# Introduction Sandra Harding’s _The Science Question in Feminism_ (1986) has had a significant and lasting impact on feminist theory, science studies, and epistemology. When Harding’s book was first published, it was considered groundbreaking, especially for its in-depth critique of how science has been historically shaped by androcentric (male-centered) assumptions. It was received positively by feminist scholars and became a foundational text in feminist epistemology. However, it also sparked controversy, particularly among traditional scientists, for challenging the neutrality and objectivity of science. Her assertion that science could be as influenced by power and gender as by pure inquiry was provocative, especially in the context of the rising “Science Wars” in the 1990s. One of Harding’s most influential ideas, explored in this book, is _standpoint epistemology_, which argues that marginalized groups (including women) can have epistemically advantageous perspectives because of their outsider status in dominant power structures. --- # Preface - Since the mid-1970s, feminist criticisms of science have evolved from a reformist to a revolutionary position. - From the "woman question" in science: "What is to be done about the situation of women in science?" - To the "science question" in feminism: "Is it possible to use science for emancipatory ends when it's intimately involved in Western, bourgeois, and masculine projects?" - Radical feminist thinkers have challenged the very foundations of science. - Science today serves primarily regressive social tendencies. - The social structure of science, many of its applications and technologies, its modes of defining research problems and designing experiments, its ways of constructing and conferring meaning are not only sexist but also racist, classist, and culturally coercive. - The book examines trends in the feminist critiques of science. - The aim is to end androcentrism, not systematic inquiry. i.e. The aim is not to abandon the scientific method, but rather androcentric bias. - "Chapter 1 identifies five feminist critiques and three feminist epistemological programs, and points to the challenges each of these face." - Recognizing difference via intersectionality and solidarity is crucial to emancipatory epistemologies and politics, and can replace appeals to essentialist/universalist identities. - Feminist critiques of scientific rationality challenge deeply held beliefs that science is neutral and objective. This can appear blasphemous in a society that holds scientific rationality in such high regard, and where masculinity is seen as both rational and more highly valued. >This book examines important trends in the feminist critiques of science with the aim of identifying tensions and conflicts between them, inadequate concepts informing their analyses, unrecognized obstacles to and gaps in their research programs, and extensions that might transform them into even more powerful tools for the construction of emancipatory meanings and practices. Motivating my investigation is the belief that these feminist science critiques can be shown to have implications at least as revolutionary for modern Western cultural self-images as feminist critiques in the humanities and social sciences have had. # Chapter 1: From the Woman Question in Science to the Science Question in Feminism - The products of knowledge production bear the bias of their collective and individual creators, and the creators are biased by their social position (gender, race, culture, etc.) - Science has become an instrument of power rather than purely a pursuit of knowledge. - In contemporary society, science is the primary means by which institutions justify their actions. - Other social movements are critical of science. However, feminism adds a distinctive lens, especially considering the low priority of women's issues. - By questioning the gendered foundations of our belief systems and institutions, feminist thinkers push us toward a more inclusive and reflective form of inquiry. - Sexism is inseparably intertwined with racism, classism, and culture. Hence, it's understandable why working-class people, or other groups, might place feminism low on their political agendas. - Gendered social life is produced through three distinct processes: - Gender Symbolism ("Totemism"): The dichotomous symbolic and cultural meanings attached to gender categories. (e.g., active/passive, rational/emotional). - Gender Structure: The division of labor/roles by gender dichotomies. - Individual Gender: Gender as part of individual identity, which is, at most, loosely correlated with biological sex. - Across cultures, gender is central to how they organize social life, with masculinity being more highly valued than femininity in virtually every culture. - Recognizing difference via intersectionality and solidarity is crucial to emancipatory epistemologies and politics, and can replace appeals to essentialist/universalist identities. - Feminist critiques of scientific rationality challenge deeply held beliefs that science is neutral and objective. This can appear blasphemous in a society that holds scientific rationality in such high regard. - Feminists in other fields of inquiry (anthropology, history, etc.) have productively critiqued the sexism within their field. However, feminist critiques of science lack this same clarity. - There are five different projects of feminist critiques of science, each with different ideas and focus, often conflicting and lacking a unifying framework. - The way we think about knowledge and rationality isn’t just an abstract, inconsequential concern. It has real implications for power, equity, and social justice. ### Five Research Programs - **Equity Studies** has documented the barriers women face in entering and succeeding in scientific fields, such as discrimination in education, hiring, and promotion. - Equity studies often assume that women should want to be like men in science. Mere equality seems too low a goal, especially considering the sexism, racism, and classism of scientific projects. - **Studies of the uses and abuses of science** have revealed how science has been used in the service of oppression, such as reproductive control and the stigmatization of homosexuality. - Two problematic assumptions: - The distinction between a value-free, pure scientific research that can be distinguished from the (potentially oppressive) social uses of science. - That we can clearly distinguish between "proper" (good, objective) and "improper" (harmful, biased) uses of science. - **Critiques of the problematic selection in science** - The selection of research problems and the framing of questions in science often reflect male-centered perspectives. - Surely it is "bad science" to assume men's problems are everyone's problems. - Science