Você está na página 1de 13

This article was downloaded by: [Korea University]

On: 07 January 2015, At: 23:56


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Women: A Cultural Review


Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwcr20

Feminism and theories of scientific knowledge


a
Sandra Harding
a
Teaches at the University of Delaware ,
Published online: 19 Jun 2008.

To cite this article: Sandra Harding (1990) Feminism and theories of scientific knowledge, Women: A Cultural Review, 1:1,
87-98, DOI: 10.1080/09574049008578026

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09574049008578026

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
G E N D E R A N D S C I E N C E

S A N D R A H A R D I N G

Feminism and Theories


of Scientific Knowledge
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

o FEMINISTS have anything distinctive to say about the natural sciences? Should
feminists concentrate on criticizing sexist science and the conditions of its pro-
duction? Or should feminists be laying the foundation for an epistemological
revolution illuminating all facets of scientific knowledge? Is there a specifically
feminist theory of knowledge growing today which is analogous in its impli-
cations to theories which are the heritage of Greek science and of the scientific
revolution of the seventeenth century? Would a feminist epistemology informing
scientific inquiry be a family member to existing theories of representation and
philosophical realism? Or should feminists adopt a radical form of epistemology
that denies the possibility of access to a real world and an objective standpoint?
Would feminist standards of knowledge genuinely end the dilemma of the
This paper has been cleavage between subject and object or between noninvasive knowing and
updated and otherwise prediction and control? Doesfeminism offer insight into the connections between
slightly revised from its
earlier publication in the
science and humanism? Do feminists have anything new to say about the vexed
American Philosophical relations of knowledge and power? Would feminist authority and power to name
Association Newsletter on
Feminism and Philosophy,
give the world a new identity, a new story? Can feminists master science?
November 1987, pp. 9-14. (Haraway 1981, p. 470)
88 WOMEN: A CULTURAL REVIEW

As historian of science Donna Haraway noted, these are the large questions
that had already arisen back when only a few books and articles brought
feminist perspectives into the sciences and Western theories of knowledge. If
we have only just begun to address to our own satisfaction the important
agenda Haraway defined, at least we can appreciate the expansion, sharpening
and deepening of the feminist critiques of Western scientific knowledge that
have appeared in the few years since she wrote the words above. Feminist
challenges to the results of purportedly value-free research in biology and the
social sciences have generated sceptical reflection on the theories of know-
ledgethe epistemologiesthat take modern Western sciences as the
paradigms of knowledge-seeking. This suspicion about the conventional
understandings of science has received support from other sources also. These
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

include questions about the 'irrational' resistance to equity for women in the
social structure of the sciences; resistance to attempts to reform science
education; criticism of the specifically sexist misuses and abuses of the
sciences and their technologies, and of the complicity of patriarchal gender
relations with destructive and exploitative aspects of the sciences more
generally; and appreciation of the distortions in our understanding of nature
and research created by the proliferation of sexist and androcentric models of
both. Recently these currents have been nourished by feminist literary, art,
and culture criticism.
In this brief review, I shall focus only on central issues that are generated
by feminist research in biology and the social sciences. Feminist reflection on
scientific knowledge also draws from and contributes to contemporary
debates about rationality, objectivity, cognitive relativism, the new histories
of science, the 'strong programme' in the sociology of science, epistemology's
'policing of thought', and science in a post-colonial world. We live in a world
that is structured by scientific rationality and that is dysfunctional for many,
many people. It is this world in which feminist thought about scientific
knowledge has emerged.
The relevant literature is located in virtually every disciplineand outside
all of them. In order to organise a brief survey of the issues, I shall discuss
responses to the problem of how to justify the empirically preferable results of
research that has obviously been guided by the politics of the women's
movement. I shall report especially on the two most developed of these
theories of scientific knowledgefeminist empiricism, and the feminist stand-
point This organisational strategy will distort the picture in that it brings
greater order to the current debates than they have or need, and it unfairly
slights bodies of literature with important bearings on the epistemological
issues which I can only mention in passing.
GENDER AND SCIENCE 89

