Skip to main content

Alfred and Evelyn: A Comparison of Alfred N. Whitehead’s and Evelyn Fox Keller’s Philosophy of Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Exploring the Contributions of Women in the History of Philosophy, Science, and Literature, Throughout Time

Part of the book series: Women in the History of Philosophy and Sciences ((WHPS,volume 20))

  • 117 Accesses

Abstract

According to feminist standpoint theory, or feminist epistemology, a person’s standpoint shaped by social factors such as gender, is an important characteristic that can affect the knowledge she will produce. Feminist standpoint theory has had a lasting impact upon feminist philosophy of science and science itself but since its heyday in the 1980s and 1990s has slowly faded. This chapter claims that in order to become relevant and face the criticism that led to its decline, Feminist standpoint theory must establish a way of identifying a standpoint. In this chapter, such a methodology will be proposed based on insights drawn from comparing the work and lives of two philosophers of science; Evelyn Fox Keller and Alfred North Whitehead. Fox Keller’s work in the philosophy of biology stresses the importance of organismic thought and its connection to feminist thought. Whitehead’s philosophy of science stresses the need for a natural science based on concepts drawn from our daily lives. Later he develops his Philosophy of the Organism, which became part of his Process Philosophy. Keller has not been influenced directly by Whitehead, yet their philosophies are similar. This similarity might be due to some shared influences, however these are not evident from reviewing their cited sources or philosophical traditions. This raises the question—is there a correlation between their social experiences and conceptions of science? Delving into Whitehead’s biography reveals feminist influences in his life that, along with the similarities between his writing and Keller’s, point to both sharing a common standpoint. Based on this discovery, this chapter suggests a methodology for identifying an author’s standpoint based on considering both his writing and biographical background.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    This paper focuses on the similarities between Whitehead’s process philosophy, or philosophy of the organism, and Evelyn fox Keller’s interpretation of feminist standpoint theory and philosophy of the organism. Further comparison of his philosophy to other feminist scholars is needed to further test the hypothesis suggested in this paper but will not be attempted here.

Bibliography

  • Crasnow, S. (2009). Is standpoint theory a resource for feminist epistemology? An introduction. Hypatia, 24(4), 189–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crasnow, S. (2013). Feminist philosophy of science: Values and objectivity. Philosophy Compass, 8(4), 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, P. (1997). Women and the culture of university physics in late nineteenth-century Cambridge. The British Journal for the History of Science, 30(2), 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1985). Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 15(2), 65–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1996). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism & science. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hartsock, N. C. M. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Truth or justice? Signs, 22(2), 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hekman, M. (1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs, 22(2), 341–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1996). Feminism and science. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism & science. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. A. (2009). The place of standpoint theory in feminist science studies. Hypatia, 24(4), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1987). Can There Be A Feminist Science? Hypatia, 2(3), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1996). Subjects, power and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism & science. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, V. (1985). AN Whitehead: The man and his work (1861–1910) (Vol. 1). The John Hopkins University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Palter, R. M. (1960). Whitehead’s philosophy of science. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinnick, C. L. (2008). Science education for women: Situated cognition, feminist standpoint theory, and the status of women in science. Science & Education, 17(10), 1055–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentetzi, M. (2002). Feminist epistemology: How a case study from history of science undermines Harding’s standpoint theory. In A. Bammé, G. Getzinger, B. Wieser (Eds.) (pp. 103–119). Profil Verlag, Munich and Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolin, K. (2009). Standpoint theory as a methodology for the study of power relations. Hypatia, 24(4), 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. V. (2001). Are there feminist methodologies appropriate for the natural sciences and do they make a difference? In I. Bartsch & M. Lederman (Eds.), The gender and science reader. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengers, I. (2011). Thinking with Whitehead (M. Chase, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1951). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Tudor Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1964). The concept of nature. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1967). Science and the modern world. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (2012). Feminist philosophy of science: Standpoint matters. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 86(2), 47–76.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Roman, M. (2023). Alfred and Evelyn: A Comparison of Alfred N. Whitehead’s and Evelyn Fox Keller’s Philosophy of Science. In: Harry, C.C., Vlahakis, G.N. (eds) Exploring the Contributions of Women in the History of Philosophy, Science, and Literature, Throughout Time. Women in the History of Philosophy and Sciences, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39630-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics