Some of you know that I am partial to something called Standpoint Theory. (In fact, that’s what I’m writing my thesis about.) It is about the most sensible piece of philosophy I have encountered in my entire undergrad. I (heart) standpoint theory.
I’d like to throw out an excerpt for you to read, from a work by Alison Jaggar, that explains how standpoint relates to epistemology (theory of knowledge). She argues for a specifically socialist feminist standpoint theory.
Like both traditional Marxists and radical feminists, socialist feminists view knowledge as a social and practical construct and they believe that conceptual framewrks are shaped and limited by their social origins. They believe that, in any historical period, the prevailing world-view will reflect the interests and values of the dominant class. Consequently, they recognize that the establishment of a less mystified and more reliable world-view will require not only scientific struggle and intellectual argument but also the overthrow of the prevailing system of social relations.
Where social feminism differs from traditional Marxist epistemology is in its assertion that the special social or class position of women gives them a special epistemological standpoint which makes possible a view of the world that is more reliable and less distorted than that available either to capitalist or to working-class men. [...]
Both liberal and Marxist epistemologists consider that, in order to arrive at an adequate representation of reality, it is important to begin from the proper standpoint. Within liberal epistemology, the proper standpoint is the standpoint of the neutral, disinterested observer, a so-called Archimedean standpoint somewhere outside the reality that is being observed [this is the usual position attempted by scientists and sociologists, a god's-eye view or view from nowhere - TG]. Marxist epistemology, by contrast, recognizes that there is no such standpoint: that all systems of conceptualization reflect certain social interests and values. In a society where the production of knowledge is controlled by a certain class, the knowledge produced will reflect the interests and values of that class. In other words, in class societies the prevailing knowledge and science interpret reality from the standpoint of the ruling class. Because the ruling class has an interest in concealing the way in which it dominates and exploits the rest of the population, the interpretation of reality that it presents will be distorted in characteristic ways. In particular, the suffering of the subordinate classes will be ignored, redescribed as enjoyment or justified as freely chosen, deserved, or inevitable.
Because their class position insulates them from the suffering of the oppressed, many members of the ruling class are likely to be convinced by their own ideology; either they fail to perceive the suffering of the oppressed or they believe that it is freely chosen, deserved, or inevitable. They experience the current organization of society as basically satisfactory and so they accept the interpretation of reality that justifies that system of organization. They encounter little in their daily lives that conflicts with that interpretation. Oppressed groups, by contrast, suffer directly from the system that oppresses them… the pervasiveness, intensity, and relentlessness of their suffering constantly push the oppressed groups toward a realization that something is wrong with the prevailing social order. Their pain provides them with a motivation for finding out what is wrong, for criticizing accepted interpretations of reality, and for developing new and less distorted ways of understanding the world. These new systems of conceptualization will reflect the interests and values of the oppressed groups and so constitute a representation of reality from an alternaitve to the dominant standpoint.
The standpoint of the oppressed is not just different from that of the ruling class; it is also epistemologically advantageous. It provides the basis for a view of reality that is more impartial than that of the ruling class and also more comprehensive. It is more impartial because it comes closer to representing the interests of society as a whole; whereas the standpoint of the ruling class reflects the interests only of one section of the population, the standpoint of the oppressed represents the interests of the totality in that historical period. Moreover, whereas the condition of the oppressed groups is visible only dimly to the ruling class, the oppressed are able to see more clearly the rules as well as the rulers and the relation between them. Thus, the standpoint of the oppressed includes and is able to explain the standpoint of the ruling class.
(Alison Jaggar, “Feminist Politics and Epistemology: The Standpoint of Women” in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies (ed. Sandra Harding), 2004, New York and London: Routledge, 55-57. All emphases added.)
Remember that big discussion about white folks being racist, and not being able to understand the ways in which they are racist because the system they have built and participate in conceals racism from them? how there are things that we as white people simply cannot understand, even about our own selves? And that discussion in the comment section on the PUA thread much to the same effect that there are some things men will never be able to know about how their own privilege as men works in society? THIS is what motivates me when I write about these things.
I’m sure as I continue to research and write my thesis, there will be more about standpoint theory. I have a ton of great quotes from Patricia Hill Collins to throw into a post that I have found most helpful. For now, tell me what you think about this idea!
INVALUABLE. I think this idea is invaluable!
The study of standpoint theory would add a great deal of explanation for the necessity of challenging and dealing with the blindness of dominant classes. I think that white blindness to the effects of racism and male blindness to the effects of sexism can readily be explained and effectively challenged by the examination of standpoint theories.
I would *love* to be educated on this subject. I will state for the record that my own observational bias tends very much to the liberal epistemology, but I will admit that the Marxist and socialist epistemologies are probably much more accurate. However, I *do* believe that observers of the human condition have a moral and ethical duty to be as objective and as detached as humanly possible while *recognizing* that complete objectivity is an impossibility. Perhaps my stance can be likened much more to the journalist view rather than the scientific or sociological. An honest journalist will admit that bias is *inevitable*, but objectivity is to be striven for as much as possible.
Weirdly, I would think that even the liberal, “objective” epistemology–applied *honestly*– will confirm that the realities of the subordinate classes *are real*, are *unasked-for*, are *undeserved*, and *are very real.* I guess what I’m wondering, in a nutshell, is if what we’re dealing with on a societal level is not so much a failure of liberal epistemology to recognize oppression as we have a society-wide failure to be *psychologically honest.* In other words, our lack of psychological honesty could be much more responsible for the dominant classes’ denial of the oppression of subordinate classes.
