Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 7, pp 1807–1818 | Cite as

The way of life of Mr. Nowhere: examining Harding’s “Objectivity and Diversity”

  • Jennifer Jill FellowsEmail author
Article

Abstract

In the following critique of Sandra Harding’s 2015 book Objectivity and Diversity I will raise three sets of interrelated issues. One: that Harding’s arguments for re-conceptualizing the term ‘objectivity’ may not be persuasive to those who continue to cling to the ‘view from nowhere’ understanding of the term. Two: that because of this entrenchment of the view from nowhere, Harding’s rhetorical strategy of referring to traditional knowledge as ‘science’ may result in further marginalization of already marginalized groups. And Three: that not all cases of multiple and conflicted selves are necessarily cases of increased access to knowledge and increased empowerment. Thus, while I am deeply sympathetic to the arguments being made in Harding’s book, I think this new scientific self that Harding proposes at the end of her book needs to be developed and clarified further.

Keywords

Social epistemology Indigenous knowledge Traditional knowledge Feminist epistemology Sandra Harding Ian Hacking Objectivity Human looping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An early version of this paper was circulated and discussed at a reading group on Harding’s book I participated in in the Winter of 2016 at the University of British Columbia. I am indebted to my fellow participants—Alan Richardson, Michelle Pham, Bianca Crewe and Andrea Javor—for their comments on that early draft.

References

  1. Anthony, L. (2003). Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminist interpretations of quine. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  3. Hacking, I. (1995). Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the science of memory. Cambridge Massachusetts: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Howard, A., & Widdowson, F. (1996). Traditional knowledge threatens environmental assessment. Policy Options, 17(9), 34–36.Google Scholar
  6. Lokken, N. (2015). Attitudes, trust, and wildlife co-management in Igluligaarjuk, Qamani’tauaaq and Tikirarjuaq, Nunavut, Canada. MA Thesis, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  7. Nadasdy, P. (1993). Re-evaluating the Co-management success story. Arctic, 56(4), 367–380.Google Scholar
  8. Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and bureaucrats: Power, knowledge and Aboriginal state-relations in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Douglas CollegeNew WestminsterCanada

Personalised recommendations