ABSTRACT
This
work takes a critical look at the term “Feminist epistemology” as well as their
evaluation of the “epistemic terms”
Feminist
who are trying arguing that the quest for knowledge, which epistemology is
centred on, should not be male oriented only, but that the female gender should
be given an ear-say in the discus of knowledge.
The
task of this project is to elucidate on the terms used in epistemology within
the view-point of the feminist as opposed to the traditional epistemology. And
how these terms have been able to help epistemological attempt to refute or
answer the skeptical challenges that nothing can be known for certain.
Epistemic
terms such as knowledge, justification, truth and falsehood, perception,
subjectivism, objectivism, reason e.t.c
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Title Page …………………………………………………………………………,.i
Certification……………………………………………….………………………..ii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………..iii
Acknowledgment……………………………………………………………………iv
Table of content ……………………………………………………………….…….v-vii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………viii
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
of study……………………………………………………………..1-3
1.2 Statement
of Problem…………………………..………………….……………....3
1.3 Purpose
of Study …………………………………..…………………………...…4
1.4 Scope
of Study ………………………………………………………………..…5
1.5 Methodology
………………………………………………………………….....6
1.6 Literature
Review ……………………………………………………………….6-12
Endnote
…………………………………………………………………………13-14
CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION
OF FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGY
2.1 What
is Feminism? ……………………………………………………………..15-17
2.2 Branches
of Feminism ……..……………………………………………..17-21
2.3 The
skeptical challenge ……………………………………..………….21-23
2.4 Epistemology
from the Feminist Perspective…………………24-30
2.5 Is
Feminist Epistemology “Trendy” ………………………….30-31
Endnote
………………………………………………………………………32-33
CHAPTER
THREE: FEMINIST VIEWS ON SOME EPISTEMIC TERMS AND CRITIQUE OF FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGY
3.1 Knowledge
…………………………….………………………………………..34-38
3.2 Justification
………………………………………………………………..38-39
3.3 Truth
and Falsehood ………………………………................39-41
3.4 Rationalism
& Empiricism ………………………………….....41-45
3.5 Post
Modernism …………………………………………………..…45-48
3.6 Subjectivism
& Objectivism ……………………………...….48-49
3.7 Perception
…………………………………………………………........49-51
3.8 Pragmatism
………………………………………………………..........51-53
3.9 Feminist
Perspectives on the Epistemic Terms………………54-56
3.10
Critique of Feminist Epistemology …………………………....…56-59
Endnotes………………………………………………………………..60-62
CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATION AND
CONCLUSION
4.1 Recommendation……………………………………………….…………63-64
4.2 Conclusion
……………….…………………………………………………….64-65
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………66-70
CHAPTER
ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
History of philosophy
make scant mention of women philosophers prior to the twentieth century, For a
long time it was assumed that this was due to lack of influential women
philosophers. Scholars such as Mary Ellen Waithe suggested that women have been
more important in the history of philosophy than is often mentioned1.
Before now, women have
often been excluded from prestigious area of human activity (for example,
politics or science), thereby making these activities seem clearly “male”. Such
areas in this 21st century can be said to have been more embracing of the
“women folk”, due to the feminist clamour for equality and opportunity to be
heard, rather than been sidelined and seen as inferior to men.
Female or women issues
have often been at the topmost at both local and international conferences,
feminism can be opposed, rejected, criticized but it cannot be ignored like
religion there seems to be some amount of passion, emotion and contradiction
involved in its debate. Even those who are male centered (male chauvinist) have
come to realize the absurdity of not recognizing the validity of the core
questions surrounding the issues of feminism.
Feminist theory applied
to epistemology has resulted in a wide variety of arguments and claims, but
common to all of them is the idea that gender is an important (and historically
neglected) consideration for the study, critique and reconstruction of
epistemology. For feminist epistemologists, traditional western epistemology is
endocentric and male-biased. It fails to take women’s experience and
perspectives into account. Due to the existence of male domination, male norms
have become dominant norms and been regarded as objective and universal
standards for all. As such women’s was of thinking and knowing have been
considered as something inferior and invalid2. Due to this fact of
traditional Western epistemology been male-centered, feminist epistemologists
have share the view that it is inadequate, as knowledge is meant to be seen in
a pure, abstract, universal way, detached from gender, social class and other
important differences.
Although,
among feminist epistemologists there are disagreements on whether there are
uniform women’s way of knowing in the global sphere, to what extent traditional
Western epistemology is male-biased, and whether some ways of knowing are
shared by both genders, but all feminist epistemology is gender-biased and that
feminist criticisms of it will significantly contribute to the improvement of
theories of knowledge3. As such for them, traditional epistemology
is not a true representation of human unbiased epistemology.
It is
to critically evaluate the above and their (feminist epistemologists) view on
some of the epistemic terms that this project is being carried out and also to
acknowledge the contributions of at least some women to the history of
philosophy (epistemology).