A Problem Feminism is a political movement for the emancipation of women. Looked at


from the perspective of science's self-understanding, 'feminist knowledge',
'feminist science', 'feminist sociology'or biology, psychology or economics
(or epistemology!)is a contradiction in terms.1 Scientific knowledge-seeking
is supposed to be value-neutral, objective, dispassionate, disinterested. It is
supposed to be protected from local political interests, goals and desires by
the norms of science. In particular, science's method is supposed to protect
the results of research from the social values of the researchers and their
cultures. Yet many claims generated through research guided by feminist
concerns appear to be more plausiblebetter supported, more reliable, less
false, more likely to be confirmed by evidencethan the beliefs they replace.2
Scientific method supposedly permits all things to be represented in their
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

proper, real relations to each other. Scientific method removes the blinders
and distorting lenses created by social values. To those who believe science
maximally successful at this project, feminism appears to proposeat best-
substituting one set of social lenses for another. Yet, the substitution appears
1 Sometimes the argument
is put in terms of to be justifiable on empirical grounds. What theory of knowledge could justify
women's knowledge, or this kind of'method' of inquiry? How can feminist research (such as that men-
of a sociology, science,
etc, for women. See, e.g., tioned in note 2), grounded in the politics of the women's movement, be
Smith (1987). increasing the objectivity of research?

Feminist An initial response to this problem has been to argue that sexism and andro-
Empiricism centrism in scientific research are entirely the consequence of 'bad science'.
2 Some may still question
The distortions in our views of nature and social relations that feminists have
this claim. Guides to the revealed are caused by social biases. These prejudices are the result of hostile
relevant research reports attitudes and false beliefs arising from superstition, ignorance, or mis-
and theoretical shifts
may be found in the education. Androcentric biases enter the research process particularly at the
review essays for the stage when scientific problems are identified and defined, but they also appear
disciplines that have
appeared in Signs:Journal in the design of research and in the collection and interpretation of data. (See,
of Women in Culture and e.g., Longino and Doell 1983.) Feminist empiricists argue that sexist and
Society since 1975, and in
traditional, as well as
androcentric biases can be eliminated by stricter adherence to the existing
feminist, journals in the methodological norms of scientific inquiry. They try to make honest those
disciplines. In reading who respond to feminist criticisms with such persuasive claims about main-
this report, one could
keep in mind such claims stream belief as: 'Everyone knows that permitting only men to interview only
as that 'woman the men about both men's and women's beliefs and behaviours is just plain bad
gatherer' made
important contributions science.' (Of course, this is the science upon which 99 per cent of the claims of
to the dawn of human the social sciences rest, and to which no one objected before the women's
history; the patterns of
thought prevalent in
movement.) 'Everyone knows that both sexes contributed to the evolution of
women's moral our species.' (Try to find that understanding in Darwin or contemporary
reasoning are not all textbooks.)
examples of inferior
reasoning; much of the But how can the scientific community come to see that its work has been
90 WOMEN: A CULTURAL REVIEW

difference observable in shaped by androcentric prejudices? Feminist empiricists say that here is where
the physical strength and we can see the importance of the women's movement Such a political
abilities of females and
males is the consequence movement alerts everyone to the social blinders, the distorted and clouded
of social practices (and is lenses, through which we have been experiencing the world around (and
decreasing with changes
in practices, as sports within) us. The women's movement creates conditions that make better
records indicate). science possible. Furthermore, they point out that the women's movement
It is not within the
domain of this essay to expands opportunities for women researchers and feminist ones (male and
review the now quite female); these people are more likely to notice androcentric biases. (See
large feminist science
literature. (Several
Harding 1989.)3
review essays can be There are great strengths to this theory of how knowledge grows. In the
found in Harding and
O'Barr, eds. (1987).)
first place, its appeal is obvious: many of the claims emerging from feminist
Nevertheless, it should research in biology and the social sciences are capable of accumulating better
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

