Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-23T21:06:28.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Standpoint Theories Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Joseph Rouse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium on Standpoint Theory
Information
Hypatia , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , Fall 2009 , pp. 200 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 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

Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making it explicit. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1986. Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social Problems 33 (6): S14–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black feminist thought. Boston: Unwyn Hyman.Google Scholar
Elgin, Catherine. 1991. Understanding in art and science. In Philosophy and the arts, ed. French, P., et al. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 196–208.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1997. Modest_witness@second_millennium. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. Money, sex, and power. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Hekman, Susan. 2004. Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theories revisited. In The feminist standpoint theory reader, ed. Harding, Sandra. New York: Routledge, pp. 225–41.Google Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca. 2006. Objectivity and perspective in empirical knowledge. Episteme 3 (1): 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth. 1995. Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies. Synthese 104: 351–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, John. 1994. Mind and world. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1998. On the genealogy of morality. Trans. M. Clark and A. Swenson. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett.Google Scholar
Rouse, Joseph. 1996. Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, Joseph. 2002. How scientific practices matter: Reclaiming philosophical naturalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy. 1974. Women's perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry 44 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Allucquère Roseanne. 1995. The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2005. Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wartenberg, Thomas. 1990. The forms of power: From domination to transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2003. Why standpoint matters. In Science and other cultures, ed. Figueroa, R. and Harding, S.New York: Routledge, pp. 26–48.Google Scholar