One could argue that if a member of the dominant class has a highly insulated life against the realities of oppressed classes, it’s not really classic denial in the psychological sense. I have my personal doubts about that. I have lived and traveled in some of the most affluent areas in the United States, and it’s my personal opinion that if you keep your eyes and mind wide open, you’ll see the suffering out there in the open. I’m thinking specifically downtown Minneapolis in Minnesota. I live near that area, and *anytime* I go in the downtown area, I see the homeless, panhandling on the sidewalk. I can also see the rushed and beaten-down air of African-Americans and other peoples of color having to scrape and sweat in low-income jobs. *AND*, I can see the confident, hard-driving, comfortable air of many of the wealthy and upper-middle class white males in the suits. I watch the demeanor, the level of comfort, and the different–and sometimes very obvious–levels of physical health. *Unquestionably* there is a growing polarization between the rich and poor, and a concomitant increase of oppression of subordinate classes. You can *see* it if you’re honest with yourself! And to imagine that such a condition is “asked for” has (IMHO) got to be classic denial, based on the deep-seated fear of admitting to oneself that the American Dream really isn’t available to everyone, and that we really do live in an unfair society…
But, I will emphasize, that this is just my opinion.
My own current focus is on combatting PUA methodology *for now*, but I *am* looking for the feminist equivalent of a Unified Field Theory of combatting patriarchy. Effective study of standpoint theory will prove to be an *INVALUABLE* weapon in the arsenal of all feminists of all persuasions everywhere. (Perhaps I’m being a bit too universalist here:), but I fail to see how *anyone* could fail to benefit from the study of this.
Perhaps what we need is a *multiple* application of standpoints!:)
Scarred – yup, that’s why I love it!
Once you recognize that everyone has a standpoint, and that no standpoint is free from values and interests, it becomes more and more easy to see that what we need to do in order to really get to any degree of objectivity is to not to simply and dishonestly deny that we have a standpoint, but to outline our standpoints and join them, link them up, find the overlapping bits. it’s a political thing, to join together for a common purpose (gaining knowledge) in a common context of struggle (oppression).
I think standpoint theory is entirely genius and most useful.
what you said about the american dream – yes. I think the thing that freaks people who have benefitted from the way society is structured out is the randomness of it all. I think that is precisely why some people are so opposed to a social justice lens of analysis – they have to cling to the belief that they deserve what they have, that they have worked so very hard for their success and they deserve it, and of course in many ways that is true and that makes it difficult to see that other people have to work twice as hard, three times as hard, and they’ll never be able to get to that same level of success because the way society is structured is shitty and stacked against them. And it’s random, as in, if things had been a bit different historically, it could be a different group in the dominant position – because the entire structure of society is a human social construction, made out of the way we interact and relations of power that spring up out of those interactions. If they admit this, that society is unfair, then it means maybe they don’t deserve what they have after all. It means that they were lucky, not that they worked so hard and just are so freaking special. It means they’ve been playing with a stacked deck, and the other guys’ decks have no face cards. ya know what I mean?
I think the so-called “american dream” is a slap in the face and a crock full of shit all rolled into one, and it makes me angry.
I’ll give you some more references for standpoint theory as I go along. Some names to look for: Sandra Harding, Donna Haraway, Dorothy Smith (you’ll really like her), Nancy Hartsock, Patricia Hill Collins, Alison Wylie.
Hi Thinking Girl and Scarred,
I’m not familiar with standpoint theory either, but a lot of what you’re saying about it makes sense to me, TG. I think I would be wary of statements like
“the standpoint of the oppressed represents the interests of the totality in that historical period.”
- though I’m probably misunderstanding it, and your other statements defo seem to contradict it, this seems to be suggesting that the standpoint of an oppressed group is necessarily representative of everyone…I get that oppressed groups benefit epistemologically from ‘double consciousness’ but I guess I would be wary of assuming that represents the ‘interests of the totality’.
I think that is something we need to be careful about when discussing from an anti-oppressive viewpoint.
For instance, we know that white feminists cannot necessarily speak for the experience of other groups oppressed on racial grounds. Indeed, they are through their whiteness a part of the dominant ruling class. (I know that you are very aware of this TG and the implications thereof.)
I think what I have a problem with is…I don’t know what to call it…the limits of double consciousness?
I think it is limited in its specificity to the individual’s experience, where that individual stands in regards to ‘the intersections of oppressions’. I don’t want to come across as saying just that we are all different OR that all oppressions work in the same way. I don’t think they do. I think it is a danger for any oppressed person to solely identify themselves as oppressed and therefore advantaged epistemologically by necessity in regards to other oppressed people. (I don’t think many or most oppressed groups/people do this, BTW, I’m critiquing the theory here.)
Hope this isn’t too rambling.
What I’m wondering also, is how this ‘danger’ of double consciousness can be defended when it comes to critiques of the ruling class. As in: as a woman, I know, or think I know, how I am able to have this double consciousness when it comes to the dominant (i.e. male) discourse. We’re raised in a culture that tends to frame it as the default and thus I can have access to it. But how do I defend the idea that this gives me an epistemological advantage (in terms of understanding female oppression, say) over a man that claims I cannot fully understand his viewpoint since I haven’t experienced living as a man? (I haven’t experienced ‘the dominant male discourse’ from the viewpoint of someone who was not oppressed by it.)
Is the epistemological advantage only conferred through recognition of one’s own standpoint position rather than pretending one is impartial, or is there another advantage that I’m missing?
Hmm. I’m having a problem articulating exactly what I mean here…I’ll wait a bit and see if I can clarify it later.
Re: Scarred’s point about ‘multiple viewpoints.’ This is probably very useful in terms of epistemology, and it is close to my own philosophy, but I do think there are problems when it comes to legalistic decisions and protecting minority interests.
Sorry to post again, but maybe a better (and shorter) way to frame my questions would be this. As Scarred has said,
“The study of standpoint theory would add a great deal of explanation for the necessity of challenging and dealing with the blindness of dominant classes.”
