Women and Ethics
Similarities between Feminist and African-American Epistemologies
Why Feminist and African-American
epistemologies? Are there features of these epistemologies that are different
or additive to traditional epistemology? Technically, epistemology, theory of
knowledge, should eliminate falsehood. In a more general sense, knowledge is
purposeful in that it helps us to take advantage of the resources that are in our
universe to have meaningful lives. The traditional analysis of knowledge is
fundamentally analytical. However, it has come under critique by
epistemologists and other scholars. The argument is if knowledge is justified
true belief, then defining what is true and what is belief, universally, is
difficult to resolve. For example, the majority of African Americans believe
that there is a supreme being, God. I would venture to say that the majority of
atheists and agnostics are White and believe that the notion of God is
ridiculous and unbelievable. Many women rely on God for the meaning in their
lives.
Even within the ranks of the
traditional analyses of knowledge, there is controversy. Edmund Gettier,
renowned epistemologist, issued counter examples of the traditional analysis of
knowledge (TAK). His question was, is justified true belief always knowledge?
He presented examples of cases where justified true belief is not always
knowledge. He demonstrated that there are times when we are deceived by chance
knowledge, senses or cognitive abilities. He says that we are much too stiff
and have not gone far enough. It is not enough if you only have true belief.
Cultural anthropologists theorize
that ethnic, cultural and racial groups have different belief systems. A belief
system can refer to a life stance or a religion. It is a system of organization
for experiences, memories and provides a core set of values for which we base
everything we do and say. First, we must define who we are and who we want to
become. Women and Whites have a different belief system. Political philosophy
theorizes race as the major organizing principle of a global white supremacy.
African Americans know that Whites are not superior and we are not inferior to
any racial group. The extreme elements of the right wing push the notion that
racism no longer exists and that the real problem in America is economic differences. Many
feminists believe that racism is present as ever and still a major American
problem.
An example of an African-American
belief system was observed in the election of Barack Obama to the presidency.
His campaign logo was, “yes we can”. There was a fundamental difference in the
meaning of this logo for Black and White Americans. Many Americans, both Black
and White, believed that he would change the course of the country and retrieve
what had been lost the past eight years. Women have many knowledge experiences
similar to the Obama campaign in believing in the possibilities of their
beliefs. Though some traditional epistemologists might have a problem with
these instances of knowledge, I am suggesting a different paradigm for these
experiences that would fit perfectly into both epistemologies.
Traditional epistemologists have
two views of knowledge: evidentialist and non-evidentialist. The evidentialist
or internalist believes that if the evidence is inside of me, it is then
justified. For the non-evidentialist or externalist, internal accessibility is
not necessary. This knowledge comes about because of reliability, perception,
causality, truth tracking or proper functioning. The standard view of knowledge
is derived from the things that we know from the following primary sources of
knowledge: reasoning/inference and rational insight; perception and sensation,
i.e., external things; memory; testimony, i.e., witness; and introspection,
i.e., internal states. Feldman acknowledges that the list is not complete
because epistemologists believe that some sources are controversial, such as,
religious/mystical insight and extrasensory perception. Science, though highly
regarded, is not on the list because it is thought to be a combination of the
standard sources of knowledge. Other controversial sources are revelation,
intuition, instinct, experience, observation and inspiration. This list is not
exhaustive.
Within a broader context of
knowledge and sources of knowledge, testimony is an example of how African-Americans
and women define, view and use it. Both groups are enamored with testimony as a
source of knowledge. At the age of twelve, I learned how to testify in church.
For decades, perhaps centuries, many Black churches have testimony service.
This service is a part of the regular worship service where the members or
visitors will spontaneously stand up and testify to the goodness of the Lord
and their experiences. Often the experiences are very personal and are stories
of hardships, blessings and faith. Many of these testimonies are ones, which
tell of overcoming some problem or obstacle. Others listen intently and are, often,
able to relate to the experience. Often, someone would testify for fifteen
minutes. If the church were full, the worship leader would ask for popcorn
testimonies, meaning; get up, talk briefly and sit back down, with the intent
purpose of getting in as many testimonies as possible. Often, people have been
prodded to testify if the service was moving too slowly. When the minister
arises, he or she often acknowledges the truly inspiring testimonies and
admonish the congregation to take heed and learn. This part of the service is
inspired by John in the Book of Revelation! 2:11 , “and they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and
the word of their testimony…” It is literally translated, “we overcome by our
testimonies”. At the end of the worship service, it is often that someone will
say, “I was blessed and learned from your testimony”.
Women have their stories to tell and/or
testify of their experiences. They tell stories of domestic violence, sexual
abuse, discrimination, unequal pay, obstruction by means of a glass ceiling in
the corporate world and old stereotypes that are no longer accepted or
tolerated. Male chauvinism is still resistant to understanding that the woman’s
knowledge base does not always have to be fully understood by men. The best
example of this is the unique woman’s experience of childbearing. Obstetricians
and those in the medical field know quite well how to monitor the experience
and assist in the delivery of the baby, but they do not possess the same
knowledge that women have. Women have an intimate knowledge of what it is to
carry a fetus for nine months and then labor and delivery. In many parts of the
world, women successfully deliver a baby without any assistance from a medical
team. This is a specific example of a type of knowledge that is in many ways
strictly feminine. Women also rely on the testimony of those in the community,
especially when testimonies are given
within a particular social female setting or civic organization, e.g.
sororities.
Lackey gives us the traditional and
analytical definition of testimony and asserts that the three competing views
of testimony are either too restrictive or too loose and offers a disjunctive
view that offers how testimony should be viewed. She first attacks the problem
of the statement. Coady and Graham (Lackey), in the narrow and moderate view,
believe a speaker testifies by making some statement p. Sosa (Lackey) requires
that it be a statement of someone’s thoughts or beliefs. Audi’s (Lackey) testimony
is saying or affirming something and Fricker’s (Lackey) testimony is that of
“telling”. She asserts that a statement does not necessarily have to be verbal,
but information can be conveyed in other forms such as nodding, winking,
clapping, snapping, etc. According to Lackey, the three conditions of the
standard formula do not have to be met; (1), whether there is a reliable
testifier to be an epistemically good source of belief; (2), testimony can be a
source of belief or knowledge for a hearer, regardless of the speaker’s
intention to be an epistemic source; and (3), a speaker can testify, regardless
of the epistemic needs of the hearer. The moderate view offered by Peter Graham
(Lackey) is probably the best paradigm for testimony, but the disjunctive view
is probably better. Graham does not require that the statement in question be
potential evidence.
In the narrow view of the nature of testimony
(NVNT) and the moderate view of the nature of testimony (MVNT), testimony is an
intentional act on the part of the speaker (does not cover posthumous). In
these two views, one offers evidence, while the disjunctive view conveys
information. The speaker offers statement as evidence that p and
non-informational remarks fail to qualify as instances of testimony. In
Lackey’s disjunctive view, there is speaker and hearer testimony and an act of
communication. The speaker intends to express communicable content rather than
communicating to others. It is a concept of conveying information. It is the
act of communication being offered as conveying the information comprising some
proposition. The hearer testimony does not require any such intention on the
part of the speaker. Testimony can serve as a source of belief or knowledge for
others regardless of the testifiers’ intention to be such an epistemic source. Slave
masters used the Scriptures to justify slavery to justify slavery and deceive
the slaves. However, intuition kicked in and even with the lack of formal
knowledge and literacy, testimony and intuition informed the slaves that they
were mislead by the masters with wrong information and sought to be free.
Intuition was a type of knowledge for the slaves in many instances. If ends
justify the means, then freedom was the justification. Unfortunately, there
were slaves who believed their master.
Faith is another distinguished part
of the two epistemologies because it is an integral part of their religion,
salvation and everyday working construct. “Say what you will about the sweet
miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider it a capacity for it terrifying and
absolutely vile” is a quote from Kurt Vonnegut. For women, faith is also, along
with testimony, within a broader definition of the traditional analysis of
knowledge. Feldman does list religion as one of the standard categories of
things that we know, i.e., God exists and He loves me, even though, we may
doubt the knowledge that we have about religion. He explains that faith is
similar to science in that one may see it as a combination of testimony and
witness, but in fact, faith (as defined in the Scriptures) is a probable
primary source of knowledge for women. There is a direct correlation between
faith and religion. Religion is universal, thereby making faith universal. However,
Nietzsche said, “Faith is not wanting to know what is true”. Thomas Jefferson
said that “religions are all alike-founded upon fables and mythologies”, while
Arthur Clark said “religion is a by-product of fear”. Many Christians,
including, women, have testimony that faith has resulted in empirical evidence.
This is debatable within the naturalistic view. There may be a place for faith
in the relativistic view based on the concept of diversity, attitudes and
different points of view about a wide range of issues. However, faith is not
necessarily excluded from the naturalistic view.
Women, also adherents of the major religion in the world, believe that faith is a source of knowledge. To believe something is to accept it as true. Whether faith is a true belief raises an objection. Feldman overcomes the truth as necessary by stating that it is true if you believe it at the time that you believe that it is true. For many African-Americans and women, faith tells us that there is eternal life and God will eventually reign in the end. The correspondence theory of truth states “a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to the fact, i.e., the world is the way the proposition says it is”. For Christians, there are overwhelming truths for humanity that are facts found in the bible and accepted by faith. Justification, the third condition of the traditional analysis of knowledge, comes in degrees. What is required is that knowledge be reasonable and believable. Justification may differ from one person to another and especially in their private lives. Faith is compelling as a source of knowledge because many Women believe that they should live their lives through religious documents. For Christianity and Judaism, the Ten Commandments serve as a type of moral law. For Christians, faith is the evidence of things not seen and without faith, it is impossible to please God. The Apostle Paul says that we are justified by faith. Men and women throughout the centuries have died for their religious faith. Few other causes are as compelling as faith for Women.
It can be argued that some
knowledge is esoteric and not available to everyone. It is only shared by those
who can understand the logical sequence of premises and conclusions that
epistemologists utilize. Some persons have a particular circuiting of the brain
that permits understanding of truly difficult and abstract concepts that large
portions of the population will never grasp, e.g. astro-physics and
aeronautical engineering. These groups will never be able to make the traditional
analyses to make the determinations needed to justify knowledge. Unfortunately,
some knowledge is socially constructed (or obstructed) with a utilitarian
purpose to further disadvantage minority groups, including women. The dominant
culture has kept certain knowledge from disadvantaged groups to maintain the
status quo. This seems nefarious, but in fact, is a reality that is perceived
by many. A strict epistemologist would say that social construction or
obstruction of knowledge has nothing to do with the justifying of true beliefs.
I do not desire to defend my position on that issue, but rather this paper will
offer other sources of knowledge that Women and other minority groups have
found to be meaningful and useful in our lives.
Humans are the only beings with the
unique ability to reason, think, make inferences, deductions, inductions, etc.
These are our greatest sources of knowledge. Information that we learn and know
is in our memory and we can recall it when and if needed. We have knowledge from
our senses because of the things that we see, hear, taste, feel and smell. We
often rely on the testimony of others to things that we have witnessed in the
past or present. Living through an experience and being able to relate it to
others is a testimony or a form of witness. Introspection is mental
self-observation; and knowledge from this source may be controversial, but
should not be denied. Feldman lists religion as one of the standard categories
of things that we know, i.e., God exists and He loves me. We may doubt this
knowledge because the justification is quite difficult.
While the standard view of
knowledge states that we can know many things, the skeptical view rejects the
standard view and states that we know nothing and that it conflicts with common
sense. Fallibilism is a prominent reply to the arguments of skepticism with the
assumption that knowledge requires absolute certainty. Skeptics place the
standards too high on knowledge and the demands are great. Skeptics also reject
infinitism, which considers an infinite regression for justification. The view
is that if A is justified by B, B by C and so forth, the chain can end in two
ways: the chain ends with a link that requires on justification, the chain is
circular, showing justification through coherentism or the beliefs are not
justified. We can be certain that skepticism was not the mood of the
African-American slave, but rather a belief, will and knowledge in something
that liberation was possible. There are certain claims to knowledge, a part of
the standard views that should not be included. There are three ways in which
knowledge can fail, no belief possible; nothing to believe (metaphysics) and no
way to justify (epistemologists are here). The goals of epistemology are to
gain knowledge, understanding and wisdom and knowledge. Opinions, guesses and
hunches are not to be thought of as knowledge.
White women have always enjoyed
“the notion of superiority” even though White men have experienced a greater
superiority. Women have a very different
way of looking at the world and their experiences are often dismissed by the
exclusion of their experiences; which are important in a distinct and other
paradigms of epistemology. Race theory has not been acknowledged by political
philosophy as a major ideology, even though feminism became the sixth ideology
following the Civil Rights Movement. Political philosophy recognizes the major
ideologies as feminism, anarchism, conservatism, liberalism, Marxism and
socialism. Many Black scholars note that White females are the true
beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act, even though a black female was
imprisoned for refusing to give her seat on the bus for a White male.
Philosophers have neglected race in their discussions of ethics, political
philosophy, epistemology and moral psychology. Philosophy has an obligation to
critical race theory. Charles Mills, a major race theorist believes that there
needs to be re-conceptualization of political philosophy that theorizes race as
the major organizing principle of a global white supremacy. Race theory would
be an integral part of African-Americans. Race is not a problem for White
females and therefore, not included in a feminist epistemology.
Feminism is now recognized as a
major ideology by political philosophy. Mills, prominent race theorist believes
that feminist challenges to white patriarchy can be used as a model for racism
to attain a similar recognition in political philosophy and perhaps
epistemology as well. He suggests first that there needs to be discovery,
analysis and critique of racism in the canon. Second, there needs to be an
excavation, rediscovery of oppositional political texts by Women and finally,
there needs to be an attempt to develop new conceptions of the polity by
mapping out the full dimensions of racism. Orthodox political philosophy is
concerned with normative claims rather than factual claims of political
science. However, it also needs to be factual and descriptive. One can
certainly question if racism is normative, but it is indeed factual and
descriptive and has a distinct body of knowledge that has affected the entire
world. The Civil Rights Movement and its accomplishments positively affected
the entire world and most notably, the liberation of South Africa .
Feminists argue for a feminist
epistemology, which would also be interdisciplinary and narrative. What is a
belief, what is true and what can be justified are embedded in their
experiences as being women. Their being in the world is quite different from
the dominant White males who have constructed the traditional analysis of
argument. The project of feminist epistemology shares the same paradigm with a
feminist epistemology in that both are contextual. Feminist locations in the
world are quite different from that of White males as we understand and
perceive both the world and human activities from a different vantage point.
The outstanding claim that Nararyan
makes is that the integration of feminist perspectives in science and knowledge
is not merely adding details, but rather a shifting of perspectives. This is
the precise claim that an African-American epistemology would also make, as we
reclaim the value of our experiences. This shift is beneficial because it would
enhance self-understanding and change the nature of how the sciences and
knowledge are understood and interpreted. Another important claim is that both
epistemologies are not homogeneous. Neither group is monolithic. One could
envision different epistemologies in each group that would differ
philosophically and politically. Mainstream theories about human knowledge have
been one-dimensional and have ignored our histories and political interests.
Western philosophy has romanticized reason and science and dualistically seen
emotion and the particulars as the other side of the paradigm. The integration
of emotions in the cognitive activities and their importance of their
contributions to knowledge is the same for Women. Feminists reject “the dumb
view” of emotion and favor an intentional conception that emphasizes the
cognitive aspect of emotions. It is not only a feminist perception and what has
been relegated to feminist thinking within a dualist paradigm. The other side
of the paradigm is rationalism, science and White masculinity.
The truth is that African-Americans
have deep emotions similar to females that are not shared by White American men
that explain much of what we think and do. Feminist theories extend the scope
health issues, equal wages, trade unions, marriage and the family as would an
African-American Feminist epistemology. Historically, since slavery, the
dominant structure has tried to destroy the Black family. As women are seen as
the cornerstone of religious, moral and spiritual values, Women have deep roots
in all of these areas, since slavery. We have needed these values for our
liberation and successes.
Nararyan asserts that positivism
should not be the only target of attack, because it does value liberalism’s
political emphasis on individual rights. She also acknowledges that
non-positivist contexts are also our enemies. Epistemic privilege is not to be
taken for granted; and that it is cooperation between oppressed groups and the
dominant group that will provide the possibilities of understanding. Feminist
poetry and fiction are a form of discourse and the express complex life
experiences that bring about knowledge that they would like to share with
members of the group. It has a dual purpose to bring awareness and
understanding of those experiences to others. Women, as writers and poets have those
same goals. Both Feminists and Women have knowledge of the practices of both
their own contexts and those of their oppressors, leading to critical insights
and thus have an epistemic advantage.
