A Critical Evaluation Of Epistemic Terms Within The Context Of Feminist Epistemology

A Critical Evaluation Of Epistemic Terms Within The Context Of Feminist Epistemology

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 hunt for knowledge, which epistemology is centred on, shouldn’t be manly acquainted only, but that the womanish gender should be given an observance- say-so in the discus of knowledge.

The task of this design is to interpret 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 suitable to help epistemological attempt to refute or answer the skeptical challenges that nothing can be known for certain.

Epistemic terms similar as knowledge, defense, verity and falsehood, perception, subjectivism, objectivism, reasone.t.c

Chapter One

General Introduction

Background Of Study

History of gospel make spare citation of women proponents previous to the twentieth century, For a long time it was assumed that this was due to lack of influential women proponents. Scholars similar as Mary Ellen Waithe suggested that women have been more important in the history of gospel than is frequently mentioned1.

Before now, women have frequently been barred from prestigious area of mortal exertion( for illustration, politics or wisdom), thereby making these conditioning feel easily “ manly ”. similar areas in this 21st century can be said to have been more embracing of the “ women folk ”, due to the positivist call for equivalency and occasion to be heard, rather than been sidelined and seen as inferior to men.

womanish or women issues have frequently been at the topmost at both original and transnational conferences, feminism can be opposed, rejected, blamed but it can not be ignored like religion there seems to be some quantum of passion, emotion and contradiction involved in its debate. Indeed those who are manly centered( manly nationalist) have come to realize the asininity of not feting the validity of the core questions girding the issues of feminism.

Feminist proposition applied to epistemology has redounded 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, notice and reconstruction of epistemology. For feminist epistemologists, traditional western epistemology is endocentric and manly- prejudiced. It fails to take women’s experience and perspectives into account. Due to the actuality of manly domination, manly morals have come dominant morals and been regarded as objective and universal norms for all. As similar women’s was of thinking and knowing have been considered as commodity inferior and invalid2. Due to this fact of traditional Western epistemology been manly- centered, feminist epistemologists have share the view that it’s shy, 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 dissensions on whether there are invariant women’s way of knowing in the global sphere, to what extent traditional Western epistemology is manly- prejudiced, and whether some ways of knowing are participated by both genders, but all feminist epistemology is gender- poisoned and that feminist examens of it’ll significantly contribute to the enhancement of propositions of knowledge3. As similar for them, traditional epistemology isn’t a true representation of mortal unprejudiced epistemology.

It’s to critically estimate the below and their( feminist epistemologists) view on some of the epistemic terms that this design is being carried out and also to admit the benefactions of at least some women to the history of gospel( epistemology).

Statement Of Problems

The issues of feminism are always problematic and sensitive. These issues also getting more problematic when transferred to the area of knowledge.

Looking at the problem of “ power control ”, where traditional epistemology has been rested on the ideas of men, and women are gradationally rising to question this inequality, which feminist epistemologists are criminating the traditional western epistemology of, because if this patriarchal nature continues, current epistemology won’t be complete, but would have been shamefaced of manly jingoism, making it not a true representation of mortal knowledge. As similar current epistemology is labeled as “ Deficient ”. This problem will be considered in this work.

Purpose Of Study

The purpose of this study though legion, we shall be looking at two;

First, it’s egregious that the fight for equivalency can occasionally be inflated; equivalency itself is an nebulous term that shouldn’t be interpreted univocally or equivocally but analogically. Men have told a lot of falsehoods of their suppose superiority, women are gradationally trying to fight some of these falsehoods with their own falsehoods. As such the hunt for the verity about the relationship that ought to live between manly and womanish should constitute the core or substance of feminism.

Incipiently, knowledge is central to mortal mindfulness. Humanity comprises of both manly and womanish. As similar mortal knowledge shouldn’t be manly centric. The purpose of this study is thus to construct knowledge in such a way that women are barred.

Compass Of Study

This design shall in compass be limited to a critical evaluation of some epistemic perspective on similar epistemic terms as knowledge, justice and injustice, belief, pragmatism, empiricism and rationalisme.t.c as in discrepancy to traditional western epistemology.