be noted that a number


of British feminists have
empirical support than the claims they replace. This research better meets the
made widely-cited overt standards of 'good science' than do the purportedly gender-blind
contributions to it. See, studies. Should not the weight of this empirical support be valued more highly
e.g., Sayre (1975), The
Brighton Women and than the ideal of value-neutrality that was advanced, we are told, only in order
Science Group (1980), to increase empirical support for hypotheses? It is not that all feminist claims
Sayers (1982), Rose
(1983), Cockbum (1985), are automatically to be preferred because they are feminist; rather, when the
Birke (1986), and the results of such research show good empirical support, the fact that they were
work of Jalna Hanmer
and other authors produced through politically guided research should not count against them.
associated with the Second, feminist empiricism appears to leave intact much of scientists' and
Journal ofReproductive
and Genetic Engineering, philosophers' traditional understanding of the principles of adequate scien-
including the essays tific research. It appears to challenge mainly the incomplete way scientific
appearing in Spallone
and Steinberg (1987).
method has been practised, not the norms of science themselves. Many
scientists will admit that the social values and political agendas of feminists
3 Because those whom I
have called feminist raise new issues, enlarge the scope of inquiry, and reveal cause for greater care
empiricists frequently in the conduct of inquiry. But the logic of the research process and the logic of
take themselves to be
doing nothing
scientific explanation appear to rest fundamentally untouched by these
epistemologically challenges.
unusual - they are In the third place, in defence of feminist empiricism one can appeal to the
simply adhering very
strictly to the norms of history of science. After all, wasn't it the bourgeois revolution of the fifteenth
science - they tend not to seventeenth centuriesthe movement from feudalism to modernitythat
to articulate this theory
of knowledge as such. made it possible for modern science to emerge? Furthermore, wasn't it the
Examples of feminist proletarian revolution of the nineteenth century that fostered an understand-
empiricism can be found
in reports of substantive ing of the effects of chss struggles on conceptions of nature and social
feminist research, relations? Finally, doesn't the post-1960 decline of North Atlantic colonialism
especially in their
obligatory sections on have obvious positive effects on the growth of scientific knowledge? From
methods. See, for these historical perspectives, the contemporary international women's
instance, Jacklin (1981).
Fausto-Sterling (1985; movement is just the most recent of these revolutions, each of which moves us
p. 208) intentionally yet closer to the goals of the creators of modern science.
frames her critical
evaluation of sex-
There are problems with this justificatory strategy. Its feminism appears
difference research as to undermine its empiricism in fundamental ways. For one thing, it argues
addressing a problem of
that women, or feminists, as a social group are more likely than others to
GENDER AND SCIENCE 91

'poorly done science'; achieve 'good science'. Thus it implicitly challenges the assumption that the
she, like Millman and social identity of the observer is irrelevant to the 'goodness' of the results of
Kanter (1975; p. vu),
provides an excellent research. As indicated, it can draw on historical support for this scepticism.
discussion of the For another, appearances to the contrary, feminist empiricism is ambivalent
necessity of the feminist
political movement to about the potency of science's norms and methods to eliminate androcentric
the creation of good biases. While attempting to fit feminist research within these norms and
science.
methods, it also points to the fact that without the challenge of feminism,
science's norms and methods regularly failed to detect sexism. Finally, it
challenges the belief that science must be protected from all politics. It argues
4 See the last chapter of that the politics of movements for emancipatory social change can increase
Jaggar (1983)for
discussions of the the objectivity of science. These points are not independent, but they draw
articulation of attention to different problematic facets of empiricism. Are these problems
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

epistemologies with
theories of human nature fatal to feminist empiricismnot to mention to empiricism and the liberal
and politics. theory of human nature on which empiricism is grounded?4

Is 'Scientific More radical than the feminist criticisms of 'bad science' are those that take as
Rationality' their target Western generalisations from masculine to human in the case of
Gender-Biased ideal reason. Before turning to the standpoint theorists, for whom this
Masculine critique provides one motivation for the development of a feminist theory of
Rationality? knowledge, I mention several thinkers who intentionally stop short of such a
theoretical programme. Philosophers such as Genevieve Lloyd (1984) and
Sara Ruddick (1980) and the scientist/historian Evelyn Fox Keller (1984) criti-
cise what has come to be called abstract masculinity. They point out how
ideals of Western rationality, including scientific thought, distort and leave
partial our understandings of nature and social relations. These ideals devalue
contextual modes of thought and emotional components of reason. Empirical
support for this criticism is provided by psychologists. Best known is Carol
Gilligan's (1982) study of women's moral reasoning. Since scientific reason
includes normative judgements (which is the most interesting or potentially
fruitful hypothesis or research program to pursue?), the import of Gilligan's
work for philosophy is not restricted to ethics. More recently, the study by
Mary Belenky et al. (1986) of developmental patterns in women's thinking
about reason and knowledge points to gender bias in philosophic and scien-
tific ideals and suggests its origins in gendered experience. While these critical
tendencies do not explicitly address issues about the relationship between
feminist politics and feminist research, they do provide additional grounds for
questioning the belief that the direction of inquiry by social values can have
only bad effects on the growth of knowledge.
92 WOMEN: A CULTURAL REVIEW

Feminist A second major line of justification of feminist research is provided by the


Standpoint standpoint theorists. Knowledge, they observe, is supposed to be based in
Theory some detectable way on experiencehighly refined and controlled experi-
ence, of course. Thus, the reason the feminist claims can turn out to be
scientifically preferable is that they originate in, and are tested against, a more
complete and less distorting kind of scientific experience. If we start off our
thought, our research (start off our 'experience' in this sense) from women's
lives as these are understood through feminist theory, we will be more likely
to arrive at more complete and less distorted knowledge claims than if we
start off only from the lives of men in the dominant groups. (Hartsock 1983;
Smith 1987; Rose 1983)
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

Consider Dorothy Smith's form of the argument. In our society, women


have been assigned kinds of work that men do not want to do. Several aspects
of this division of activity by gender have consequences for what can be
known from the perspective of men's and women's activities. 'Women's work'
relieves men of the need to take care of their bodies or of the local places
where they exist, freeing men to immerse themselves in the world of abstract
concepts. The labour of women thereby articulates and shapes men's concepts
of the world into those appropriate for administrative work. Moreover, the
more successfully women perform their work, the more invisible does it
become to men. Men who are relieved of the need to maintain their own
bodies and the local places where these bodies exist can now see as real only
what corresponds to their abstracted mental world. Men see 'women's work'
not as real human activityself-chosen and consciously willedbut only as
natural activity, an instinctual labour of love. Women are thus excluded from
men's conceptions of culture. Furthermore, women's actual experiences of
their own activities are incomprehensible and inexpressible within the
distorted abstractions of men's conceptual schemes. Women are alienated
from their own lives.5
However, for women sociologists, a line of fault opens up between their
5 Obviously, patterns of lives and the dominant conceptual schemes. This disjuncture is the break
thought created by race,
sexuality and class along which much major work in the women's movement has focused. The
divisions of activity can politics of the women's movement has drawn attention to the lack of fit
also be revealed by this
kind of analysis.
between women's experiences of our lives and the dominant conceptual
(Standpoint theorists schemes. It is to the 'bifurcated consciousness' of women researchers, who see
have learned from Hegel the world as it has been redefined through the politics of the women's move-
and Marx.) This should
provide reason to ment (and to those who see the world from their perspectives), that we can
conceptualise better the attribute the greater adequacy of the results of feminist research. Looking at
structure of contem-
porary patterns of social nature and social relations from the perspective of administrative 'men's
domination, not to work' can provide only partial and distorted understandings. (Of course only
undervalue the force of
the feminist analysis white, Western, professional/managerial class men are permitted this work,
here. though it holds a central place in more general conceptions of masculinity.)
GENDER AND SCIENCE 93

