Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T07:03:34.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Truth of the Matter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Helen Mussell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminist standpoint theory (FST) has a troubled history that has limited its use and development as a core feminist epistemological project. This article revisits debates from its past, and re‐examines an apparent central problem: that of the realism identifiable in FST. Looking closely at the criticism leveled against one particular standpoint theorist—Nancy Hartsock—I show the criticism not only to be unfounded, as has previously been argued, but also unnecessary. I demonstrate that the accusations of supposedly realist contradictions in Hartsock's work are easily resolvable by engagement with critical realism (CR). I argue that CR not only accommodates Hartsock's conception of realism, and so dissolves any contention, but that CR complements and shores up FST's central claim: that situated knowledge carries with it an epistemic privilege. Another contemporary conception of realism is being developed—New Materialism (NM)—that, it could be argued, would also be a suitable ontology with which to develop FST. I show how NM could present problems for FST as a fundamentally political project, and conclude that CR offers a more fruitful future collaboration for FST.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , Summer 2016 , pp. 537 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, Sara. 2008. Open forum imaginary prohibitions: Some preliminary remarks on the founding gestures of the “new materialism”. European Journal of Women's Studies 15 (1): 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alaimo, Stacy, and Hekman, Susan. 2008. Material feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Carolyn, and Howard, Judith A. 2000. Provoking feminism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Archer, Margaret, Bhaskar, Roy, Collier, Andrew, Lawson, Tony, and Norrie, Alan. 1998. Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barker, Drucilla K. 2003. Emancipatory for whom? A comment on critical realism. Feminist Economics 9 (1): 103–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy. 1975. A realist theory of science. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1997. Comment on Hekman's “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited”: Where's the power? Signs 22 (2): 375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coole, Diana, and Frost, Samantha. 2010. Introducing the new materialisms. In New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics, ed. Coole, Diana and Frost, Samantha. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, Lena. 2013. The naturalistic turn in feminist theory: A Marxist‐realist contribution. Feminist Theory 14 (1): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1997. Comment on Hekman's “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited”: Whose standpoint needs the regimes of truth and reality? Signs 22 (2): 382–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1999. The case for strategic realism: A response to Lawson. Feminist Economics 5 (3): 127–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2004. The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies, ed. Harding, Sandra. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science, ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill B.Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 1997. Comment on Hekman's “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited”: Truth or justice? Signs 22 (2): 367–74.Google Scholar
Hekman, Susan. 1997a. Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs 22 (2): 341–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekman, Susan. 1997b. Response to Hartsock, Collins, Harding, and Smith. Signs 22 (2): 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekman, Susan. 2008. Constructing the ballast: An ontology for feminism. In Material feminisms, ed. Alaimo, Stacy and Hekman, Susan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Howie, Gillian. 2010. Between feminism and materialism: A question of method. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, Tony. 1997. Economics and reality. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, Tony. 1999. Feminism, realism, and universalism. Feminist Economics 5 (2): 25–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, Tony. 2003a. Reorienting economics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lawson, Tony. 2003b. Ontology and feminist theorizing. Feminist Economics 9 (1): 119–50.Google Scholar
Nelson, Julie. 2003. Once more, with feeling: Feminist economics and the ontological question. Feminist Economics 9 (1): 109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, Fabienne. 2003. Is critical realism a useful ontology for feminist economics? Critical realism, feminist epistemology, and the emancipatory potential of science: A comment on Lawson and Harding. Feminist Economics 9 (1): 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, Joseph. 2009. Standpoint theories reconsidered. Hypatia 24 (4): 200–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satsangi, Madhu. 2013. Synthesizing feminist and critical realist approaches to housing studies. Housing Theory and Society 30 (2): 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1997. Comment on Hekman's “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited”. Signs 22 (2): 392–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, Joey. 2005. Feminist methodologies for critical researchers: Bridging difference. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar