Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Tina Sikka
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Sociology book series (BRIEFSSOCY)

Abstract

This final Chapter, summarizes some of the book’s most significant findings and undertakes a discussion of feminist standpoint theory and technofeminism. It make the case that certain insights from each can act as a supplement to FCE, which tends to fall short on the critical subjects of gender and power, discourse, and design. Incorporating an account of how climate engineering can be studied from these perspective adds an element of interdisciplinarity to FCE which, in accordance with its virtues of novelty and heterogeneity, should be encouraged.

Keywords

Helen Longino Feminist standpoint theory Technofeminism Marginalization Power Privilege Democratic 

References

  1. Anderson, E. (1995a). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia, 10(3), 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (1995b). Knowledge, human interests, and objectivity in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardzell, S., & Churchill, E. F. (2011). IwC special issue “Feminism and HCI: New perspectives” Special Issue Editors’ introduction. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), iii–ixi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bee, B. A., et al. (2015). A feminist approach to climate change governance: Everyday and intimate politics. Geography Compass, 9(6), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, H. P. (2011). Gender, climate change and REDD+ in the Congo Basin forests of Central Africa. International Forestry Review, 13(2), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckler, S. (2010). Normative theory. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (pp. 156–180). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cockburn, C. (1992). The circuit of technology: Gender, identity and power. In E. Hirsch & R. Silverston (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 33–42). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  9. Gaard, G. (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism. Feminist Formations, 23(2), 26–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goreau, T., et al. (2014). Geotherapy: Innovative methods of soil fertility restoration, carbon sequestration, and reversing CO 2 increase. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  11. Haack, S. (1996). Science as social?-yes and no. In J. Nelson (Ed.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 79–93). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haack, S. (2009). Evidence and inquiry: A pragmatist reconstruction of epistemology. Amherst/New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  13. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haraway, D. (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 190–233). New York: Routledge pp.Google Scholar
  15. Haraway, D. J. (1994). A game of cat’s cradle: Science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies. Configurations, 2(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haraway, D. (2013). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harding, S. (1986a). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Harding, S. (1986b). The instability of the analytical categories of feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(4), 645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harding, S. (1989). Feminist justificatory strategies. In Women, knowledge and reality (pp. 189–201). Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  20. Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is“ strong objectivity?”. The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437–470.Google Scholar
  21. Harding, S. (1995). “Strong objectivity”: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese, 104(3), 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harding, S. (2004a). A socially relevant philosophy of science? Resources from standpoint theory’s controversiality. Hypatia, 19, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harding, S. G. (2004b). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harding, S. (2008). Sciences from below: Feminisms, postcolonalities, and modernities. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartsock, N. C. (1998). The feminist standpoint revisited and other essays. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hartsock, N. (2004). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hawkesworth, M. (2006). Grappling with claims of truth. In M. Hawkesworth (Ed.), Innovation, feminist inquiry: From political conviction to methodological innovation. London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hekman, S. (1999). Identity crises: Identity, identity politics, and beyond. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hekman, S. J. (2013). Gender and knowledge: Elements of a postmodern feminism. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaijser, A., & Kronsell, A. (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environmental Politics, 23(3), 417–433. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203. Accessed 6 Mar 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kofinas, G. (2002). Community contributions to ecological monitoring: Knowledge co-production in the U.S.-Canada Arctic borderlands. In I. Krupnik & D. Jolly (Eds.), The Earth is faster now: Indigenous observations of Arctic environmental change (pp. 54–91). Fairbanks: Arctic Research Consortium of the United States.Google Scholar
  34. Levisohn, J. A. (2001). Inclusion and objectivity: Helen Longino’s feminist theory of scientific inquiry. Philosophy of Education Archive, 337–345.Google Scholar
  35. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lykke, N. (2009). Non-innocent intersections of feminism and environmentalism. Women. Gender and Research, 18(3–4), 36–44.Google Scholar
  37. Moller, H. F., et al. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society, 9, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neis, B., & Williams, S. (1997). The new right, gender and the fisheries crisis: Local and global dimensions. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 21, 2.Google Scholar
  39. Neumann, R. P., & Hirsch, E. (2000). Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: Review and analysis of research. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  40. Pinnick, C., et al. (Eds.). (2003). Scrutinizing feminist epistemology: An examination of gender in science. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  42. Seager, J. (2009). Death by degrees: Taking a feminist hard look at the 2 climate policy. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 3(4), 11–21.Google Scholar
  43. Solomon, M. (2012). The web of valief: An assessment of feminist radical empiricism. In Crasnow et al. (Eds.), Out of the shadows: Analytic feminist contributions to traditional philosophy (pp. 435–451). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tuana, N. (2013). Gendering climate knowledge for justice: Catalyzing a new research agenda. In M. Alston & K. Whittenbury (Eds.), Research, action and policy: Addressing the gendered impacts of climate change (pp. 17–31). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wajcman, J. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is the art? Social studies of science, 30(3), 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wajcman, J. (2002). Addressing technological change: The challenge to social theory. Current Sociology, 50(3), 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wajcman, J. (2006). Technocapitalism meets technofeminism: Women and technology in a wireless world. Labour & industry: A journal of the social and economic relations of work, 16(3), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wajcman, J. (2007). From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Community and Society, 10(3), 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Sikka
    • 1
  1. 1.Media and Cultural StudiesNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations