SANDRA HARDING

Part 1 - Sandra Harding, Feminist Ethics and the Science Question in Feminism

Sandra Harding is an American philosopher of feminist and postcolonial theory, epistemology, research methodology and philosophy of science. She is currently a professor at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.

Sandra Harding proposes that the Social Sciences serve as the foundational science. An adequate science requires a scientific study of the social beliefs and practices of scientists themselves. But natural scientists, with their fixation upon physical sciences as the foundational model for all sciences, have created the myth of a value-free, neutral science where social beliefs and practices are irrelevant. The myth is best captured in the separation of the context of discovery from the context of justification and then the relegation of the context of discovery to an insignificant side issue. As a result of the myth, scientists do not understand the "real causes and meanings" of their own work.

Part 2 - Sandra Harding, Feminism and the Social Sciences

According to Harding, the social sciences, such as history, sociology, and anthropology, provide a more sound foundation for science than the physical sciences. They present a more "naturalistic" approach to science. The social sciences can deconstruct or strip away the veneer of scientific rationality that misleads physical scientists and philosophers of science into presuming the objective nature of their accounts. For example, whereas physical scientists may believe that the methods developed during the rise of modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries represent a triumph of purely objective, intellectual advancement and were the cause of subsequent social progress, the social sciences can show that "changes underway in the late feudal and early modern European social life were primarily responsible for the popular acceptance of sciences new ways of conceptualizing nature and inquiry. On a deeper level, the social sciences can reveal how race, class, and gender have skewed science in particular directions. Harding writes:

"But our contemporary social theory, influenced by psychoanalytic concerns, also reveals the distinctively Western masculine desires that are satisfied by the preoccupation with method, rule and law governed behavior and activity. Here, too, modern science projects onto nature distinctively Western masculine projects and destinies."

(The Science Question in Feminism, p. 229)


Part 3 - Sandra Harding, Feminism and Physics

Harding sees the attempt to set up physics as the foundational science to be misguided. She writes,

Why then should we take as the model for all knowledge - seeking a science that has no conceptual space for considering irrational behavior and belief? Moreover, possible explanations even in physics would be more reliable, more fruitful, if physicists were trained to examine critically the social origins and often-rrational social implications of their conceptual systems. For instance, would not physicists benefit from asking why a scientific worldview with physics as its paradigm excludes the history of physics from its recommendation that we seek causal explanations of everything in the world around us?

(p. 47)

Part 4 - Sandra Harding, Feminism, the Social Sciences and Gender

According to Harding, there is an Androcentric Bias in the Social Sciences. Harding cites feminist studies in the social sciences that show a male centered or Androcentric bias, which is both conceptual and political in traditional science. Conceptually, masculine identity favors rational thinking over feeling, the abstract and general over the concrete and particular, the separation of knowledge itself from its social issues, the separation of the subject from what is observed, the domination of the subject over the object, and objectivity over subjectivity.

So male scientists framed the conceptual structure of science to fit the needs of masculine identity. Accordingly, there is nothing surprising in the reliance on physics as a paradigm for all science, in the exclusive concern with the context of justification rather with the context of discovery, in the assumption of neutral or value-free scientific objectivity. Rather than being a reflection of reality, the traditional conceptual structure of science reflects the male ego.

Androcentric science demeans the status of women by ignoring their interests and excluding feminist oriented methodology. It devalues the special advantages women bring to scientific study, such as the value of experiential relations with others, the appreciation of feelings in social life, an understanding of practical life activities, and direct experience of the social harm resulting through the separation of abstract knowledge from its oppressive social uses.

Part 5 - Sandra Harding, Feminism, and Androcentric Science

Politically, Androcentric science focuses upon domination. The object of the domination in such a scientific approach may be in relation to nature, race, class, or sexuality. This domination has little concern for or sensitivity to the consequences of such domination. Environmental or ecological problems can occur as a consequence when this domination is practiced in relationship to the environment. Another result of this domination is social oppression with respect to race, class and gender. The entry of more women into science in contemporary times meets political resistance from male scientists because it threatens their sense of masculine identity. So as a defense mechanism, they require that women assume a masculine identity in the form of scientific rationality as a prerequisite for doing scientific work. In other words, women are forced to surrender their feminine identity in order to become scientists.

The development of scientific rationality during the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries was accompanied by the desire of men to achieve dominance over women. Harding finds it significant that modern science arose at a time following the social breakdown in feudal society, when women were emerging to participate more fully in public life. Science was a way of meeting the threat that the emerging activity of women posed.