I agree with this. But I’m quoting it here because of the concept of ‘blindness’ that Scarred has so usefully illuminated. Here’s my questions-
According to standpoint theory:
Can the non-dominant class be accused of any blindness towards the dominant class? Can this criticism ever be legitimate in an epistemological sense? And if so/if not, then what does standpont theory say about this (presumably already levelled BY members of the dominant class) criticism?
This is why I have a sneaking gut hunch that *modified* liberal epistemology–as described by Alison Jaggar–still has a lot to say about usefully illuminating the realities of oppression…
It can be argued–successfully, in some ways–that the non-dominant class *does* have blindness to the dominant class in certain, very real and psychological ways. However, if one takes the liberal epistemological tack, you can say–”So what??” And here’s why.
It can be successfully argued that there are some very real, very *objective* ways of determining oppression. For example, let’s say I’m blind as to the pressures that the rich owner of the company I work for. Let’s say I don’t have the faintest clue about what he’s up against, and I don’t have the faintest understanding of the nuances of the business transactions that he conducts daily, and that I have no concept of the ruthless competition that he’s up against. All of this can be successfully and impartially argued. Granted!
*However,* it doesn’t matter! Within the *context* of the company, he has much, *much* more power than me. Minnesota is an “at-will” state, which means that an employer can fire an employee for any reason at any time. The owner, if he so desires, could get rid of my butt instantly. I’d have certain legal recourses, but without enough money to hire an attorney, they are virtually meaningless–and I’m screwed. (Hope the language isn’t offensive.) Let’s say I wanted to fight back legally and establish a level playing field. Legally and monetarily I can’t–unless I can establish a basis for a court to believe that I was the victim of harassment and/or sexual discrimination. If I can prove he was going after me for being female, *then* I’ve got some power to fight back, because I could most probably convince a lawyer to take my case on pro-bono or contingency, and then I could go at him. *But,* oddly enough, he could fire me because, i.e., he didn’t like my choice of wearing pink shirts with purple polka dots when I’m not at the office *and stated that as his official reason for firing me,* provided that he really could document that I was wearing such apparel consistently. *Then* I’m legally powerless!! Weird, huh??:P
One thing that may be observed is the possible equation
POWER+ABILITY TO USE THAT POWER=
DOMINANT CLASS, whereas
LACK OF POWER or INABILITY TO USE POWER=NON-DOMINANT CLASS.
Now, one modification that could be tossed in is that this might be situation-specific. In other words, there are certain situations where a given class is dominant, whereas in other situations it is not. Here’s a good example:
Dick Cheney (yes, I love using him because he *is* such a stinking powermonger) has a tremendous amount of very real power in Washington, D.C. He could pick up a phone and make someone disappear very quickly if he wanted to–I don’t question this a bit. *However,* let’s say his plane were to crash in a wild, inaccessible area; let’s say, for example, his plane crashed in the Amazon on the turf of the Yanomano tribe (sp?), and his Secret Service detachment died in the plane crash–with Cheney as the only survivor. These people are nicknamed “the Fierce People.” If he angered them, they might not care that he’s a major Halliburton player or that he could call in air strikes. They might just decide to kill him and ignore what the Brazilian government wants or what the American governmen wants. Sure, there would be a probable retaliation, but that doesn’t change the fact that *for that time* Cheney could find himself completely powerless and vulnerable–not only suffering a fall from grace but having his life seriously endangered.
There are also times when the oppressed have turned the tables on the oppressors; an excellent example of this is the French Revolution.
The French Revolution was a nightmare for dominant classes everywhere. It showed what *can* happen when the oppressed finally get pushed beyond human limits and fed up; the more I think about it, the more I am coming to suspect that much of the oppressive government of the 18th, 19th, and 20th century might have been based on the primal fear of a hyperviolent revolution.
“Objectivity” does have its limits, but it *is* good for one thing: establishing *base lines* for measuring dominance, power, and control. For example, there is no way on this little blue planet that Bill Gates could ever resonably claim to be oppressed by, say, Snoop Dogg. Ain’t no way!! (And no, I won’t accept sonic irritation as a criterion for class oppression.:) [insertion of silly humor] )
I absolutely agree that the pervasive discourse in the society is the values of the dominant group; they control the media sphere thus people are conditioned to accept the values of the dominant group. It’s a social construction; values of the oppressed groups should be heard and supported to fight injustices.
But I don’t know if oppressed groups are “epistemologically” advantageous. If you accept postmodernism, the oppressed group views things as they see and the dominant group sees things differently, and both are “true” to them??? I’m bit confused here. I support the oppressed group’s values and struggles because their values are more “just” than that of the dominant group, (because the oppressed group fights against oppression while the dominant group tends to defend the oppressive social structure that benefits them), not because their experiences are epistemologically “truer”.
Also, though it may not exist, I still think “Archimedian standpoint” as an ideal, and it can be achieved in maths I suppose, but not in social sciences…
This is eerily similar to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that because the nature of our language is tied to the society from which it was derived, and because we think using language, it is possible to conclude that the society in which we live shapes the way we think, and the content of those thoughts. If that is true, then we, none of us, are capable of setting aside the programming present within our normal thought processes, regardless of our ability to otherwise think rationally and logically. Complete dispassion, or the Archimedean standpoint is virtually impossible.
Where thinking is concerned, I believe this is true. Images and ideas, societies spawn, will forever pop into our heads at the most inopportune moments, and there is nothing we can do about it. But when it comes to expression… manifestation of the “what” or “how” we want to be, who we actually are (as a result of socialization) becomes irrelevant. To approach it otherwise would be to discredit empathy.
On the one hand, oppression is a potent catalyst for forcing people (victims) to open their eyes and see the world for what it really is, but another part of me wonders, why, if we the people are so adept at seeing the full spectrum, the big picture, do we not do anything about it?
It leads me to believe that either this benefit of comprehensive awareness is terribly limited to those few who choose to actually use their brains, or, and this is the worst of it, things just aren’t systemically bad enough for the status quo to care enough to rise up and enact change.
TG, I love this stuff. Thank you for playing educator to me and the rest of your readers who come around for all this lovely smartness.
This next part is a bit windy, my apologies, but there is a point:
The French had a bit more trouble with the Haitian Revolution, the only successful slave uprising that I know of, and the background for a novel by Heinrich von Kleist (Die Verlobung in St. Domingo, “The Betrothal in St. Domingue”) about which I wrote a paper last fall.
It was the main character’s inability to see his (European colonialist) racism that led to the novel’s tragic end, and while writing this paper I started to get an idea of standpoint theory (see! my point!).
I want to delve into this more deeply for sure — thanks for the springboard!
(I’ll go back to lurking/learning now. ^^)
You know what? I just had a weird little epiphany.
Pardon me if I use a mathematical metaphor, but it dawns on me that it’s *highly* relevant to this discussion. Bear with me, liberallatte, Justanother human, Brain, nightgigjo, and TG, but I’d like to illustrate my analogy with some imput from the discipline of math.
All of us agree, I believe, that the Archimedean standpoint is a virtual impossibility, that it truly doesn’t exist as such. Yet, I believe that in one form or another us feminists, philosophers, observers of the human condition, etc., keep getting drawn to it over and over. *Why?* Why should this imaginary standpoint be so compelling for us to talk about and reference, even if it’s just in disagreement–even if we *know* it’s just a fantasy that the Western P.O. V. likes to indulge in, and it’s best to debunk its reality?
Then it hit me like a lightning bolt!
**************************************************
What if the liberal epistemology and its concomitant Archimedean stance/assumption is the philosophical, political, and psychological equivalent of the imaginary number in mathematics?
**************************************************
I will quote the definition from Wikipedia:
“Definition [of the Imaginary Unit]:
By definition, the imaginary unit i is one solution of the quadratic equation
x(squared)+1=0
or equivalently x(squared)=minus 1.
Since there is no *real* number that squares to any negative real number, we *imagine* such a number and assign to it the symbol i. Real number operations can be extended to imaginary and complex numbers by treating i as an unknown quantity while manipulating an expression, and then using the definition to replace occurences of i(squared) with minus 1. Higher integral powers of i can also be replaced with minus i, 1, i, or minus 1.”
Imaginary numbers are used constantly by electrical engineers in what is called differential equations; they are also used by scientists and some musicians, economists, and stockbrokers. Imaginary numbers (a.k.a. “complex numbers”) are used primarily to deal with *anything* powered by electricity or anything built through calculations of imaginary numbers. This can apply to anything such as the firing of neurons in the human brain to radar! *Anything* to do with signal processing! (Source of information is “The Math Forum: Ask Dr. Math,” associated with Drexel University and is put out online by the Drexel School of Education.)
My point in all of this is such: imaginary (complex) numbers are thought to not be “real.” *Yet,* if you manipulate them *as though* they were real,* you can get an enormous amount of *things accomplished* in engineering and practical applications of things. *What if the liberal epistemology and its Archimedean standpoint is the philosophical, political, and psychological equivalent of imaginary numbers in math and electrical engineering?*
My reasoning for this is follows: philosophy, like math, involves a tremendous amount of logic. Humans are highly irrational, but they are also highly *rational,* even in our deepest unconscious minds. The paradox is that we’re both! And, let’s face it, we the oppressed are very, very deeply unhappy about the state of the affairs in our world today. I believe that more and more people on the face of this earth hunger and thirst for justice, equity and fairness–and for the freedom to pursue these! *Everyone* (IMHO) knows in the bones that things aren’t right, that the system of things is pretty damned diseased. Hell, I think even the rich on a certain level know that things aren’t right; I think that’s why so many celebrities and wealthy people’s lives are publicly self-destructing. Their unconscious minds (IMHO) are doing the work of what *should* be a fully-formed and fully-conscious conscience.
*Yet,* when *we the people* actually try to do *something* about the big picture, we get shot down–if not by outright brute force, then by the dominant class sophistry put out by idiots such as Dinesh D’Souza, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, nauseating et. al. These people’s thoughts are readily accessible to the (poorly educated) American public, and as such are passed off as factual and accepted as truth. They poorly reference a half-assed version of “liberal” epistemology and use it to excuse and encourage oppression of the weak, the poor, and the disadvantaged. Sickening! And it wreaks havoc on the morale and the psyche of the oppressed, to see the media elites spread this sort of dominant class garbage social construction. I believe *that’s why*, L.L. and J.A.H., that’s the real reason why We The People don’t fight back–because we’re demoralized and hypnotized to believe that we can’t.
But we can!!
I believe that the liberal epistemology–the Archimedean standpoint–can serve as the philosophical and political equivalent of the imaginary number for political, philosophical, and psychological activists fighting for the oppressed classes on this earth. As I pointed out earlier, “objectivity” seems to have *one advantage* in *tangibly measuring* levels of dominance, power, and oppression. “Objectivity” doesn’t really exist–it’s imaginary. *Yet,* it’s *useful* *IN ACTUALLY GOING OUT AND DOING THE HARDCORE POLITICKING AND ENGINEERING OF A BETTER SOCIETY.*
And I think that the socialist feminist and Marxist epistemogies/standpoints are invaluable as well! I believe, from what Alison Jaggar has pointed out, that these epistemologies can be used to illuminate and directly attack and undermine the dominant class stances, ideologies, and methodologies that are used so copiously to oppress others via the media, educational institutions, political chambers, etc.
Maybe a *thorough* study of these differing epistemologies will reveal a case of the *right tool for the right job.* Think of it this way: socialist feminist standpoint theory can serve the political and psychological equivalent of theoretical physics; liberal epistemology standpoint study from a feminist P.O.V. could serve as the equivalent of training feminist activists in how to actively combat and fight oppression. In a sense, that’s what N.O.W. and the United Nations Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (IANWGE) in their website “WomenWatch” are doing–using tangible, “objective” criteria such as women’s wage earning, poverty rates, and lack of employment in order to document, argue against, and fight the oppression of women all over the world. Note how statitistics on their websites–use of math!–figures *heavily* in their argumentation for women’s rights and access to economic and political opportunities.
Unfortunately, the feminist users of liberal epistemology–the political “engineers”–are under attack by reactionary and conservative dominant classes all over the world. This is magnifying and increasing the oppression of women and indigenous peoples all over the world.
This is where the socialist feminist standpoint theory could prove to be *invaluable.* I need to study it a lot more to be *really* certain, but my gut hunch is that it really could prove to be–along with radical feminism and Marxist epistemology–the theoretical physics of the feminist worldviews. If feminist philosophers, etc., *study* socialist feminist standpoint theory, we *could* use it to come to the political and psychological rescue of the feminist activists on the front lines by countering the dangerous and demoralizing rhetoric of the dominant class media machines all over the world.
Justanotherhuman: I want also to give you a *BIG* compliment:) and to address the invaluable contribution you have just made to the discussion of this thread and the exploration of Standpoint Theories by bringing up the linguistic factor. You are most certainly *ON TO* something when you bring up linguistics as a factor, and in particular the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. I have been checking out your blogsite, and I’m interested in what the linguistic anthropologists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf have to say.
I will also add that the applied psycholinguist Suzette Haden Elgin has stated that the primary devices used to oppress women are LINGUISTIC in nature. (On another thread or post I will bring in her books and their theories and practical applications.) I will also point you to the reality that Neurolinguistic Programming–a type of hypnosis that utilizes linguistic factors in its induction–is used by pick up artists (PUAs) in sexually conquering and mentally oppressing women they “find” desirable. (See the thread on this blog “Professional pick-up artists fun woman-tricking business to help guys get laid.”) If you choose to follow this thread in its entirety, you will watch a stupendous effort on the part of PUAs to oppress, dominate, and blindside Thinking Girl and the other participants on the thread with all kinds of linguistic tricks and bullying.
The longer I read this blog, post, and read other people’s posts, the more I’m convinced that feminism in order to survive and thrive *MUST* become more–and more consciously a multidisciplinary movement.
Holy. I did quite a bit of theory in university, but most of this seems to be flying straight over my head.
A simplier question to TG: What’s your thesis going to be about? I see you’re choosing standpoint theory as your theoretical framework — but for what type of analysis?
Don’t feel bad Dave.
Most of this whizzes by me, too. But I like the way the words look on the screen, and there aren’t that many women-friendly places on the intertubes.
I don’t really know “Standpoint Theory”, but if you hum a few bars, I’ll fake it.
thanks everyone for your interest in this subject!
Brain – great question – kind of reminds me of the “reverse -ism” thing a bit, yes? I think this is also related to a concern of relativism in standpoint theory. I think you might be onto something by saying that recognizing one’s position is key to having that advantage. I’ll think about this, and as my reading progresses I’ll tell you if I come across anything more substantial on this matter.
LL – also good point, on postmodernism. Yes, everyone’s standpoint is definitely “true to them.” I think this is another version of the relativism objection. My answer to those who critique postmodernism on these grounds is usually along the lines of, “if you’re looking for a single, one-size-fits-all solution to a given problem, no, you’re not going to find it with postmodernism (substitute standpoint theory). You’re going to find a hundred different solutions – solutions tailored to each person or group’s location! and isn’t that ultimately better?”
Again, I think the epistemological advantage comes from simply admitting that your standpoint exists, and has goals and interests attached. THAT’s the “truth”, if that’s what you care to look for. (I usually take the stance that there is no “truth”!)
Justanotherhuman – thanks for commenting! I don’t know much about that theory you’re talking about, but sounds like I’d like it!
This line struck a chord with me: “To approach it otherwise would be to discredit empathy.”
Some theorists I’ve read heartily dislike any notion of empathy, and prefer to talk of sympathy. Because you can’t actually know what it is like to feel and experience something from another’s point of view – it is never going to be the same, exactly.
Also, your question: “why, if we the people are so adept at seeing the full spectrum, the big picture, do we not do anything about it?” and answer: “things just aren’t systemically bad enough for the status quo to care enough to rise up and enact change.”
yes, but more than this, too. Really, it comes down to interest. and it is in the best interest of the dominant class(es) to maintain their position. So not only are things “not systemically bad enough” for the dominant class, the status quo is set up to privilege them and to carry out their interests and values. And so, blindness becomes built-in to the system. because it’s in the dominant class’ interest not-to-know.
And there is the epistemological advantage of the underclasses.
nightgigjo – thank you for the lovely compliment!
I know, I love it too, I could eat it up with a spoon, it’s the biggest AHA moment ever, isn’t it? I think the best philosophical theories are the ones that make you say, “well of course! I’ve known that all along!” (existentialism was like that for me… boy do I love THAT stuff!)
Scarred – aw jeez, you had to go and talk about numbers!
What you said, sounds just about right to me. mhm. goooooood epiphany. Keep it up, keep it up!!!!!
(I think you’d be a good teacher, Scarred. You explain things very thoroughly. I like the connections you make!)
Dave and heliobates – awww. Sorry guys! what is whizzing, exactly, and what would you like to replay in slo-mo? what whizzed for me were all those mathematical equations Scarred pulled out!
I was chatting with a client at work yesterday about my thesis, and I explained standpoint theory very simply to her: the idea that because of our social locations, we each have a unique view on the world, and this has two main ramifications: A) we can never fully escape our own standpoint and B) we can never fully understand another’s standpoint. So our knowledge is both strengthened and limited by our standpoint, and there is no such thing as an “objective” standpoint. She started pulling out all kinds of examples of this theory in action: like that each generation can’t really learn from the ones before, because it has to experience events for themselves to truly understand; like her sister getting a poor mark on a paper because she didn’t acknowledge that the world doesn’t operate from her standpoint alone and not everyone was raised with the same kind of background and belief system, that sort of thing. Quite simply, it is the idea that we can’t really know what it’s like to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, unless we do it ourselves.
My thesis is going to analyze the theory itself as an alternative to “objective” foundational epistemology (as found in, say, science), and in particular the criticism of relativism. I’m arguing that the correct position to begin an inquiry is from the investigator’s standpoint (rather than trying to go about shedding all the corollaries that go along with that standpoint), and the way to get to objectivity is by uniting knowledge generated from standpoints over a common goal or context of struggle.
Hey TG: some of the more technical aspects of feminist theory are beyond me. I simply haven’t done my homework. My femanism is entirely practical—the result of 11 years with a partner who works with abused women and children and 3 years as the father of a girl who’s going to grow up to inherit this whole stinking mess.
This sounds so straightforward and sensible to me. I see shades of Feyerabend and Korzybski, whether or not you’re familiar with either.
Please keep us posted as your thesis develops. In fact, I can’t wait to read the whole thing.
TG> Thanks for the explanation. I can see the link to postmodernist theory now…
I never heard about this but thanks for this post. Very illuminating !
Hi people, I’m back.:)
I think I should have made more of an effort to be clear. Let me see if I can clean some of my explanations up:
Point 1: I didn’t spell out my argument very well, but I do want to let you know that my use of the role of imaginary numbers was both a metaphor *and* an analogy. I tend to think that the “liberal” and “objective” foundational epistemology as used in science serves the same function in philosophy and thought in general as imaginary numbers does in mathematics and engineering. Philosophy, science, and mathematics share one thing in common: the use of logic and reasoning in both deductive and inductive ways. Because of this, I thought (and think) that a mathematical metaphor is still appropriate.:)
Point 2: Allow me to explain more clearly what an imaginary number *is*. Another Wikipedia entry for the imaginary number states the following: “In mathematics, an imaginary number or purely imaginary number is a complex number whose square is a negative real number.” This is simpler. I’ll enter another post with weblinks to sites that make imaginary number concepts understandable.
Point 3: I have to correct myself; mathematicians now very much consider imaginary numbers to be as *real* as the so-called “real” numbers; one of the explanations given for this is that *numbers themselves* are considered to be human-made abstractions.
Point 4: Y’know, it dawns on me while typing this that in some ways we’re comparing apples and oranges. I do agree that a completely objective standpoint is not humanly possible, but it dawns on me that *fully replicable results within a given standpoint can be agreed-on by all witnesses involved*–hence the effectiveness of scientific research. For example, the socialist feminist standpoint *by nature* is going to have as many different viewpoints as there are parties involved. These viewpoints and standpoints originate because of our individual/group existences and perceptions within a given society or societies. But the scientific standpoint is an entirely different animal! For example, a group of safety researchers can stand around and conduct vehicle destruction tests with crash dummies–and if the measuring equipment is accurate, I’m pretty sure (barring major personality and professional clashes) that they’ll come to a consensual agreement about vehicular integrity for specific makes and models quickly. You see what I mean? Some standpoints can only be observed subjectively and felt, some can have *replication,* and some might involve a mix of both–i.e., the Western sociological standpoint that can with *some* accuracy replicate given results that seem to *suggest* some conclusions and observations. This leads me to the following:
Point 5: People who criticize societal relativism and feminist theory on the basis of a supposed “objective” standpoint are, quite simply, using the wrong tool for the wrong job! What they’re trying to apply is the scientific standpoint–and they can’t replicate their “results” or prove their hypotheses although it seems that they put that demand on feminists! The *closest* model that can be used to prove or disprove feminist societal observations is the sociological standpoint–but, if it’s honestly applied, *usually* proves us right!! (Although sadly, people have tried to play games with domestic violence data to prove that women oppress men as much as men oppress women, yada, yada, yada.) For the most part, however, sociological studies tend to *vindicate* us! (I think.)
Source of my information on imaginary numbers:
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/imaginary.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number#_note-0
Thinking girl, you are so right. I am finding this post interesting & useful. Useful in my obsession with religious oppression & even though this is not quite what the post & discussion is about, & even though I only understand it in a rudimentery way, I am able to apply alot of what you are saying to my own ideas. Right now I am mulling over judeo-Christian morality & the idea that it is presented as a rational & universal morality.(What Nietzsche calls a slave morality or a morality of resentment) I am determined to destroy THAT Christian justification, because I see Christian morality as a road-block to human knowledge. My point is that although we aren’t on the same road or moving at the same rate, I think our paths are parallel & some of our goals are the same, huh?
I am also fascinated with scarred’s comments about Archimedean standpoint & imaginary numbers. & the idea that we strive so hard to find a true objective standpoint.
