I commented on thestrenuousbrief's blog earlier today with my own explanation and paraphrasing of one of our articles, and I'm going to post it here so that if there is anything to be gained from it it will be more public:
Privilidged standpoints looks at epistemology (or, metaepistemology which is different). Similar to the discussion we had about discourse, metaepistemology has to do with looking at the ways we know things, or the ways we construct what we know. Epistemology has to do with (what feminist recoil from) the knower and the production of knowledge, and the author is making a complex argument that says standpoint theory and epistemology are not polar opposites, and that maybe they even inform one another. Standpoint theory teaches us that there is no objective reality, and that we have much to learn from looking at an issues from the social standpoints of many groups (like looking at black feminism, global feminism, and power from the bottom up). Epistemology is about the production of knowledge, and because there isn't ONE knowledge, feminists see this as reductive and verging on essentialism, which is our death wish. The author here is saying that epistemology attempts to be as objective as possible, so as to create 'good' and 'true' knowledge. She argues that using standpoint theory, epistemologists can come up with much more 'good' knowledge than by using a white, upper-middle class standpoint only. The author is suggesting that objectivity should not be a dangerous word for feminists, and social location should not scare off the epistemologists.
I hope this helps, or at least creates conversation if I have completely misrepresented the author.
No comments:
Post a Comment