Assignment #6
Topic: How should our approach to inquiry take cultural (and gender and class, etc.) differences into account? Are there alternative ‘ways of knowing’ associated with these differences?
First we will study several
chapters of Brian Fay’s book to get some background in the philosophical
problems involved in understanding cultural differences. You might benefit from skimming through the
chapters we have already read from his book (Chapters 1 and 4) to remind
yourself of the ideas in them.
Read:
Fay, Contemporary Philosophy
of Social Science, Chapters 3, 5, 6 and 8
Write:
1. Based on your reading of Chapter 3, explain the extent to which Fay thinks that it is true that culture and society makes us who we are and also the ways in which he thinks it is not true.
2. Based on your reading of Chapter 5, explain why Fay thinks both (a) that we must assume that others are rational and also (b) that there are limitations to this assumption.
3. Based on your reading of Chapter 6, explain:
a. What is interpretivism?
b. How is it one-sided (according to Fay)? That is, in what ways does social science need to go beyond people’s own ways of understanding what they do and why they do it?
4. Based on your reading of Chapter 8 explain: What are nomologicalism and historicism? Why is each one-sided? Why are “both … required to do justice to the richness of social inquiry?” (p. 174) How does this help us to understand the nature of cultural differences?
Now we will look
more specifically into the idea that different groups have different 'ways of
knowing' and the idea that science (and the principles of inquiry modeled on
science that are advocated in our textbook) somehow reflect the viewpoint of
some specific group (Europeans? males?). We’ll focus mainly on the idea
that there are ‘women’s ways of knowing’.
Read:
Nessa McHugh, “Women’s Stories” (A short piece that illustrates the kind of claim I have in mind,)
Patricia Hill Collins, "Toward an Afrocentric Feminist Epistemology" (A longer piece that I don't much like, because it seems so vague and
anecdotal. But perhaps that just
illustrates how I am stuck inside my ‘Eurocentric, masculinist paradigm’. Anyway, it illustrates very well the point
of view we are considering: that there are more than one “knowledge validation
process” and, thus, more than one epistemology, and that these are linked to
group identity. For Collins, it makes
sense to be trying to develop an alternative epistemology, not (just?) because
the standard epistemological principles are wrong, but because they are
European and male.)
John Rowan, "Review of Women's Ways of Knowing" (Alas, the best short summary of this book I’ve been able to find was written
by a man.)
Elizabeth Anderson, “Feminist Epistemology” (This is a long and somewhat technical article, but it does give a more precise and much more substantial answer to the question "how can there be a connection between gender and ways of knowing (or principles of inquiry)?" than anything else on this list. Read the section called "Situated Knowers." We’ll come back to another section, "Feminist Defenses of Value-Laden Inquiry," next time. Other sections of the article are optional.)
Optional:
Laura Miller, “Women’s Ways of Bullying”
Noretta Koertge on feminist critiques of science, Skeptical Inquirer, March-April 1995 at link. (The pieces by Miller and Koertge illustrate the fact that some feminist women don’t much like this ‘ways of knowing’ talk either – may be it’s not just Eurocentric males! Or maybe they are ‘male identified women’. These readings are optional.)
Write:
Try to explain as carefully and concretely as you can what is meant by the claim that there are different ways of knowing associated with different groups (men vs. women, Europeans vs. Africans). Then, try to write a critical assessment of this claim. Does it make sense to you? Do you think it is true? Would it be fair to say that the people who are advocating these ideas are failing to recognize the kinds of problems discussed in Chapter 5 of How to think About Weird things? That is, are they failing to see that what they are advocating is simply a reliance on unreliable personal experiences? Or is there a better way to understand what they are advocating? Would it be fair to say that they are exaggerating the importance of cultural differences and group identity in any of the ways discussed by Fay? Or not? (Write at least two pages)