Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:32:06.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Privileged Standpoints/Reliable Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Kourken Michaelian
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article attempts to reconcile Sandra Harding's postmodernist standpoint theory with process reliabilism in first-order epistemology and naturalism in metaepistemology. Postmodernist standpoint theory is best understood as consisting of an applied epistemological component and a metaepistemological component. Naturalist metaepistemology and the metaepistemological component of postmodernist standpoint theory have produced complementary views of knowledge as a socially and naturally located phenomenon and have converged on a common concept of objectivity. The applied epistemological claims of postmodernist standpoint theory usefully can be construed as applications of process reliabilist first-order epistemology. Postmodernist standpoint theory, reliabilism, and naturalism thus form a coherent package of views in metaepistemology, first-order epistemology, and applied epistemology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 65 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 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, Louise, and Potter, Elizabeth, eds. 1993. Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1995. Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. 32 10: 50–84.Google Scholar
Antony, Louise M. 1993. Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In A mind of one's own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity, ed. Antony, Louise M. and Witt Boulder, Charlotte E., Colo.: Westview.Google Scholar
Antony, Louise M. 2000. Situating feminist epistemology. In Contemporary philosophy, Volume 8 of Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, ed. Dahlstrom, Daniel. Charlottesville, Va.: Philosophy Documentation Center.Google Scholar
Antony, Louise M. 2002. Embodiment and epistemology. In Oxford handbook of epistemology, ed. Moser, Paul K.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bar On, Bat‐Ami. 1993. Marginality and epistemic privilege. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, and Potter, .Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1988. How to be a moral realist. In Essays on moral realism, ed. Sayre‐McCord, Geoffrey. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1999. Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In Species: New interdisciplinary essays, ed. Wilson, Robert A.Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 2003a. Finite beings, finite goods: The semantics, metaphysics, and ethics of naturalist consequentialism I. 32 66: 505–53.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 2003b. Finite beings, finite goods: The semantics, metaphysics, and ethics of naturalist consequentialism II. 32 67: 24–47.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond. 1994. The virtues of feminist empiricism. 32 9: 90–115.Google Scholar
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chodorow, Nancy. 1989. Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google ScholarPubMed
Clarke, Murray. 2004. Reconstructing reason and representation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clough, Sharon. 2004. Having it all: Naturalized normativity in feminist science studies. 32 19: 102–18.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1993. Taking subjectivity into account. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, and Potter, .Google Scholar
Conee, Earl, and Feldman, Richard. 1998. The generality problem for reliabilism. 32 89: 1–29.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas, Izard, Véronique, Pica, Pierre, and Spelke, Elizabeth. 2006. Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. 32 311: 381–84.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 1985. Reliability and justification. 32 68: 159–74.Google Scholar
Gettier, Edmund L. III. 1963. Is justified true belief knowledge? 32 23: 121–23.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1979. What is justified belief? In Liasons: Philosophy meets the cognitive and social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. 32 14: 575–99.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, and Potter, .Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1997. Comment on Hekman's “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Whose standpoint needs the regimes of truth and reality? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22: 382–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1998. Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2001. Comment on Walby's “Against epistemological chasms: The science question in feminism revisited”: Can democratic values and interests ever play a rationally justifiable role in the evaluation of scientific work? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 26: 511–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2004. A socially relevant philosophy of science? Resources from standpoint theory's controversiality. 32 19: 25–47.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 1983a. The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science, ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill. Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted in Feminist social thought: A reader, ed. Diana Tietjens Meyers. New York: Routledge, 1997.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 1983b. Money, sex, and power: Toward a feminist historical materialism. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 1998. The feminist standpoint revisited and other essays. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.Google Scholar
Hekman, Susan. 1997. Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. 32 22: 341–66.Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. 1988. History and class consciousness as an “unfinished project.” Rethinking Marxism 1: 49–72. Reprinted in The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies, ed. Sandra Harding. New York: Routledge, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1994. Contrasting conceptions of social epistemology. In Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge, ed. Schmitt, Frederick F.Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 2002. Knowledge and its place in nature. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laurence, Stephen, and Margolis, Eric. 2001. The poverty of the stimulus argument. 32 52: 217–76.Google Scholar
Lukács, Georg. 1997. History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lukács, Georg. 2000. A defence of History and class consciousness: Tailism and the dialectic. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Mackie, John L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 2004. Logical empiricism, feminism, and Neurath's auxiliary motive. 32 19: 49–72.Google Scholar
Pacherie, Élisabeth. N.d. Naturalisme et justification. http://pacherie.free.fr/ (accessed April 19, 2006).Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1969. Epistemology naturalized. In Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1998. Reply to Morton White. In The philosophy of W. V. Quine, edited by Hahn, Lewis E. and Schilpp, Paul A.La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, Laura. 2004. Virtue and contingent history: Possibilities for feminist epistemology. 32 19: 73–101.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1978. Psychologism. 32 8: 165–91.Google Scholar
Walby, Sylvia. 2001. Against epistemological chasms: The science question in feminism revisited. 32 26: 485–509.Google Scholar