Research for women must recover the understanding of women, men and
social relations available from the perspective of women's activities.
To give an example Smith discusses, the concept housework, which
appears in historical, sociological and economic studies and is part of what
liberal philosophers include in the realm of the 'private', at least recognises
that what women are assigned to do in the household is work; that is, it is
neither instinctual activity nor necessarily always a labour of love. However, it
conceptualises the activity assigned to women in our society on an analogy
with the division of men's activities into paid work and leisure. Is housework
work? Yes! However, it has no fixed hours or responsibilities, no quali-
fications, wages, days off for sickness, retirement, or retirement benefits. Is it
leisure? No, though even under the worst conditions it has rewarding and
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

rejuvenating aspects. As social scientists and liberal political philosophers use


the term, housework includes raising children, entertaining friends, caring for
loved ones, and other activities not appropriately understood through the
wage-labour versus leisure construct. Smith argues that this activity should be
understood through concepts that arise from women's experience of it, not
with concepts selected to account for men's experience of their work. More-
over, our understanding of men's activities also is distorted by reliance on
conceptual schemes arising only from administrative class men's experiences.
How would our understanding of love, warfare, or how universities operate
be expanded and transformed if it were structured by questions and concepts
arising from those activities assigned predominantly to women that make
possible men's conduct of love, warfare and higher education?
This theory of knowledge is far richer than I can convey in these few lines.
Hopefully this excessively brief report will entice readers to pursue these
issues further on their own.'
Standpoint theories have the virtue of providing a general theory of the
potential and actual greater adequacy of research that begins in questions
arising from the perspective of women's activities, and that regards this
perspective as an important part of the data on which the evidence for all
knowledge claims should be based. The standpoint theorists reassert the
possibility of science providing less distorted reflections of the world around
us, but not a science that myopically beatifies a mythical method and thus is
unable to counter the sexist, racist and class biases built into the very social
structure and agendas of science. (Harding 1986)
6 One more influential
This theory of knowledge resolves more satisfactorily certain problems
analysis of rationality, within feminist empiricism. It sets within larger social theory its explanation
objectivity, method, and of the importance of the origin of scientific problems (of the context of
women's perspective
that is close to but not discovery) for the eventual picture of science. It eschews blind allegiance to
quite a standpoint scientific method, observing that no method, at least in the sciences' sense of
theory must be
recommended: this term, is powerful enough to eliminate kinds of social bias that are as
MacKinnon (1982-3). widely held as the scientific community itself. Moreover, it draws attention to
94 WOMEN: A CULTURAL REVIEW

why feminist politics can be a valuable guide in scientific inquiry, and to the
way in which sexist politics is inherently anti-scientific. This theory is
certainly not problem-free. But it does encompass within its reach certain
aspects of the scientific research process that are dealt with only in an ad hoc
way by feminist empiricism. Though this epistemology has been formulated
to account for social science research, its concerns are clearly applicable also
to the natural sciences. If we started off from women's livesall women's
liveswhat scientific problems would have the highest priority in physics,
chemistry and biology? Ecological rather than military and profit-generating
ones? Might not social agendas take higher priority than most of the scientific
ones that our taxes support? (See Harding forthcoming.)
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

Making Choices? Should one have to choose between these feminist theories of knowledge? I
believe not A theory of knowledge is supposed to be convincing, all things
considered, but it is important to notice that these two are likely to appeal to
quite different audiences. Feminist empiricism is useful precisely because it
stresses the continuities between feminist and traditional justifications of
scientific research as the latter would most often be understood by practising
scientists and the lay public that stays close to science's self-understandings.
In contrast, the feminist standpoint theory stresses the continuities between
the radical upheavals in knowledge created by earlier large-scale social move-
ments and by the women's movement This can be appreciated by social and
political theorists, by people interested in the new histories and sociologies of
science, and by people involved in the other counter-cultures of sciencethe
ecology, peace, anti-imperialism, and worker-control movements. The two
epistemologies also appear to be both locked into dialogue with and talking
past each other, paradoxical though that appears. Their relationship reflects
the struggles in conventional discourse between liberal and Marxist theories
of human nature and politics. Most likely, a preoccupation with choosing one
over the other insures choosing more than we should want of those flawed
discourses; we are shaped by what we reject as well as by what we accept

New Histories; Two more kinds of analysis bearing on feminist epistemology deserve
Postmodernist mention: the new histories of science and of philosophy, and the feminist
Philosophy postmodernist critiques of the Enlightenment
Especially noteworthy among the histories are Merchant's (1980) analysis
of the gender dimensions of the shift from organicist to mechanical models of
natural order at the birth of modern science, Lloyd's (1984) history of the
association of reason with masculinity from Plato to de Beauvoir, Bordo's
(1987) study of the origins and dimensions of the 'Cartesian Anxiety' to which
modern philosophy has been a response, and Haraway's (1989) study of the
GENDER AND SCIENCE 95

history of primatology. These analyses undermine the idea that the problems
of traditional epistemology are timeless, universal problems. They are the
problems that faced some people in European cultures in the past, and they
are your problems or mine only when we choose to live our professional lives
in a time warp. The phrase 'science and society' is misleading; science has
always been fully inside the societies that have supported it. Its internally
contradictory progressive and regressive tendencies are activated by the social
agendas for which it (intentionally or not) provides resourcesand the desire
to produce 'pure science1 is no less a politically identifiable social agenda than
is the desire to put science in the service of 'national defence'.
Challenges to both traditional and feminist theories of scientific know-
ledge are beginning to emerge also from feminists working within and against
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

the postmodernist Enlightenment critiques. They focus on the assumptions


feminist thinkers borrow from both Marxist and liberal traditions that
feminism can come closer to producing glassy mirror minds capable of reflect-
ing a world that is out there and ready made for the reflecting, and that the
science critics' participation in more general- feminist commitments to
improve the condition of 'women' can avoid both ethnocentrism and
replicating humanism's disastrous links of knowledge with disciplinary
power. Obviously, these are some of the issues Haraway had in mind in the
passage that opened this paper. (See Flax 1987,1989, and Nicholson, ed. 1989.)

Conclusion The focuses created by the eclecticism, the richness, of the feminist epistemo-
logical milieux is seen as a flaw by some traditional thinkers. 'When are
feminists going to take up the traditional issues that engaged Locke, Berkeley,
Kant, and Russell?' In some recent eras, Anglo-American philosophy of
science and epistemology have served as havens in a chaotic world that
appeared to threaten the purity of these disciplines. Those erasand thinkers
still nostalgically trying to re-create them so that they can relive the En-
lightenment (as Richard Rorty has put the point)would not even identify as
legitimate in a theory of knowledge the ways feminists raise issues about the
nature of knowers, processes of gaining knowledge, the world to be known,
and the purposes of knowledge. These nostalgic sentimentalists forget that
modern philosophy itself emerged as part of the social ferment accompanying
the transition from feudalism to bourgeois modernity, and, especially, as a
meditation on the accomplishments of Galileo, Newton, and, later, Einstein,
and on the shifts in conceptions of authority about knowledge and the
recommended processes of coming to knowledge that their sciences seemed
to require. At a minimum, our theories of knowledge have to be able to
account for what happens in the sciences. For much of feminist epistemology,
as for other strains of contemporary critique of Enlightenment assumptions,
Locke, Berkeley, Kant and Russell are part of the problem.
96 WOMEN: A CULTURAL REVIEW

The development of feminist thinking about knowledge is a consequence


of women's attempts to explain the worldto become 'agents of knowledge'
rather than only passive objects of others' claims to purported knowledge. We
have been denied this fundamental human right to know from the perspective of
our lives by the police, the courts, the health-care system, the economy, the
state, and by those who make public policy on 'the family'. Refusal to
entertain the possibility of such knowledge distorts women's and men's
understandings of ourselves and our lives, as well as our understandings of the
7 For helpful comments
on an earlier draft I am rest of the world.
grateful to David Can we begin to see the outlines of an answer to Haraway's question:
Hoekema, Alison Jaggar,
Hilary Rose and Sally "Would feminist authority and power to name give the world a new identity, a
Ruddick. new story?'7
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

