scholarly journals GAGASAN SANDRA HARDING TENTANG STRONG OBJECTIVITY DAN KONTRIBUSINYA BAGI METODOLOGI FEMINIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Milda Longgeita Pinem
Keyword(s):  
Sandra Harding ◽  
Strong Objectivity

From Aperspectival Objectivity to Strong Objectivity: The Quest for Moral Objectivity

Hypatia ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Tannoch-Bland
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Moral Objectivity ◽  
Scientific Objectivity ◽  
Sandra Harding ◽  
History Of ◽  
Strong Objectivity ◽  
History Of Migration

Sandra Harding is working on the reconstruction of scientific objectivity. Lorraine Daston argues that objectivity is a concept that has historically evolved. Her account of the development of “aperspectival objectivity” provides an opportunity to see Harding's “strong objectivity” project as a stage in this evolution, to locate it in the history of migration of ideals from moral philosophy to natural science, and to support Harding's desire to retain something of the ontological significance of objectivity.

TESTIMONIOS: La necesidad de revelar la pregunta epistemológica en la teoría feminista

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Pérez Bustos
Keyword(s):  
Gloria Anzaldua ◽  
Bell Hooks ◽  
Donna Haraway ◽  
Sandra Harding

<p class="p1">S<span class="s1">oy una femini</span><span class="s2">s</span><span class="s1">ta </span>autodidacta en estudios de ciencia y tecnología. Si bien en mi formación de pregrado y posgrado tuve grandes maestras feministas que aún inspiran mis búsquedas personales y profesionales, sólo devine feminista cuando me topé con la teoría feminista y sus cuestionamientos al conocimiento científico.</p><p class="p1">A diferencia de muchas de mis colegas, nunca me hice parte activa del movimiento; no marché ni fui proselitista. Llegué a saberme feminista cuando logré comprobar que mis preguntas personales sobre mis trayectos profesionales tenían resonancia con las reflexiones que autoras anglosajonas blancas, mestizas y negras, como Sandra Harding (1991; 1993) Donna Haraway (1988; 1996; 2004), Gloria Anzaldúa (1987a; 1987b) Chela Sandoval (1991; 1995) y bell hooks (1984; 1994) venían haciendo desde entrados los años ochenta sobre la objetividad, la transgresión, los puntos medios y ciborg, los lugares desde los que producimos conocimiento y las formas en que éste circula.</p>

Feminist Criticisms of Metaphors in Bacon's Philosophy of Science

Philosophy ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
IDDO LANDAU
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Experimental Method ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Francis Bacon ◽  
Early Modern Science ◽  
Sexual Imagery ◽  
Sandra Harding ◽  
Witch Trials ◽  
Scientific Mind ◽  
Evelyn Fox Keller

Francis Bacon has received much attention from feminist philosophers of science. Many of their discussions revolve around his use of sexist, or supposedly sexist, metaphors. According to Sandra Harding, for example, ‘Bacon appealed to rape metaphors to persuade his audience that the experimental method is a good thing.’ Moreover, she claims that ‘when we realize that the mechanistic metaphors that organized early modern science themselves carried sexual meanings, it is clear that these meanings are central to the ways scientists conceptualize both the methods of inquiry and the models of nature’ (ibid.). Carolyn Merchant asserts that witch trials ‘influenced Bacon's philosophy and literary style’. And according to Evelyn Fox Keller, Bacon's explanation of the means by which science will endow humans with power ‘is given metaphorically — through his frequent and graphic use of sexual imagery.’ Fox Keller concludes that Bacon's theory is sexist, but in a more troubled and ambivalent way than Merchant and Harding believe it to be. Thus, she writes that ‘behind the overt insistence on the virility and masculinity of the scientific mind lies a covert assumption and acknowledgment of the dialectical, even hermaphroditic, nature of the “marriage between Mind and Nature.”‘ (p. 40; emphasis added). Likewise, ‘the aggressively male stance of Bacon's scientist could, and perhaps now should, be seen as driven by the need to deny what all scientists, including Bacon, privately have known, namely, that the scientific mind must be, on some level, a hermaphroditic mind.’ (p. 42).

Introduction

2010 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela T. Ragusa
Keyword(s):  
Social Order ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Change Over Time ◽  
Sandra Harding ◽  
The Social ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Over Time

Epistemology is the concept used to describe ways of knowing. In other words, how you know what you know. Sociologists have been interested in how knowledge is produced since the discipline was founded in the 19th Century. How we come to know our world and make sense of it are influenced by social institutions, individual attitudes and behaviors, and our demographic position within the social order. The social order is an historical product which continues to change over time. To facilitate our learning from our socio-historical experiences, sociologists frequently turn to ideas expressed by social theorists. Social theory, whether classical or contemporary, may thus be employed to help us make sense of changes in our social and material world. Although technology is arguably as ancient as our first ancestors, as the chapters in this book reveal, the characteristics of and communications within our postindustrial society vary greatly from those which occurred in the age of modernity. This introductory chapter identifies a few well-known social theorists who have historically attempted to explain how and why social systems, at macro and micro levels, change over time. Next, it contextualizes communication as a cultural product, arguing the best way to examine the topic is from multiple, local perspectives. In the feminist tradition of postmodernist Sandra Harding, it implores us to consider the premise and source of the knowledge sources we use and espouse while communicating and interacting in specific ways and environments. Finally, grounded in the systemic backdrop of social inequality, this chapter encourages readers to begin the task of critical thinking and reflecting about how each of us, as individuals and members of local communities, nations and the world, assuage or reproduces the structurally-derived inequalities which the globalization of communication and technical systems and interacting in a global environment manifests.

?Strong objectivity?: A response to the new objectivity question

Synthese ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Harding
Keyword(s):  
New Objectivity ◽  
Strong Objectivity

Reckoning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candis Callison ◽  
Mary Lynn Young
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Market Failure ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
Structural Problems ◽  
Strong Objectivity ◽  
Interdisciplinary Scholarship

The book is about how journalists know what they know, who gets to decide what good journalism is, and how we know when it’s done right. Until a couple decades ago, these questions were rarely asked by journalists. When journalists were questioned by malcontented publics and critics about how they were doing journalism, these questions were easily ignored. Now, if you’re on social media, you’re likely to see multiple critiques of journalism on a daily basis. It seems not only convenient but pragmatic to give most of the credit to digital technologies and/or market failure for how relationships between journalists and diverse audiences have changed. This book rests on a different assumption, however. We contend that technologies offer a diagnostic to understand much deeper, persistent, and structural problems confronting journalism. Counter to much of the recent journalism scholarship, we argue that you can’t talk about the role journalists and journalism organizations could, should, and have played in society without talking about gender, race, other intersectional concerns—and settler-colonialism. Drawing on mixed methods and ethnography as well as interdisciplinary scholarship, this book examines the reckoning under way between journalists, their methods and their audiences in sites as diverse as social media, legacy newsrooms, journalism startups, novel forms of journalism memoir, and among indigenous journalists. The book explores journalism’s long-standing harms alongside repair, reform, and transformation. It suggests that a turn to strong objectivity and systems journalism provides a path forward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document