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS
The issues of feminism
are always problematic and sensitive. These issues then becoming more
problematic when transferred to the area of knowledge.
Looking at the problem of
“power control”, where traditional epistemology has been predicated on the ideas
of men, and women are gradually rising to question this inequality, which
feminist epistemologists are accusing the traditional western epistemology of,
because if this patriarchal nature continues, current epistemology will not be complete,
but would have been guilty of male chauvinism, making it not a true
representation of human knowledge. As such current epistemology is labeled as
“Incomplete”. This problem will be considered in this work.
1.3 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study though
legion, we shall be looking at two;
First,
it is obvious that the fight for equality can sometimes be exaggerated;
equality itself is an ambiguous term that should not be interpreted univocally
or equivocally but analogically. Men have told a lot of lies of their suppose
superiority, women are gradually trying to counter some of these lies with
their own lies. As such the search for the truth about the relationship that
ought to exist between male and female should constitute the core or essence of
feminism.
Lastly,
knowledge is central to human awareness. Humanity comprises of both male and
female. As such human knowledge should not be male centric. The purpose of this
study is therefore to construct knowledge in such a way that women are
excluded.
1.4 SCOPE OF STUDY
This project shall in
scope be limited to a critical evaluation of some epistemic perspective on such
epistemic terms as knowledge, justice and injustice, belief, pragmatism,
empiricism and rationalism e.t.c as in contrast to traditional western
epistemology.
1.5 METHODOLOGY
Methodology makes a work
to be systematic, scientific, coherent and organized. A good project ought to
posses the above qualities. The method of research therefore becomes imperative
in searching for the solutions to the problems in a given research.
The method here shall be
both analytic and critical. Analysis involves clarification of concept for easy
comprehension, while critical means not to accept assumptions but to question
them until the truth stands out clear. We shall not only analyse, but shall
seriously and critically evaluate the assumptions of feminist epistemology with
hope of finding solutions to the problem raised under the “Statement of
Problems”.
1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW
The first book reviewed
is titled The Power of Ideas, (ed) by Brooke Noel Moore and Kenneth Bruder,
5th edition, published in 2002 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, inc. Newyork.
Chapter 14 of this book is devoted to feminist philosophers and brings to
limelight the work of feminist (women) who have struck out their neck to fight
for women’s freedom. Feminist like Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), well known
when she published “A vindication of the Rights of Women”. She was also well
known for her argument against Rosseau’s view about women in his “Sophic”, when
he advocated that women’s education should be designed entirely to make them
pleasing to men. As he said;
“To please, to be useful to us, to
make us love and esteem them, to
educate us when young and take care of us, when
grown up to advise us, to console us, to
render our lives easy and agreeable – these are the duties of women at all times;
and what they should be taught in their infancy”4.
These
words by Rosseau, Wollstonecraft employed several arguments against and also
against his allies. Saying that educating women to be the ornaments to, and
playthings of men would have bad consequences for the society, that how could
women who have been tagged silly, vain creatures ever be expected to do an
adequate job of raising a family? They would become “mere propagators of fools”5.
This and other arguments she used against Rosseau’s view about women. We also
have other great feminist contributors like Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) and
Gloria Steimen (1934) in this chapter.
The
Second book here is entitled The
Blackwell Companion Co Philosophy, (ed) Nicholas Bunnin and E.P.tsui-James,
published in 2001 by Blackwell Ltd, Oxford. Chapter 32 of this book is devoted
to Feminism and Philosophy. The author of this chapter Jean Grimshaw examines
some main features of contemporary feminist and considers proposals for the
future.
The
next book reviewed is Feminist
epistemology (ed) by Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter, published in 1993
by Routledge, Newyork. The book centers on feminist view on epistemology of
feminist way of knowing or “women’s knowledge”. The authors pull together the
feminist epistemology which is an uneasy alliance of feminism and philosophy.
The authors are concerned with the many problems that have vexed traditional
epistemology which are the nature of knowledge itself, epistemic agency,
justification, objectivity and whether and how epistemology should be
naturalized.
The Fourth
book reviewed is titled Introducing
Feminism, co-edited by S.A Watkins, M. Rueda and M. Rodriguezi, published
at Cambridge by Icon Books Ltd in 1998. The book has the following central
issues; (a) Rebelling against all power, structures and convention that keep
women service, subordination and second best (b) Women consciously working
together for their own rights (c) Equality and the sacred right of property for
married and single women (d) The story of changing the subordinate condition of
women begins with feminism. The book also cut through the myths surrounding the
subject and provides an incisive account of the women’s movement from its
surprisingly recent birth in the French revolution to the world wide explosion
of women’s liberation in the 1970’s. it looks at the achievements of feminism
and the challenges still confronting women throughout the world, even in the
21st century.
