Christopher agrees with many critics that science has often served to consolidate a "dominant viewpoint." Paraphrasing Karl Marx, the history of science shows that the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. For much of history, the views of marginalized groups have been excluded in the construction of knowledge - to the detriment of objectivity and truth. Social scientist trying to understand the exercise of power in a modern bureaucracy fail at their own peril to draw on the perspective of marginalized groups who may know more about the workings of bureaucracy than the administrators who create procedures and protocols. Blinded by their own class and gender prejudices, tempted to ground their way of life in a natural order, primatologists misinterpreted the social behaviors of gorillas - until women entered the field of primatology.
Such examples have given rise to two intimately related ideas, especially in the work of Sandra Harding: So-called "standpoint epistemology" argues that science can become more objective once one openly acknowledges the social or political standpoint from which it is conducted. This claim is harmless enough in that it echoes the familiar methodological injunction to control the variables that might influence one's findings. Harding has also suggested, however, that marginalized standpoints are privileged in that they may provide better access to the truth. This "epistemic privilege" appears justified to the extent that marginalized groups learn the dominant viewpoint and are in the best position to see its limitations and defects - their standpoint offers a superior perspective on the subject matter than those who never experience the limitations of their dominant viewpoints.
Christopher's presentation focused on the radical and somewhat troubling consequences of "epistemic privilege." According to Nancy Hartsock, "there are some perspectives in society from which, however well intentioned one may be, the real relations of humans with each other and with the natural world are not visible." The notion of epistemic privilege thus excludes a great number of people from the attainment of true knowledge - those who happen to be first in society will be the last to be admitted to truth. Also, "epistemic privilege" extends beyond the social to the natural sciences where it is much harder to see how one's position in the world could distort perception of real relations. Finally, the notion of "epistemic privilege" is problematic, perhaps self-defeating in that it cements or reifies the metaphor of "the margin and the center": Is there really one consolidated center surrounded by a margin, are men in the center and women at the margin; white women in the center and black women at the margin; black heterosexual women in the center and all homosexuals at the margin?
After discussing the various difficulties associated with "epistemic privilege," Christopher proposed a fruitful modification: Multiple standpoints should be acknowledged, incorporated, even cultivated not because the truth can be attained only from privileged standpoints but because multiple standpoints are a rich resource for the generation and criticism of hypotheses and ideas. The diverse experiences of various ethnic or religious groups, men, women, hetero- and homosexuals, members of various social classes may give rise to fruitful ways of looking at social and natural relations; science should mobilize or draw on this wealth of experience, use it to critique received ideas, and the ultimate determination of truth will emerge from such contestations of public scientific procedure and opinion. (In the terms of more traditional philosophy of science, this proposal can be traced back to Karl Popper "critical" philosophy of science and its radical extension by Paul Feyerabend.)
Christopher offered this modification not only as an adequate response to feminist and other critical concerns. His interests as an environmental philosopher have led him to the same conclusion by a different route: The diverse experiences of people living in diferent geographic regions lead to different kinds of embodiment and of knowing nature. Geographic and ecological diversity may thus also serve as an important resource for the development of science and objective knowledge. Moreover, epistemological studies like Johnson and Lakoff's The Metaphors We Live By or their recent Philosophy in the Flesh underwrite Christopher's modified proposal of standpoint pluralism without privilege.
Alfred Nordmann
| Membership Directory | General Information | Topics and Issues | Calendar |
This page last updated November 15th, 1999. It is maintained by the Philosophy Department. © 1997 by the Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina. Credits.