The relationship between feminism and metaphysics has historically been strained. Metaphysics has until recently remained dismissive of feminist insights, and many feminist philosophers have been deeply skeptical about any value that metaphysics might have when thinking about advancing gender justice. Nevertheless, feminist philosophers have in recent years increasingly taken up explicitly metaphysical investigations. Such feminist investigations have expanded the scope of metaphysics in holding that metaphysical tools can help advance debates on topics outside of traditional metaphysical inquiry (e.g. the nature of gender, sex, or sexuality). Moreover, feminist philosophers typically bring new methodological insights to bear on traditional ways of doing philosophy. Feminist metaphysicians have also recently begun interrogating the methods of metaphysics and they have raised questions about what metaphysics as a discipline is in the business of doing. In discussing such methodological issues, Elizabeth Barnes has recently argued that some prevalent conceptions of metaphysics rule out feminist metaphysics from the start and render it impossible. This is bad news for self-proclaimed feminist metaphysicians in suggesting that they are mistaken about the metaphysical status of their work. With this worry in mind, the paper asks: how does feminist metaphysics fare relative to ‘mainstream’ metaphysics? More specifically, it explores how feminist and ‘mainstream’ debates intersect, on what grounds do they come apart (if at all), and whether feminist metaphysics qualifies as metaphysics ‘proper’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Although it is hard to find an outright dismissal of feminist metaphysics in press, one sometimes hears it disparaged in conversation. And despite recent work on feminist metaphysics, some feminist philosophers have been deeply suspicious of the value of metaphysics. For more on the unhappy relationship of feminism and metaphysics, see Battersby (1998).
Sider talks mainly about substantive and verbal questions. I will talk in terms of ‘disputes’ and ‘questions’, but I do not take there to be significant difference between the two. Bluntly put, ontologically substantive disputes ask ontologically substantive (rather than merely verbal) questions.
Of course, we could reject Sider’s characterisation of the substantive/superficial distinction. I will accept it for now in order to discuss whether (as Barnes’s holds) his view does exclude feminist metaphysics.
I will not consider here the view that contextual values are inadmissible when making metaphysical theory choices. I do so elsewhere (Mikkola 2015).
One might hold that although epistemically speaking reductionism would not yield helpful results, nevertheless, metaphysically speaking only the fundamental level is important. This would undermine the claim that feminist insights demonstrate the value of the macro-level. But, then, Sider’s justification for why the fundamental matters becomes puzzling since he appeals to epistemic considerations. It seems that whatever we give priority to should yield both epistemic and metaphysical benefits. And this undercuts the view that epistemic benefits of feminism are unimportant.
Alcoff, L. (2006). Visible identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Antony, L. (1998). ‘Human nature’ and its role in feminist theory. In J. Kourany (Ed.), Philosophy in a feminist voice (pp. 63–91). New Haven, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bach, T. (2012). Gender is a natural kind with a historical essence. Ethics, 122(2), 231–272.
Baker, L. R. (2007). The metaphysics of everyday life. An essay in practical realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, E. (2014). Going beyond the fundamental: Feminism in contemporary metaphysics. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 114(3), 335–351.
Battersby, C. (1998). The phenomenal woman: Feminist metaphysics and the patterns of identity. NY: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. NY: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.
Diaz-Leon, E. (2012). Social kinds, conceptual analysis, and the operative concept: A reply to Haslanger. Humana. Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 22, 57–74.
Diaz-Leon, E. (2013). What is social construction? European Journal of Philosophy,. doi:10.1111/ejop.12033.
Dorr, C. (2005). What we disagree about when we disagree about ontology. In M. E. Kalderon (Ed.), Fictionalism in metaphysics (pp. 234–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.
Frye, M. (1996). The necessity of differences: Constructing a positive category of women. Signs, 21(4), 991–1010.
Frye, M. (2011). Metaphors of being a Φ. In C. Witt (Ed.), Feminist metaphysics (pp. 85–95). Dordrecht: Springer.
Haslanger, S. (1995). Ontology and social construction. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 95–125.
