An Essay on Feminist Standpoint Theory: Gender Studies 2008

Question: (Feminist) Standpoint Theory claims that objective knowledge in the traditional sense of the term is not objective.  Summarize the background of this claim . . . and illustrate your answer with a contemporary example.

Secondly, Can men produce knowledge from a (feminist) standpoint?  Why (not)?

The Only Objective Truth is Subjectivity

by: Jes Levatter

In my understanding, feminist standpoint theory challenges the modern western concept of objective knowledge by revealing the ways in which it excludes the experiences of certain minority groups, such as women and people of color.  Through revealing the exclusivity of the traditional concept of objectivity, feminists are able to show that objective knowledge is not objective in the traditional sense, but is nothing more than the subjective experience of those in power.  Standpoint theorists begin to gain some of this power through their critiques, and can begin delivering this power to those whose voices have been previously silenced. In the end what we learn is that every piece of knowledge that exists, no matter its origins, adds to the greater collective knowledge.

But how does knowledge breakdown in the first place?  The difference between “objective” knowledge and “subjective” knowledge is that objective knowledge is known a priori, that is, known through deductive reasoning which is independent of the observer (a.k.a “rational knowledge”); whereas, subjective knowledge is a posteriori, that is, based in experience entirely.  The western world is the epitome of an objectivity-based culture which not only favors the former knowledge over the latter, but our emphasis actually excludes influence from “the other” knowledge.  In fact, our entire culture has been so influenced by this that we have actually institutionalized objective knowledge and created a cultural infrastructure that reproduces itself through our educational, medical, business, and media systems.  Our western society has now reached a point that any normative citizen is unable to see past his/her own reality; we are so blinded that we are even inherently skeptical of any knowledge that is based in subjective experience, like those of minorities.  Our skepticism can be seen by the simple example that we refer to eastern medicine, a regime grounded in the subjective experiences of the patient, as “alternative medicine”—despite the fact that it existed long before modern science/medicine even began.  Why is this?

At some point in history (perhaps as far back as Aristotle) humans in the west began to place a profound importance on things outsides of themselves, and we called this “science”.  The motto of western is science is we must see it to believe it.  By doing this, scientists (mostly white males) not only placed the individual’s focus outside itself, but also simultaneously excluded any knowledge that came from elsewhere, such as midwives and shaman (minorities).  Because women and people of color were actively excluded from the educational systems, among other areas, throughout the centuries this “objective” science gained a cultural monopoly, and the white scientists in the white lab coats gained the power to teach the world as they experienced it.  They called this objectivity and said that it is the only true knowledge.  But is there really a such thing as objective knowledge?  And if so, is it inherently more real or valid than subjective knowledge?

Objective knowledge as understood in the modern western world is “the assumption that one can see everything from nowhere (omniscience)” (lecture notes 25/2/08).  But feminist standpoint theory points out that there is no such thing in human existence as disembodied knowledge.  Every eye that sees, or brain that analyzes is attached to a someone. Therefore every piece of so-called objective knowledge comes back to a human being whose entire existence is based in the way in which he/she perceives life, that is, from a particular standpoint. You would think that the objectivists would be the first to agree with this since they are the ones who do not believe in a God (or a being that is everywhere and all-knowing) they cannot see.  Metaphysically it seems that the only objective truth is subjectivity. 

Thus, I am baffled at the second essay question posed for this section on standpoint theory.  The question reads, Can men produce knowledge from a (feminist) standpoint? Why (not?)  The obvious answer is yes.  Why would feminists seek to exclude a particular standpoint from their own philosophy that preaches inclusivity? Yet, as I explore the readings for this section I am constantly reminded that feminism is about reclaiming the voices of those who have been historically silenced (Bracke and Puig). This is undeniably a vital catalyst is reclaiming power for repressed peoples while reforming the corrupted system from the inside out.  But in this same article the authors talk about the importance of collective knowledge in standpoint theory (11).  Therefore, by their own agenda, men’s experiences and men’s subjectivities must be given a voice within feminism, lest feminism be at fault for not practicing what they preach.  This does not mean that feminism must stand idly by as biased and discriminatory rhetoric is passed through the culture by those who oppress, but rather they must at the very least intend to make room for men.  I think standpoint feminism would greatly evolve through the inclusion of men as allies, and also through men’s experiences of feminism itself.  For example, when I interviewed a drag queen on the female body for another women’s studies class, it turned out that the drag queen knew more about it than either myself or the rest of the women I interviewed, enabling me to draw the significant conclusion that having a female body is not privileged to understanding it—an important feminist conclusion that I would not have realized had I excluded this “man” from my project.

I think the next step for standpoint theory is to not only validate subjectivity within the collective knowledge, but also to show how subjective experience is important to everyone’s reality, even the majority’s.  Those in power in the western world need us to believe only in objective knowledge because it is what gives them power, as we are dependent on them for information.  At the same time, it is what keeps them in power.  Objectivity is racist and sexist at its core because it was formed without the voice of the minority. Thus the minority still today finds itself as an outsider, creating the “bifurcated consciousness” that DuBois refers to (Bracke and Puig 5).  But when you think about it, we are all minorities.  That is, there will always be some way in which an individual deviates from the “mythical norm” of a particular culture.  In the west this deviation occurs if one is not a white, Christian, heterosexual, law-abiding, middle-class, healthy, able-bodied male.  Further, and most importantly, the privilege of finding oneself fitting nicely within every category of the norm is in itself queer, making even that person a minority.  If we can begin to see the way in which we are all being excluded by objective knowledge, then we can begin to see why subjectivity is so important, because in the end experience is all the truth that any individual actually has.