Part 6 - Sandra Harding, Feminism and Gender Symbolism

Gender metaphors are key indicators of the Androcentric bias in science according to Harding. A prime example is the use of rape and torture metaphor by Francis Bacon (561-1626). Bacon is usually regarded as one of the great founders of the modern scientific method. In explaining the new method and referring to nature in feminine terms, as was usually done, Bacon wrote about the need to "hound nature in her wanderings", to "lead and drive her," and to have no scruples about "entering and penetrating into those holes and corners", all in the interest of pursuing truth.

Even in the 1960's the Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman felt no reservations in likening acceptance of a scientific theory to falling in love with a woman having faults not immediately obvious according to Harding. And, in time, the theory's "become an old lady, who has very little that's attractive left in her, and the young today will not have their hearts pound when they look at her anymore."

Part 7 - Sandra Harding, Feminism and A Feminist Successor Science

To eliminate the Androcentric bias in science, according to Harding, we need much more than an increased number of women scientists. If more women become scientists but adopt the Standard Scientific Explanation, then nothing will change in the field of science. She, therefore, proposes a feminist successor science. At this point, Harding does not think that the boundaries of this successor science are clearly discernible. Yet there are key features that emerge. The social sciences not the physical sciences will provide the foundational paradigm. Science must be focused upon the context of discovery. The manner in which the sciences are used, and their social/political effects, will become more important than abstract conceptions of knowledge for its own sake.

The special methodological interests of women, such as the value of experiential relations with others, the appreciation of feelings in social life, and an understanding of practical life activities, will take the place of excessively quantitative studies and separations that isolate the scientific investigator from the subjects of study. Value concerns will then replace value neutrality. Science will benefit from the unique experiences and understandings that women being to the presentation of problems as well as to the collection and evaluation of data. As both victims and acknowledgers of Androcentric bias in science, feminist have an advantage over men in correcting "bad" science.










Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education; Catherine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State; Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism.

FEMINIST ETHICS

There is no one standard presentation of feminist philosophy of feminist ethics. In short it may be said of feminist philosophy that it "refuses to identify the human experience with the male experience." (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 305)

Advocates of the feminist philosophical perspective contend that traditional philosophical approaches are inadequate in that these approaches represent exclusively the male perspective. In addition, the traditional male oriented approach to philosophy in general and ethical theory in particular neglects the feminine understandings and perceptions of philosophical concerns. Finally, the traditional approach also fails to grant an equal status to the feminine understanding of philosophical concerns and solutions and dismisses the feminist approach as not only inadequate but inferior which in itself reflects the presuppositions lying behind the male hierarchical and rational approach to philosophy and ethics.

It should be pointed out that there is no one standard presentation of feminist ethics. The following material will focus upon three feminist proposals regarding the task of ethics. First we will examine Nel Noddings approach which is known as an ethic of caring. Second we will review Catherine A. MacKinnon's approach that specifically addresses a feminist theory of the state. Finally, we will explore the work of Sandra Harding feminist perspective of science.


PART 1: NEL NODDINGS: AN ETHIC OF CARING

Nel Noddings feminist understanding of the ethical task is known as an ethic of caring. She contrasts two approaches to the challenges of ethical thinking.

On the one hand, Noddings criticizes the standard male-dominated perspective, which, according to Noddings, focuses upon the use of principles in ethics. This particular approach tends to typically be the approach of the father in Noddings opinion. This male reliance on principles in ethics involves reason, detachment, inflexible rules, moral judgments and universalizability. The downside of this approach, according to Noddings is its tendency to produce dangerous self-righteousness and even violence.

On the other hand, Noddings acknowledges the ethical approach, which relies upon caring. This approach tends to represent the approach of the mother. The issues of human caring, the memory of caring and of being cared for form the foundation for ethics in Noddings' approach.

This approach is also characterized by receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness which characteristics are basic to caring. In giving reasons for ethical actions, women, according to Noddings, focus upon feelings, needs, personal impressions, and a sense of personal ideal rather than upon principles. Ethical caring under this paradigm of the ethics of caring emerges from a natural caring, which is characterized by the context of a relationship in which we respond through love or natural inclination.


PART 2: NODDINGS AND THE "ONE CARING"

Noddings focuses upon what she terms as "the one caring" on the one hand, and "the cared for" on the other. The one-caring represents the subject in the ethical relationship, whereas the cared-for" represents the object or the recipient of the care in the ethical relationship.

With regard to the one-caring, she contends that there is a receptive mode of "feeling with" someone that is to be distinguished from empathy. The one-caring is engrossed in the wellbeing and the welfare of the one cared-for. Any objective reasoning in the one-caring must be constantly refocused on the concrete and the personal.

For instance, in Kierkegaard's story of Abraham considering the sacrifice of Isaac in the Old Testament, a woman as one-caring would never even consider sacrificing a son for God or for a greater good, neither for the benefit of others. The story itself is reflective of the traditional male dominated reason based, principle oriented and more detached approach to relationships and to the ethical task. Any attempt to take seriously killing one's own child for the sake of some principle of abstraction violates the one caring relationship with the cared for according to Noddings.

There are limits however which the one-caring must acknowledge. The one caring is most concerned with an inner circle of cared-fors and is not responsible for everyone. In addition, there are circles of personal regard of lesser significance and circles of strangers who may or may not take on caring. In addition, the one caring cannot extend this caring to a general humanitarian altruism. Further the ethical ideal for each of us must be realistic and attainable, both in keeping with my past and open enough to accommodate future change. I cannot care for everyone and I have to care for myself without overwhelming myself with burdens toward others. Indeed, according to Noddings, there is the danger that I cease to care when others become too much of a burden.


PART 3: NODDINGS AND THE "CARED FOR"

On the other hand, Noddings also speaks of "the cared for." She contends that the one-caring should avoid excessive permissiveness as well as manipulation in dealing with the cared-for. There is a complete focus on the cared for, but not in a way that ignores the interests that reflect the one cared-for or ignores dangerous and potentially harmful acts on the part of the cared- for. The cared-for must exhibit a certain amount of receptivity and recognition of the one-caring in order for the caring relationship to be completed.

There must be a sort of reciprocity on the part of the one cared-for in the sense of sharing aspirations and accomplishments with the one-caring. While there may be a likelihood of inequality in caring relationships for example in the relationships between parent and child, teacher and student or therapist and client, this inequality should be perceived not in terms of a hierarchy of superior to inferior which reflects the male perspective, but rather should reflect a relationship which is more similar to friendship. In addition, the cared-for should be free to pursue his or her own interests but should also be responsible to the caring relationship with the one caring.

Noddings proposes that natural caring gives a basic sense of "the good." Ethical caring is a combination of natural caring with our best memories of past instances of caring and being cared for. Ethical caring gives rise to an ethical ideal or a vision of our best self-possible in ethical caring in Noddings' approach. We become ethical selves as we care for others and are cared-for and consequently we develop a sense of fulfillment and completed identity.

Also, Noddings reminds that in caring for others there is an imperatival "must" which becomes part of our being. This "must" arises as an obligation through the recognition of the value of relatedness. An ethic of caring does not rest on rules, but rather upon faithfulness in caring as a genuine response to individual situations. An ethic of caring is not based upon the justification of moral judgments in contradistinction to the typical male oriented approach to ethics.

Further, an ethic of care is skeptical about institutions and institutionally directed actions regardless of the nature of the institutions under consideration whether religious, political or welfare oriented. Institutions cannot be caring and institutions demand loyalty in a way, which is foreign to and contradictory to authentic caring. In an interesting sense Noddings' approach is Incarnational, demanding the interaction of flesh and blood persons.


PART 4: NODDINGS HOPE FOR MALES

According to Noddings men and women view ethics very differently. Men tend to view ethics in detached terms, relying upon principles and rational analysis whereas women tend to view ethics in terms of concrete situations, the details of what is happening in those individual situations and in the context of a need for caring. Noddings strongly advocates a basically feminine approach to ethics. However, she does not claim that men are incapable of embracing a caring ethic. At this point she is surprisingly though not overly optimistic. She advocates a dialogue regarding masculine and feminine approaches to ethical decision-making and she argues that while women seem to have a greater innate tendency toward natural caring, men are not closed off from becoming more caring persons.


PART 5: EVALUATION OF NODDINGS ETHIC OF CARE APPROACH

Some critics of Noddings ethical approach point to the sharp dichotomy between masculine and feminine approaches to ethics in her theory. Noddings makes qualifications accepting some use of reason within a caring approach and she calls for an ethical dialogue in order to arrive at a transcendence of specifically masculine and feminine tendencies and yet this is overlooked or ignored in her theory.

A strength of Noddings' theory lies in her emphasis upon caring, which is missing from much traditional male oriented ethical theory. It is this writer's conclusion that she is correct that there is a need for a more engaged compassion and empathy on the part of the one caring as opposed to the more detached, rationalistic traditional approach.