Haslanger, S. (2000a). Feminism and metaphysics: Negotiating the natural. In M. Fricker & J. Hornsby (Eds.), The cambridge companion to feminism in philosophy (pp. 107–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haslanger, S. (2000b). Gender and race: (What) are they? (What) do we want them to be? Noûs, 34(1), 31–55.
Haslanger, S. (2003). Social construction: The ‘debunking’ project. In F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing metaphysics: The nature of social reality (pp. 301–325). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Haslanger, S. (2006). What good are our intuitions? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 80, 89–118.
Haslanger, S. (2012). Social construction: Myth and reality. In her resisting reality (pp. 183–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haslanger, S., & Sveinsdóttir, Á. (2011). Feminist metaphysics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/feminism-metaphysics. Accessed 13 Nov 2015.
Heinämaa, S. (2011). A phenomenology of sexual difference: Types, styles, and persons. In C. Witt (Ed.), Feminist metaphysics (pp. 131–155). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hofweber, T. (2009). Ambitious, yet modest, metaphysics. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 260–289). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, F., & Pettit, P. (1992). Structural explanation in social theory. In D. Charles & K. Lennon (Eds.), Reduction, explanation, and realism (pp. 97–131). Oxford: Clarendon.
Jaggar, A. (1983). Human biology in feminist theory: Sexual equality reconsidered. In C. Gould (Ed.), Beyond domination: New perspectives on women and philosophy (pp. 21–42). Lanham, ML: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Longino, H. E. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist, 77(4), 472–485.
Mallon, R. (2007). A field guide to social construction. Philosophy Compass, 2(1), 93–108.
Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and persons. Oxford: Clarendon.
Meyers, D. (1997). Feminists rethink the self. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mikkola, M. (2009). Gender concepts and intuitions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(4), 559–584.
Mikkola, M. (2011). Ontological commitments, sex, and gender. In C. Witt (Ed.), Feminist metaphysics (pp. 67–83). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mikkola, M. (2012). Feminist perspectives on sex and gender. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/feminism-gender. Accessed 13 Nov 2015.
Mikkola, M. (2015). Doing ontology and doing justice: What feminist philosophy can teach us about meta-metaphysics. Inquiry,. doi:10.1080/0020174X.2015.1083469.
Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, H. (1996). Is there still anything to say about reality and truth? In P. McCormick (Ed.), Starmaking (pp. 11–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Quine, W. V. (1951). Ontology and ideology. Philosophical Studies, 2(1), 11–15.
Saul, J. (2006). Gender and race. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 80, 119–143.
Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sider, T. (2009). Ontological realism. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 384–423). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stoljar, N. (1995). Essence, identity and the concept of woman. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 261–294.
Stoljar, N. (2011). Different women: Gender and the realism-nominalism debate. In C. Witt (Ed.), Feminist metaphysics (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Springer.
Stone, A. (2007). An introduction to feminist philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sveinsdóttir, Á. (2011). The metaphysics of sex and gender. In C. Witt (Ed.), Feminist metaphysics (pp. 47–65). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sveinsdóttir, Á. (2013). The social construction of human kinds. Hypatia, 28(4), 716–732.
Thomasson, A. (2007). Ordinary objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Warnke, G. (2008). After identity: Rethinking race, sex, and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Witt, C. (1993). Feminist metaphysics. In L. Antony & C. Witt (Eds.), A mind of one’s own (pp. 273–288). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Witt, C. (1995). Anti-essentialism in feminist theory. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 321–344.
Witt, C. (Ed.). (2011a). Feminist metaphysics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Witt, C. (2011b). The metaphysics of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Witt, C. (2011c). What is gender essentialism? In C. Witt (Ed.), Feminist Metaphysics (pp. 11–25). Dordrecht: Springer.
Young, I. M. (1997). Gender as seriality: Thinking about women as a social collective. In her Intersecting voices (pp. 12–37). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
About this article
Cite this article
Mikkola, M. On the apparent antagonism between feminist and mainstream metaphysics. Philos Stud 174, 2435–2448 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0732-1