Bibliography Belenky, Mary F, Blythe M. Clinchy, Nancy R. Goldberger, Jill M. Tarule. 1986.
Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York:
Basic Books.
Birke, Linda. 1986. Women, Feminism and Biology: The Feminist Challenge. New York:
Methuen.
Bordo, Susan. 1987. The Flight to Objectivity. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Brighton Women and Science Group. 1980. Alice Through the Microscope: The Power of
Science over Women's Lives. London: Virago.
Cockburn, Cynthia. 1985. Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men and Technical Know-
How. London: Pluto Press.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1985. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and
Men. New York: Basic Books.
Flax, Jane. 1983. 'Political Philosophy and the Patriarchal Unconscious: A Psycho-
analytic Perspective on Epistemology and Metaphysics', in Harding and
Hintikka.
1987. 'Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory', Signs:Journal
of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 12 (no. 4).
1989. Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and Postmodernism in the
Contemporary West. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Haraway, Donna. 1981. 'In the Beginning Was the Word: The Genesis of Biological
Theory', Signs:Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 6 (no. 3), 469-81.
1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New
York: Routledge.
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press.
GENDER AND SCIENCE 97

1987. Feminism and Methodology. Social Science Issues. Bloomington: Indiana


University Press.
1989. 'How the Women's Movement Benefits Science: Two Views', Women's
Studies International Forum, Vol. 12, (no. 3), pp. 271-83.
Forthcoming 1990. 'Why "Physics" is a Bad Model for Physics', in R. Elvee, ed.
The End of Science? Nobel Conference XXV. New York: Harper & Row.
and Merrill Hintikka, eds. 1983. Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on
Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel
Publishing Co.
and Jean O'Barr, eds. 1987. Sex and Scientific Inquiry. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. 'The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a
Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism', in S. Harding and M. Hintikka, eds.
(Reprinted in Harding, ed. 1987.) See also Chapter 10 of her Money, Sex and Power.
Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1985.
Jacklin, C. V. 1981. 'Methodological Issues in the Study of Sex-related Difference',
Developmental Review, 1, pp. 266-73.
Jaggar, Alison, 1983. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman &
Allenheld.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1984. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1984. The Man of Reason: 'Male'and 'Female'in Western Philosophy.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Longino, Helen and Ruth Doell. 1983. 'Body, Bias, and Behavior A Comparative
Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science', Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 9 (no. 2). (Reprinted in Harding and O'Barr
1987.)
MacKinnon, Catherine. 1982-3. 'Feminism, Marxism, Method and The State', Parts 1
& 2, Signs:Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 7 (no. 3), Vol. 8 (no. 4). See
also her Feminism Unmodified. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific
Revolution. New York: Harper & Row.
Millman, Marcia and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. 1975. 'Introduction' to Another Voice:
Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social Science. New York: Anchor Books.
(Reprinted in Harding 1987.)
Nicholson, Linda J., ed. 1990. Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge.
Rose, Hilary. 1983. 'Hand, Brain and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural
Sciences', Signs:Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 9 (no. 1). (Reprinted
in Harding and O'Barr 1987.)
Ruddick, Sara, 1980. 'Maternal Thinking', Feminist Studies, Vol. 6 (no. 2).
98 WOMEN: A CULTURAL REVIEW

Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic A Feminist Sociology.


Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Spallone, Patricia and Deborah Steinberg, eds. 1987. Made to Order: The Myth of Repro-
ductive and Genetic Progress. New York: Pergamon Press.
Tuana, Nancy, ed. 1989. Feminism and Science. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press. (Reprint of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy (1987), Vol. 2 (no. 3)
and (1988) Vol. 3 (no. 1).)
Downloaded by [Korea University] at 23:56 07 January 2015

Você também pode gostar