The Toronto link explains how imaginary numbers are no less real than integers, rationals, irrationals, or other types of numbers. Probably the best way to think of imaginary numbers is numbers with two dimensions (there are also 4- and 8-dimensional numbers called quaternions and octonions.) I also found an interesting explanation of how normal imaginary numbers are in the comments at Good Math (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/02/basics_multidimensional_number_1.php):
While driving to work today, I was considering how one coudl teach the imaginary numbers to school children. I decided it’s best to throw the weirdness at them immediately, but in a slightly different context…
Today we’re going to talk about a new type of number. In advanced math you deal with all sorts of numbers – imaginary, vectors, quaternions, matrices, etc. Many people say that these types of numbers aren’t ‘real’ because you can’t count with them. You can’t make a pile with [3, 2, 5] jellybeans in it, for example. But they are very useful when doing certain things, so it’s good to understand just how they relate to you. So today I’m going to discuss a very simple new type of number that mathematicians use called ‘evil numbers’. Silly name, yes, but they’re used in many equations and are quite useful in solving certain types of mathematical problems.
Evil numbers are pretty simple, really. The very first evil number is written as e. This is the basis of all the evil numbers, and you can get all the rest of the evil numbers just by multiplying a normal number (let’s call them ‘good’ numbers) by e. So you’ve got 2*e, or 2e, and then 3e, .5e, sqrt(2)e, and so on.
Adding two evil numbers works exactly as it might look. e+e=2e, 2e+2e=4e, and so on. If you add together a good and an evil, you can’t quite combine them, so we write it with the addition left in. 1+2e=(1+2e). That’s about all we can do, though there is a way to simplify it that I’ll go into later.
Notice, though, that 1+2e isn’t a good or evil number – it’s got parts of both. We’ll call this a moral number. You might see that even good and evil numbers can be thought of as a type of moral number; 1 is the same as 1+0e, while 2e is the same as 0+2e. Adding moral numbers is really easy – just add their good and evil parts and put them back together. So 1+2e + 3+4e = (1+3)+(2+4)e = 4+6e.
That’s it for addition. It’s just like normal addition, except that when you add a good and evil number you get the slightly more complicated moral number. Multiplication is a tiny bit trickier.
You may have already noticed that when you multiply a good and an evil you get an evil number. You just multiply the good parts and stick the e back at the end. 2*e=2e. 3e*4=12e. That’s simple. Multiplying two evil numbers works the same way, except now you have two e’s at the end. 2e*3e=6e2. There’s a nice trick you can do to eliminate the e2 that I’ll show you in a second.
Multiplying moral numbers is a little bit more complicated – you multiply like they were binomials. So multiplying a good number by a moral number is just distributing: 3*(1+2e)=3+6e. Same with multiplying an evil and moral number together, though you get that e2 again. Two moral numbers are a little bit more complicated, because you end up with four terms:
(1+2e)*(3+4e)
= 1*3 + 1*4e + 2e*3 + 2e*4e
= 3 + 4e + 6e + 8e2
= 3 + 10e + 8e2
That’s as good as we can get, and it’s still pretty complicated. Multiplying a lot of moral numbers together would get pretty horrendous, since you’d just start building up those powers of e. But you can eliminate all of that with this simply identity: e2=1
So that number we just found is now equal to 3 + 10e + 8*1, or just 11+10e. That’s a lot nicer – we’re back to an ordinary moral number. We can do the same thing when we’re multiplying two evil numbers together:
2e*5e = 10e2 = 10*1 = 10
You see, when we multiply two evils together we get a good.
So let’s review:
good + good = good
evil + evil = evil
good + evil = moral
anything + moral = moral (just add up the good and evil parts separately)
good * good = good
evil * evil = good
good * evil = evil
anything * moral = moral (multiply like it was a binomial)
e2 = 1
Now, you may have heard about evil numbers before, actually. If you were young when you learned about them, they probably didn’t call them ‘evil’, to keep you kids from thinking you shouldn’t learn them. More than likely, you called them ‘negative’.
…
^_^
Now we can learn about imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are exactly like evil numbers. Instead of moral numbers, we say complex numbers. Every single rule you just learned to use negative numbers works with imaginary numbers, except that i2=-1. Imaginary and ‘evil’ numbers are no different – neither can be used for counting things, but both are useful sometimes when we’re talking about special subjects. So don’t let anyone tell you that imaginary numbers are just a figment of mathematician’s imaginations. They’re just as real as negative numbers are; which is to say, only as real as we allow them to be.
I think that would blow the minds of most children, and really cement in their heads that even the math they take for granted is much more unusual than they give it credit for, and so they can’t dismiss new math as not real just because it looks a little strange.
heliobates, Dave, Aulelia – thanks – I’ll definitely post more as I go along with my research and writing.
Scarred – your point 4 about scientific inquiry – I’ll write a bit more about that a little later. I don’t think science is at all objective, because the questions that get asked in the first place come from a particular standpoint that has excluded and continues to exclude women and POC. I wrote a bit about that here. the trouble is that scientists THINK they’re being objective, but they aren’t.
point 5 is right on. Using a particular standpoint to analyse knowledge produced from another standpoint is precisely the trouble – especially when the group whose knowledge is being analysed has been assigned inferior social status, and when the group doing the analysing is dominant and has enshrined their standpoint in social institutions, including institutions of knowledge production (like the academy, for example).
L>T – glad you found the post helpful/interesting – I figured you would! I’m with you on the claim that christian morality blocks human knowledge – as far as morality goes, I think it’s completely misplaced and actually not so moral at all in its current incarnation. I have no actual problem with the teachings of Jesus, but I don’t think those are reflected in christianity at present.
You should check out more about ressentiment – here’s a link to the Wikipedia entry on it. I just love Nietzsche – his combination of linguistics, history, philosophy, and psychology is just so brilliant!
eipi – okay, I’m not sure what that has to do with standpoint theory, but it was interesting, to the degree that anything about numbers can be interesting (which, to me, is not very, so that’s saying a lot that you captured my interest!).