favors a distinction between "value-free" and "value-laden" research. However, theories, methodologies, and observations are inherently influenced by social values, thus challenging the concept of "value-free." - Scientific inquiry is not neutral. It's influenced by the values of the researchers and dominant structures. - The more important distinction may be between research that _increases objectivity_ by challenging biases and research that decrease objectivity by reinforcing dominant social values. - For example, Harding suggests anti-sexist and anti-racist research designs might be inherently more objective because they consciously aim to correct historical and social distortions in scientific inquiry. - There is an incorrect assumption that the physical sciences are more objective than the social sciences. - **Textual criticism and psychoanalytic approaches** - Literary criticism, historical interpretation, and psychoanalysis "read" scientific texts as cultural artifacts, revealing social / symbolic meanings and structural agendas. - The rigid dichotomies in science (objectivity / subjectivity, reason / emotion, etc.) are often linked to masculine / feminine values, with human progress requiring masculine domination over feminine values. - These analyses raise questions about how metaphors of gender politics continue to shape scientific theories and practices and what a mode of scientific knowledge-seeking would look like without concern for these dichotomies. - **Feminist epistemologies** develop alternative theories of knowledge that challenge the dominant ways science justifies its claims, arguing that knowledge should be grounded in lived experiences, especially those of marginalized groups, and challenge the notion of detached, objective knowledge. - Offers a method for enhancing objectivity by including marginalized perspectives. ### A Guide to (Three) Feminist Epistemologies - The epistemological paradox for feminism: How can research motivated by political goals (like feminism) increase objectivity in scientific inquiry? - Feminism provides two main solutions and one agenda for a solution: feminist empiricism, the feminist standpoint, and feminist postmodernism. - **Feminist empiricism** is reformist, arguing that sexism and androcentrism are social biases correctable by stricter adherence to existing scientific methods. Women (or feminists) are more likely to produce more objective results than men (or non-feminists), suggesting that the researcher's identity matters for the objectivity of the research. - However, this subverts a core principle of traditional empiricism: that the social identity of the researcher should not affect the quality of scientific knowledge because objective scientific methods should eliminate any biases. - Thus, by acknowledging that social identity influences scientific outcomes, feminist empiricism undermines traditional empiricism’s claim of universal objectivity. - Moreover, social liberation movements—not just scientific methods— have led to greater objectivity in science. - The bourgeois revolution of the 15-17th centuries, marked by the rise of the middle class and capitalist societies, played a significant role in producing modern science. - The deconstruction of colonialism in the 20th century brought attention to Eurocentrism and racial biases. - Furthermore, empiricism focuses on the "context of justification" (testing hypotheses and interpreting data), but often overlooks the "context of discovery"— the stage where research problems are identified and defined. - Empiricism claims that its methodological norms ensure objectivity apply only to the context of justification— after the problem has been defined. - Androcentric bias often originates in the initial phase of discovery. This bias in problem selection shapes the course of scientific inquiry. - **Feminist standpoint theory**, rooted in Hegelian and Marxist theory, emphasizes that marginalized groups can offer a more complete and less distorted understanding of reality due to the unique perspective their oppressed condition grants. - The oppressed have a better understanding of social structures because of their standpoint. e.g. For Hegel, the slave knows more than the master. Similarly, for Marx, the working class better understand class society than the ruling class. - The oppressed perspective serves as a morally and scientifically preferable basis for knowledge. - One key challenge is that empiricists often resist the idea that the social identity of the researcher can (nor should) affect the objectivity of research. - Feminist standpoint theory must address the challenge of diverse and conflicting experiences among women. - The heterogeneity of women's experiences (across race, class, etc.) complicates the ideal of a single, unified feminist standpoint. - However, from this diversity of standpoints, feminist standpoint theory must avoid the traps of relativism and postmodernism, which treat all perspectives as equally valid or argue that only _a_ structure of reality is possible via a falsely universalizing perspective of the master. - Sexist and anti-sexist claims are not equally valid. - Feminist scholars should instead practice agnosticism: acknowledging that all knowledge is subject to change via new evidence, but not implying all viewpoints are equally valid. Some claims are more plausible than others based on available evidence. - **Feminist postmodernism** challenges universal identities and claims about reason, objectivity, progress, and truth. Instead, it emphasizes embracing fragmented identities and diverse perspectives. - Postmodern feminism draws on thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, and Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and intellectual movements such as semiotics, deconstruction, psychoanalysis, structuralism, and nihilism. - Universal claims often reflects the interests of the powerful in society. - It's important to be critical about the purpose of science and how it's used and the status of scientific claims. - Fractured identities are better grounds for knowledge since it more accurately reflects the complexity of identities and includes marginalized identities. - Fractured identities contain the complexity of available identities along various axes. e.g., Black-feminist, socialist-feminist, etc. - The idea of a "natural" or "essential" human identity is rejected because it's historically shaped by the men in power. - However, postmodern feminism creates its own tensions. - If everything is relative, it can be hard to make strong political claims against things like sexism or racism. - Can we still build a unified feminist movement or offer a strong critique of oppression without some common ground or "truth", especially in the face of the alliance between science, sexism, and racism?