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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 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.
Crasnow, S. (2013). Feminist philosophy of science: Values and objectivity. Philosophy Compass, 8(4), 413–423.
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.
Haraway, D. (1985). Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 15(2), 65–107.
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
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. University of Chicago Press.
Hartsock, N. C. M. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Truth or justice? Signs, 22(2), 367–374.
Hekman, M. (1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs, 22(2), 341–365.
Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–796.
Keller, E. F. (1996). Feminism and science. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism & science. Oxford University Press.
Kourany, J. A. (2009). The place of standpoint theory in feminist science studies. Hypatia, 24(4), 209–218.
Longino, H. (1987). Can There Be A Feminist Science? Hypatia, 2(3), 51–64.
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.
Lowe, V. (1985). AN Whitehead: The man and his work (1861–1910) (Vol. 1). The John Hopkins University Press
Palter, R. M. (1960). Whitehead’s philosophy of science. University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
Rolin, K. (2009). Standpoint theory as a methodology for the study of power relations. Hypatia, 24(4), 218–226.
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.
Stengers, I. (2011). Thinking with Whitehead (M. Chase, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1951). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Tudor Publishing Company.
Whitehead, A. N. (1964). The concept of nature. Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1967). Science and the modern world. The Free Press.
Wylie, A. (2012). Feminist philosophy of science: Standpoint matters. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 86(2), 47–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39630-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39629-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39630-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)