Methodology

Methodology makes a work to be methodical , scientific, coherent and systematized. A good design ought to posses the below rates. The system of exploration thus becomes imperative in searching for the results to the problems in a given exploration.

The system then shall be both logical and critical. Analysis involves explanation of conception for easy appreciation, while critical means not to accept hypotheticals but to question them until the verity stands out clear. We shall not only assay, but shall seriously and critically estimate the hypotheticals of feminist epistemology with stopgap of chancing results to the problem raised under the “ Statement of Problems ”.

Literature Review

The first book reviewed is named 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 proponents and brings to spotlight 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 exculpation of the Rights of Women ”. She was also well known for her argument against Rosseau’s view about women in his “ Sophic ”, when he supported 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 regard them, to educate us when youthful and take care of us, when grown up to advise us, to comfort us, to render our lives easy and agreeable – these are the duties of women at all times; and what they should be tutored in their immaturity ” 4.

These words by Rosseau, Wollstonecraft employed several arguments against and also against his abettors . Saying that educating women to be the beautifiers to, and playthings of men would have bad consequences for the society, that how could women who have been tagged silly, vain brutes ever be anticipated to do an acceptable job of raising a family? They would come “ bare 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 Alternate book then’s entitled The Blackwell Companion Co gospel,( ed) Nicholas Bunnin andE.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 proffers for the future.

The coming 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 gospel. The authors are concerned with the numerous problems that have vexed traditional epistemology which are the nature of knowledge itself, epistemic agency, defense, neutrality and whether and how epistemology should be naturalized.

The Fourth book reviewed is named Introducing Feminism,co-edited byS.A Watkins,M. Rueda andM. Rodriguezi, published at Cambridge by Icon Books Ltd in 1998. The book has the following central issues;( a) revolting against all power, structures and convention that keep women service, submission and second stylish( b) Women purposely working together for their own rights( c) Equality and the sacred right of property for wedded and single women( d) The story of changing the inferior condition of women begins with feminism. The book also cut through the myths girding the subject and provides an incisive account of the women’s movement from its unexpectedly recent birth in the French revolution to the world wide explosion of women’s emancipation in the 1970’s. it looks at the achievements of feminism and the challenges still defying women throughout the world, indeed in the 21st century.

The fifth book reviewed is named introductory issues in the proposition of knowledge, written by Ben Eboh, in 1995, published by Fulladu publishing company Nsukka. According to the author, the mortal mind is inextinguishable in its desire for deep and more expansive knowledge and so it doesn’t remain satisfied with the egregious and transparent explanation of the macrocosm. This natural appetite for a dependable knowledge compels man to raise questions as these; what’s common to all the different conditioning that are involved in knowing? What can we know beyond the information handed by the senses? 6. These and confederated questions are bandied indepth in this book with a view to determining the foundation, the ultimate grounds and reasons of mortal knowledge( feminist knowledge).

Coming book reviewed is written by TanesiniAllessandra, named An preface 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 approximately organized approach to epistemology, rather than as a particular academy or proposition. She sees that what’s common to feminist epistemologies is an emphasis on the epistemic salience of gender and the use of gender as an logical order in conversations, review and reconstructions of epistemic practices, morals and ideas. It portrays feminist epistemology as not fluently and simply characterized, that feminist approach to epistemology tends to partake an emphasis on the ways in which knower’s are particular and concrete, rather than abstract and universalizable. And also, gives sapience on some of the tradition in which feminist get their sources to approach epistemology, traditions similar as feminist wisdom studies, natural epistemologies, artistic studies of wisdom, Marxist feminism and affiliated work in and about the social sciences7.

The Seventh book reviewed is written byW.F. Lawhead, named The Philosophical trip, An interactive Approach, 2nd edition, McGraw- Hill Companies Inc, New York in 2003. The author in chapter 2(2.7) takes a check case at feminist epistemology.

He sees feminism has another contemporary movement that questions some of the underpinning hypotheticals of the Western tradition in gospel and seeks to develop a new modelfor doing gospel. And that feminism like any living movement that’s breaking new ground, have numerous different and disagreeing fancies of what the character and docket of their movement should be and holds that however there’s no sanctioned creed or set of doctrines that all feminist agree upon, but that their thinking revolves around some common themes, similar that feminism is seen as a movement within gospel and other discipline that;

( 1) emphasizes the part of gender in shaping how we suppose and how society is structured( 2) focuses on the literal and social forces that have barred 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 effects are and an attempt to use their knowledge to transfigure the status quo.

Coming book reviewed is named checking Feminist Epistemology,( ed) byC.L. Pinnick,N. Koertge andR.F, Almeder, published by Rutger University Press, New Brunswick in 2003. This book offers a methodical notice against feminist epistemologists; its end is to show that the entire enterprise is a failure. The authors position for charges against feminist epistemologists, similar as( 1) Political correctness- that feminist epistemologists aims at political- correctness, which is an attempt to licit the idea that “ feminist values should determine what propositions are accepted ” 9. That similar politicized inquiry leads to “ sham reasoners seeking only to make a case for some forthcoming conclusions ” 10.( 2) Tribalism- that feminist epistemologists suppose that all women( or all feminist) do, or should suppose likewise, and that they ought to adopts some common “ womanlike epistemic style applicable to all fields of inquiry and in serving women’s interest ”.( 3) tone- defeating traditionalism- that feminist epistemologists master their own points in taking women’s values as an uncriticized given, indeed when these values capitalize coitus and estate oppression11.( 4) Cynicism- that feminist epistemologists reject the hunt for neutrality and verity as an impossibility, and regard the claim to pursue it’s a mask for power play that in practice serves the interests of white heterosexual western men at everyone additional’s charges. All these arguments they used against feminist epistemologists in this book.

The last book reviewed is by Elizabeth Anderson, “ How not to condemn feminist Epistemology A review of checking Feminist Epistemology ”. The author in this book aims at debunking “ checking Feminist Epistemology ” byC.L. Pinnick and Co, with an attempt to show how a notice that purports to decisively undermine an entire field of enquiry be estimated.

She proposes three major norms that should be followed, similar as( 1) delicacy- that the notice must directly represent the field as it stands moment, paying close attention to what its factual proponents say in environment( 2) Perspectives- to be illuminating, that a notice shouldn’t simply emplace its presumptions against it rivals, but make them unequivocal, stick them relative it rivals in a field of possibilities, explain why these are the possibilities and why its presumptions should be accepted rather than its rivals. Incipiently, Normative thickness- that a notice should live up to the same normative norms it applies to its object. Using these norms, she argues that the reviews against feminist epistemologists are grounded on gross paddings of feminist epistemology.

ENDNOTES

1.K.I. Christensen, Philosophy and Choice opting readings from around the world,( Toronto Mayfield publishing Company, 1991) P132.

2.B.N. Moore andK. Bruder, Power of Ideas,( New York McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc, 2002)p.iv.

3. Ibid,P.388

4.N. Bunnin andE.P.tsui- James, The Blackwell Companion Co gospel,( Oxford Blackwell Ltd, 2001)p. 552

5.L. Alcoff andE. Potter, Feminist Epistemology,( New York Routledge, 1993).

6.S.A. Watkins, et al, Introducing Feminism,( Cambridge Icon Books Ltd, 1998).

7.B. Eboh, Basic Issues in the proposition of knowledge,( Nsukka Fulladu Publishing Company, 1995)

8.T. Allessandra, An preface to Feminist Epistemologies,( Oxford Blackwell Ltd, 1999)

9.W.F. Lawhead, The Philosophical Journey An Interactive Approach,( New York McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc; 2003)p. 165

10.C.L. Pinnick,N. Koertge andR.F. Almeder, checking Feminist Epistemology,( New Brunswick Rutgers University Press, 2003)

11.E. Anderson, How not to condemn Feminist Epistemology A review of checking Feminist Epistemology,( Unpublished).