Taking Subjectivity into Account

Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education book series (COPT, volume 2)

Abstract

This chapter is a shortened version of the essay “Taking Subjectivity into Account,” in Lorraine Code’s (1995) book Rhetorical spaces: Essays on gendered locations (New York: Routledge, pp. 23–57). Code argues that the subjectivity of the knower in the well-known epistemological formulation “S knows that p” matters a great deal more than the dominant positivist-empiricist perspective suggests. In spite of the appearance of neutrality and universalizability of the knowing or knowledge-producing subject “S,” Code argues that most knowledge production is politically invested, and that the social and historical locations of “S” (such as gender, race, and class) affect the range of topics likely to be selected for investigation. Moreover, taking subjectivity into account also means examining political and other structures for the ways in which they direct research to focus on certain lines of inquiry rather than others.

Keywords

Justificatory Procedure Knowledge Claim Epistemic Community Positivist Legacy Epistemic Responsibility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ayer, A. J. (Ed.). (1959). Logical positivism. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Biology and Gender Study Group. (1989). The importance of feminist critique for contemporary cell biology. In N. Tuana (Ed.), Feminism and science (pp. 172–187). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Birke, L. (1986). Women, feminism, and biology. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bordo, S. (1987). The flight to objectivity. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bordo, S. (1990). Feminism, postmodernism, and gender-scepticism. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 133–156). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Code, L. (1987). Epistemic responsibility. Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  7. Code, L. (1995). Taking subjectivity into account. In Rhetorical spaces: Essays on gendered locations (pp. 23–57). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Duran, J. (1991). Toward a feminist epistemology. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1971). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Random House. (Original work published 1966).Google Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality: vol I. An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1976).Google Scholar
  11. Geertz, C. (1989). Anti anti-relativism. In M. Krausz (Ed.), Relativism: Interpretation and confrontation (pp. 12–34). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Ed. and Trans.). New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Henriques, J. (1984). Social psychology and the politics of racism. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity (pp. 58–87). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  16. Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hollway, W. (1984). Fitting work: Psychological assessment in organizations. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity (pp. 24–57). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  18. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kornblith, H. (1990, April). The naturalistic project in epistemology: A progress report. Paper presented to the American Philosophical Association, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Kornblith, H. (Ed.). (1994). Naturalizing epistemology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lloyd, G. (1993). The man of reason: “Male” and “female” in western philosophy (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  22. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who knows. From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Platiel, R. & Strauss, S. (1989, February 4). University chief defends professor’s right to voice racial theory. The Globe and Mail, p. A6.Google Scholar
  26. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Quine, W. V. (1969). Epistemology naturalized. In Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Russett, C. E. (1989). Sexual science: The victorian construction of womanhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sayers, J. (1982). Biological politics. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Scheman, N. (1989). Commentary. In: “Symposium on Sandra Harding’s ‘The Method Question,’” APA Feminism and Philosophy Newsletter.Google Scholar
  31. Scheman, N. (1990, February). Descartes and gender. Paper presented at the conference Reason, Gender, and the Moderns, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  32. Schmitt, R. (1990). Murderous objectivity: Reflections on Marxism and the Holocaust. In R. S. Gottlieb (Ed.), Thinking the unthinkable: Meanings of the Holocaust (pp. 64–87). New York: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
  33. Scott, J. W. (1989). Is gender a useful category of historical analysis? In Gender and the politics of history. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shiner, R. A. (1984). From epistemology to romance via Wisdom. In I. Dilman (Ed.), Philosophy and life: Essays on John Wisdom (pp. 291–314). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  35. Tuana, N. (Ed.). (1989). Feminism and science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wylie, A., Okruhlik, K., Morton, S., & Thielen-Wilson, L. (1990). Philosophical feminism: A bibliographic guide to critiques of science. Resources for Feminist Research/Documentation sur la Recherche Feministe, 19(2), 2–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations