The design and UX isn't done, Rob and Abbie, okkurrrr! 😌
christytidwell's review
3.0
In this book, Sandra Harding provides a clear and thorough background in various feminist theories and their relationship with the field of science and, more importantly, makes a convincing argument that science must be interrogated by feminism just as the rest of our culture must be in order to create a more equitable and non-sexist world.
Through a series of re-definitions and careful clarifications, Harding shows just how dependent upon traditionally masculine values scientific fields have been and how antagonistic to traditionally feminine values they have been. She does this without insisting upon the mere valorization of those so-called feminine values or the abandonment of the masculine values that have been associated with scientific study, instead advocating attempts to use feminist critiques of science to 1) acknowledge the masculine bias in much of the field, 2) open up new avenues of consideration, raise new questions to be asked, and include a broader range of thinkers, 3) make possible (if not sooner, then later) a scientific approach that would bring together the best of what has been seen as masculine and what has been seen as feminine, and 4) not only acknowledge but use the undeniable connections between science and politics. Science is not truly objective, after all, and has been and will continue to be used to further particular political ends. Since this is the case, Harding argues that these ends should be anti-sexist, anti-racist, and an ethical component of a larger community, not just progressive in name but in actuality.
In the end, Harding raises far more questions than she answers, but her work stands at the beginning of a much larger project (one that she will continue to contribute to and one that has become more and more central to feminist studies) and so serves more as a beginning than an end. As she writes in her conclusion,
"It would be historically premature and delusionary for feminism to arrive at a 'master theory,' at a 'normal science' paradigm with conceptual and methodological assumptions that we all think we accept. Feminist analytical categories should be unstable at this moment in history" (244).
Her book addresses the changing worlds of feminism and science and lays the groundwork for later feminists and later scientists to answer the question of whether or not feminism and science-as-we-know-it can coexist.
Through a series of re-definitions and careful clarifications, Harding shows just how dependent upon traditionally masculine values scientific fields have been and how antagonistic to traditionally feminine values they have been. She does this without insisting upon the mere valorization of those so-called feminine values or the abandonment of the masculine values that have been associated with scientific study, instead advocating attempts to use feminist critiques of science to 1) acknowledge the masculine bias in much of the field, 2) open up new avenues of consideration, raise new questions to be asked, and include a broader range of thinkers, 3) make possible (if not sooner, then later) a scientific approach that would bring together the best of what has been seen as masculine and what has been seen as feminine, and 4) not only acknowledge but use the undeniable connections between science and politics. Science is not truly objective, after all, and has been and will continue to be used to further particular political ends. Since this is the case, Harding argues that these ends should be anti-sexist, anti-racist, and an ethical component of a larger community, not just progressive in name but in actuality.
In the end, Harding raises far more questions than she answers, but her work stands at the beginning of a much larger project (one that she will continue to contribute to and one that has become more and more central to feminist studies) and so serves more as a beginning than an end. As she writes in her conclusion,
"It would be historically premature and delusionary for feminism to arrive at a 'master theory,' at a 'normal science' paradigm with conceptual and methodological assumptions that we all think we accept. Feminist analytical categories should be unstable at this moment in history" (244).
Her book addresses the changing worlds of feminism and science and lays the groundwork for later feminists and later scientists to answer the question of whether or not feminism and science-as-we-know-it can coexist.
More...