I would like to talk about feminist standpoint epistemology. It began borrowing from the Marxian/Hegelian idea that individuals lived experiences influence their understanding of the social world. They believed that the "master" in this case dominant group in society, had a view only of their own world, i.e the spheres they moved in, the elite they interacted with, whereas the "worker" had to operate in both worlds and assimilate to avoid any negative feedback, and therefore had a richer perspective of the world, both their own, and that of the masters.
In "The everyday world as problematic" (1987), Dorothy E. Smith, described as an early proponent of the standpoint perspective, stressed that we should start research from women's lives, i.e. taking into account women's everyday experiences through paying attention to, finding, and analysing what occurs when women try and fit their lives into the dominant culture's way of conceptualising women's situation. Through measuring the difference between the two perspectives, the research gains a richer set of explanations of the lives of the oppressors and the oppressed.
Since then, in response to criticism that standpoint theory creates a false universalism, it has been developed to include multiple oppressions like class, race, gender, orientation, so that all women's views are not collapsed into one. However, one of the remaining critiques of feminist standpoint epistemology, as highlighted by Uma Narayan, is that the epistemic advantage of being the oppressed who operates within the world of the master, as well as their own world, does not exist.
When I originally read about feminist standpoint epistemology in Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber's 'Exploring, Interrogating, and Transforming the Interconnections of Epistemology, Methodology, and Method' I thought it sounded legit, but upon reading Nayaran's account that the "epistemic advantage" does not exist, I questioned the effectiveness of an epistemology that has it's theoretical roots in the claim that marginalised groups are socially situated in ways that make it more possible for them to be aware of things and ask questions than it is for the non-marginalised. I was reminded of what W.E.B Dubois called "double consciousness", which Deborah Gray White describes in reference the experience of WOC as "African American women are confronted with an impossible task. If she is rescued from the myth of the negro, the myth of the woman traps her. If she escapes the myth of the women, the myth of the negro still ensnares her."
In light of Uma Nayaran's view that "access to two different and incompatible contexts is not a guarantee that a critical stance on the part of an individual will result", how can we, as a group of budding feminist scholars, use feminist standpoint theory to conduct research? Does the idea of "epistemic advantage" idealise and romanticise oppression, blinding us to its real material and psychic deprivations?
How does Uma Nayaran's view that "access to two different and incompatible contexts is not a guarantee that a critical stance on the part of an individual will result" problematise feminist standpoint epistemology? Does the idea of "epistemic advantage" idealise and romanticise oppression, blinding us to its real material and psychic deprivations?
In "The everyday world as problematic" (1987), Dorothy E. Smith, described as an early proponent of the standpoint perspective, stressed that we should start research from women's lives, i.e. taking into account women's everyday experiences through paying attention to, finding, and analysing what occurs when women try and fit their lives into the dominant culture's way of conceptualising women's situation. Through measuring the difference between the two perspectives, the research gains a richer set of explanations of the lives of the oppressors and the oppressed.
Since then, in response to criticism that standpoint theory creates a false universalism, it has been developed to include multiple oppressions like class, race, gender, orientation, so that all women's views are not collapsed into one. However, one of the remaining critiques of feminist standpoint epistemology, as highlighted by Uma Narayan, is that the epistemic advantage of being the oppressed who operates within the world of the master, as well as their own world, does not exist.
When I originally read about feminist standpoint epistemology in Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber's 'Exploring, Interrogating, and Transforming the Interconnections of Epistemology, Methodology, and Method' I thought it sounded legit, but upon reading Nayaran's account that the "epistemic advantage" does not exist, I questioned the effectiveness of an epistemology that has it's theoretical roots in the claim that marginalised groups are socially situated in ways that make it more possible for them to be aware of things and ask questions than it is for the non-marginalised. I was reminded of what W.E.B Dubois called "double consciousness", which Deborah Gray White describes in reference the experience of WOC as "African American women are confronted with an impossible task. If she is rescued from the myth of the negro, the myth of the woman traps her. If she escapes the myth of the women, the myth of the negro still ensnares her."
In light of Uma Nayaran's view that "access to two different and incompatible contexts is not a guarantee that a critical stance on the part of an individual will result", how can we, as a group of budding feminist scholars, use feminist standpoint theory to conduct research? Does the idea of "epistemic advantage" idealise and romanticise oppression, blinding us to its real material and psychic deprivations?
How does Uma Nayaran's view that "access to two different and incompatible contexts is not a guarantee that a critical stance on the part of an individual will result" problematise feminist standpoint epistemology? Does the idea of "epistemic advantage" idealise and romanticise oppression, blinding us to its real material and psychic deprivations?
Comments
Post a Comment