I just found this story on CBC.CA, which I think demonstrates just how dangerous standpoint can be. Here’s an excerpt:
The author goes on to say that if doctors had more time for proper consultation and diagnosis, this might not be so much of an issue.
Interesting, huh?
TG: thank you for directing me to that wonderful thread! I only got halfway through it, but I got the main *gist* of the scientific squabble over the nature vs. nurture conundrum regarding male-female differences in math and science. *Sigh.* That old bugaboo…I honestly thought that old wives’ tale had been laid to rest, and then that bozo at Harvard had to go resurrect it…
Actually, my own feeling on the subject is that *your* stance–that true biological differences in male-female performance regarding math/science capability *are undiscernable* until we eliminate the social conditioning is the *scientifically correct* one. This was the commonly stated scientific stance in the 1970s, and I *trust* it a lot more–for one thing, universities and research foundations weren’t so *dependent* on corporate money as they are *now*–and hence could *afford* to be more objective. From what I know of genuine research science, an ethical and careful experimenter will do everything possible to *eliminate* outside influences that could skewer the experimental results. And if the outside influences can’t be eliminated, the experimenter (if *trying* to be objective!) will do everything to explain that the results could be skewed and *cannot* be considered definitive! In other words, the honest researcher will point out that *no real conclusions* can be drawn! Studying male-female biological math-capability differences aren’t like testing automobile crashes–we can’t (yet) eliminate the social contamination that skewers the inquiry. What I can’t figure out is why it’s even being studied so much, given that we can’t yet get rid of the outside conditioning. It’s an awfully divisive outlook–”men vs. women: who’s got the bigger tool, I mean, ability.” I don’t see the need for it…We hire individual scientists, engineers, and accountants, not groups.
Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, *there’s all kinds of* highly biased and contaminated research going on out there nowadays. Sometimes I think they’re not even *trying* to be objective! It’s really a betrayal of the scientific method. A lot of it has to do with plain ol’ intellectual laziness–”It’s inconvenient and a lot of work to say that while the top and low ends of the spectrum see an opposite pooling of male and female subjects, there’s a tremendous amount of variation and overlap between the genders. That makes my brain hurt. Let’s just say men and women show differences on a group scale, and leave it at that.” And the media, of course, will often criminally simplify *a lot* of scientific studies.
A lot of it, too, unfortunately, seems to be the psychological tendencies in humans to notice and emphasize differences rather than similarities. At least, that’s what *I’ve* noticed. We probably evolved that way to pick out threats in our environment, but let me tell you, it’s darned annoying at times.:(
Yes, I can understand your wariness of the scientific standpoint now. My own POV is that what passes for science now *isn’t*. But, that’s where socialist feminist standpoint could go after rightwing contamination of the sciences and the institutions like a pit bull after a car tire.:) (Go, pit bull! Yay!!)
eipi: *I* enjoyed your post and found it highly educational! *Thank* you!:)))
TG: you need to read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell.
He has several chapters devoted to this kind of thing.
hey thinking girl! I bet you are very busy with exams, finals, etc…but, I need a favor I want you to come & check out my latest morality post. & Throw some of your fine intellect on it.
I dug up the last morality post I did in January. In which you were a great participent & added much. i put a link to it on this post & was reading it & the comments on it & thinking how my thoughts & ideas on the subject have grown in 4 months. I’ll be curious if your ideas about morality have changed or evolved.
Of course anybody else is invited over to add their input, also. I like a curious mix of people.
I keep forgetting if you don’t have trackback, if I just haven’t figured out how to use it. In any event, consider this a low-tech trackback:
“A Clarification of Standpoint Theory”, from The Debate Link. It’s a very small quibble over the role of majority voices in standpoint theory, extended over the course of several long meandering paragraphs.
maybe its just cause its nearly 2 in the morning here so i could just not be understanding this at all. However, i agreed with the thrust of it but this phrase stuck out to me:
“that the special social or class position of women gives them a special epistemological standpoint which makes possible a view of the world that is more reliable and less distorted than that available either to capitalist or to working-class men.”
i dunno maybe im misunderstanding this section but it seems to imply that a rich woman would still have a less distorted position than a working class or lower class man.
So does that mean it assumes that gender oppression is deeper than class oppression? If so, thats intresting considering it has its roots in marxist thought which has a very singular view on opression and that it is very much class-centric.
Also, this brings to mind those suffragetes in the UK, who generally were drawn from bourgoiuse households, who fought for genteel ladies enfranchisement, but were not so concerned for the plight of thier domestic servants.
I guess that example above shows clearly the merits in standpoint theory (or my limited understanding of it lol) namely that ones privledged position in society will shape how one sees the world and what issues are of paramount importance.
thanks for the comments, everyone!
Scarred – yeah, the “differences between men and women” can’t just be left alone, not in our patriarchy, not in our male supremacy. because differences just have to be about one group being BETTER than the other. such is the nature of the entire dominant system! and having this system replicated and supported by so-called science is completely bogus. because science is not objective. it’s chock full of all kinds of subjectivity, because of who gets to do science. and overwhelmingly, that’s not women.
heliobates – thanks for the tip! I think I have that around here somewhere…
L>T – oh god, sorry, I didn’t make it over there!!! it’s probably all wound up by now. I’ll check it out tonight.
bad TG!
David – thanks for the link. I believe that the trackback feature only works on wordpress blogs linking to other wordpress blogs. so please do continue to come and leave a link in the comments. or, switch to wordpress, it’s infinitely better!!!
stixzz – yes, I think you’re right to point out this criticism. I can’t say I agreed with everything in the piece, but liked msot of it enough to post an excerpt.
so yes, I think you’re understanding this just fine!