The
fifth book reviewed is titled Basic
issues in the theory of knowledge, written by Ben Eboh, in 1995, published
by Fulladu publishing company Nsukka. According to the author, the human mind
is insatiable in its desire for deep and more extensive knowledge and so it
does not remain satisfied with the obvious and transparent explanation of the
universe. This natural urge for a reliable knowledge compels man to raise
questions as these; what is common to all the different activities that are
involved in knowing? What can we know beyond the information provided by the
senses?6. These and allied questions are discussed indepth in this
book with a view to determining the foundation, the ultimate grounds and
reasons of human knowledge (feminist knowledge).
Next
book reviewed is written by TanesiniAllessandra, titled An Introduction to feminist epistemologie published in 1993 by
Blackwell publishers, Oxford. This book laid emphasis on feminist epistemology
as an outgrowth of both feminist theorizing about gender and traditional
epistemology as a concern. The author explains feminist epistemology as a
loosely organized approach to epistemology, rather than as a particular school
or theory. She sees that what is common to feminist epistemologies is an
emphasis on the epistemic salience of gender and the use of gender as an analytic
category in discussions, criticism and reconstructions of epistemic practices,
norms and ideas. It portrays feminist epistemology as not easily and simply
characterized, that feminist approach to epistemology tends to share an
emphasis on the ways in which knower’s are particular and concrete, rather than
abstract and universalizable. And also, gives insight on some of the tradition
in which feminist get their sources to approach epistemology, traditions such
as feminist science studies, naturalistic epistemologies, cultural studies of
science, Marxist feminism and related work in and about the social sciences7.
The
Seventh book reviewed is written by W.F. Lawhead, titled The Philosophical Journey, An
interactive Approach, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, New York in
2003. The author in chapter 2 (2.7) takes a survey case at feminist
epistemology.
He
sees feminism has another contemporary movement that questions some of the
underlying assumptions of the Western tradition in philosophy and seeks to
develop a new modelfor doing philosophy. And that feminism like any living
movement that is breaking new ground, have many different and conflicting
visions of what the character and agenda of their movement should be and holds
that though there is no official creed or set of doctrines that all feminist
agree upon, but that their thinking revolves around some common themes, such
that feminism is seen as a movement within philosophy and other discipline
that;
(1) emphasizes the role of gender in shaping how we
think and how society is structured (2) focuses on the historical and social
forces that have excluded women from full participation in the intellectual and
political realms, and (3) strive to produce a society that recognizes women and
men as both different and equal8. These three themes illustrate that
feminism includes both theoretical understanding of the way things are and an
attempt to use their knowledge to transform the status quo.
Next
book reviewed is titled Scrutinizing
Feminist Epistemology, (ed) by C.L. Pinnick, N. Koertge and R.F, Almeder,
published by Rutger University Press, New Brunswick in 2003. This book offers a
systematic critique against feminist epistemologists; its aim is to show that
the entire enterprise is a failure. The authors level for charges against
feminist epistemologists, such as (1) Political correctness- that feminist
epistemologists aims at political-correctness, which is an attempt to
legitimate the idea that “feminist values should determine what theories are
accepted”9. That such politicized inquiry leads to “sham reasoners
seeking only to make a case for some foregone conclusions”10. (2)
Tribalism- that feminist epistemologists think that all women (or all feminist)
do, or should think alike, and that they ought to adopts some common “feminine
epistemic style applicable to all fields of inquiry and in serving women’s
interest”. (3) Self- defeating
conservatism- that feminist epistemologists defeat their own aims in taking
women’s values as an uncriticized given, even when these values underwrite sex
and caste oppression11. (4) Cynicism- that feminist epistemologists
reject the quest for objectivity and truth as an impossibility, and regard the
claim to pursue it is a mask for power play that in practice serves the
interests of white heterosexual western men at everyone else’s expenses. All
these arguments they used against feminist epistemologists in this book.
The
last book reviewed is by Elizabeth Anderson, “How not to criticize feminist
Epistemology: A review of scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology”. The author in
this book aims at debunking “Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology” by C.L.
Pinnick and Co, with an attempt to show how a critique that purports to
decisively undermine an entire field of enquiry be evaluated.
She
proposes three major standards that should be followed, such as (1) Accuracy-
that the critique must accurately represent the field as it stands today,
paying close attention to what its actual proponents say in context (2)
Perspectives- to be illuminating, that a critique should not simply deploy its
presuppositions against it rivals, but make them explicit, situate them
relative it rivals in a field of possibilities, explain why these are the
possibilities and why its presuppositions should be accepted rather than its
rivals. Lastly, Normative consistency- that a critique should live up to the
same normative standards it applies to its object. Using these standards, she
argues that the critiques against feminist epistemologists are based on gross
misrepresentations of feminist epistemology.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Login To Comment