perspective. 32 104: 441–61.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 1997. Revaluing science: Starting from the practices of women. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 2001. Material locations: An interactionist alternative to realism/social constructivism. In Engendering rationalities, ed. Tuana, Nancy and Morgen, Sandra. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy, and Morgen, Sandra, eds. 2001. Engendering rationalities. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Webb, Mark Owen. 1995. Feminist epistemology and the extent of the social. Hypatia 10 (3): 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Patricia. 1991. The alchemy of race and rights. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar