In our discussions of a feminist approach to epistemology I have had trouble accepting some of the claims made by the feminist camp. Last Tuesday we discussed the essay by Lorraine Code, Taking Subjectivity into Account. She explains that we view epistemology as value neutral. The statement “S knows that p”, relies on the idea of a surrogate knower and Code does not see this as possible without taking subjectivity into account. While I agree with code that many of the things we like to say we “know” should be critically evaluated, I have been unable to concede that for certain items of knowledge we should take subjectivity of the knowers into account. I remember in class we were having a discussion of color, and how it can be considered subjective. However, it is false to say that color is subjective. Color, the visible spectrum, exists within the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is based on energy and wavelengths and despite how certain people, i.e. colorblind individuals, perceive color it is absolute that “S knows that color exists according to the visible spectrum”. I have a problem giving up the epistemological standards that tell me how I can know things.
My hesitancy to fully accept Code’s claims is mostly related to the discipline of science. It seems to me that when something is considered definite scientific knowledge, the possibility of subjectivity has already been eliminated. Despite ones personal experience and vantage point, the makeup of water is H2O. Things such as physics and chemistry do not seem to me to have any bearing on a subjective knower. Code states that she proposes a new type of epistemology “that develops qualitative analyses of subjective positions and identities and the sociopolitical structures that produce them” (734). This claim seems to go against the goals of scientific knowledge. I have an investment in the fact that the periodic table of elements is true. This type of knowledge does not exist relative to specific circumstances. My question for Code, and the feminist account of epistemology, is what type of knowledge are you contesting? It seems that a distinction might need to be made between what is actually meant by know in the statement “S knows that p”. If what is known needs to be evaluated from different standpoints then it isn’t actually know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a good post Leah. I agree with you hesitation to accept Codes claims. Although there are things that are subjectively known and I believe, to some degree, that science is also subjective but the things that are proven cannot be changed. I wonder then is there are truths that are just waiting to be unearthed that are universally accurate?
ReplyDeleteThough I do agree that everything we scientifically know cannot be subjective, there are times when subjectivity needs to be taken into account. Yes water will always be H2O. It is scientifically proven. The color spectrum does exist. I don't think that Code meant that all science should be subjective. But some of the examples she uses in her essay, like Phillippe Rushton (727), show where someone claims that something is true because "science" says so. I believe she really want subjectivity to come into account when dealing with people who have different backgrounds and experiences. 'S knows that p' cannot be truth if the 'p' is not the same for every subject 'S'. I do not think she wants subjectivity for thing that have already in actuality been scientifically proven through the scientific process.
ReplyDelete