African-American female scholars
contribute to feminist epistemology because they discuss both race and sex. The
Civil Rights Movement is that moment in history when the people of the world
came into a true realization of the devastating effects of injustice. White
women took up the banner to become empowered and to bring sensitivity to social
and political issues. As their expressions became a part of the academy, some
African-American female scholars believed that the experiences of
African-American women were different from White women, in ways that needed to
be expressed and recognized. Womanist theory has found a place in the academy
and African-American Studies in major universities offer this course.
The paradigms for African-American
Epistemologies and Feminist would differ from the traditional analysis of
knowledge in that they are extremely social. Responding to the individualistic
nature of classical epistemology, social epistemology looks at the social
practices of groups. The social dimensions of knowledge and beliefs that are institutionalized
are emphasized in this discipline. Interdisciplinary epistemology is not a new
academic endeavor. Biochemistry has been an academic discipline for decades.
Biology and chemistry are fundamental academic disciplines necessary for
understanding the physiological functions of organisms and especially, the
human body. Psychology and the functioning of the human body are the bases for
most of the psychosomatic illnesses that we have tons of knowledge and
information with respect to our daily existence. Astronomy and physics have
been combined for the study of the physics of the universe. These
interdisciplinary studies are quite natural in their pursuits for knowledge.
As our existence becomes more
complex, there are problems that we encounter that cannot be resolved with
knowledge from one academic discipline; therefore, there is a recent effort on
the part of interdisciplinary epistemologists to bring together different
disciplines that may prove useful in solving problems that are more complex.
Interdisciplinary epistemology is
more of a process than an end. It attempts to address or solve a complex
problem that is too broad to answer by one discipline. A comprehensive
perspective is desired and often a social science is one of these disciplines
that is included in the project. As it is also about process, it process
becomes extremely important because of the uniqueness of each discipline. One
pitfall is the potential for some scientists, prematurely, to decide the
hierarchy discipline in the deliberations. The process begins by determining
that it is a complex problem, establishing the scope of the problem, choosing
its focus and ethical appropriateness. Discipline is an umbrella term that
includes disciplines, sub-disciplines, specialties and interdisciplines. Each
of
the previous has its own special
meaning, e.g., biochemistry would be an interdiscipline because it has its own
journals, professional associations, etc.
It is not just the choosing and placing of a
discipline within the context of the problem, but one must understand the
perspective of that discipline; and if it has the direction that is needed for
solving the complex problem. It is also necessary to understand the behavior of
the discipline in a complex system. Complex systems theory, informing the
interdisciplinary studies, needs to find linear relationships among the
variables from each of the ideologies that are linked intrinsically. Certainly,
critical thinking is required when considering interdisciplines as legitimate
areas of study and inquiry; thus making synthesis and integration an easier
task. Both epistemologies would find linear relationships among the variables
from each of the constructs because both are linked intrinsically. Certainly
critical thinking is required when considering these as legitimate areas of
study and inquiry. Perhaps, the problem is the unwillingness of the power
structure, including epistemologists to realize that these are neglected areas
of research and study. Synthesis and integration would be an easy task, especially,
if both of these constructs were combined since they are distinct, but yet
connected and correlated in many areas.
Both epistemologies are interdisciplinary
because they include disciplines, that when brought together in a complex
system, provide advancement in knowledge for our continual success and
survival. It is a revisiting of the configuration, conceptualization and
organization of old studies. It is also the reconfiguration,
reconceptualization and reorganization of these same studies to affirm
knowledge that may already be possessed by Women; and not noted by traditional
analyses of knowledge. In fact, the paradigm may even change in how such an
epistemology would justify beliefs and what we believe is true. Static
knowledge is not always good. One of the conventional failures of
interdisciplinary research is the indifference or hostility of scientists to
working across established boundaries.
Both men and women have needed to
learn things that the majority culture has not needed to learn and this unique
learning combined with other disciplines would promote knowledge for all of us
and bring about a better understanding of what diversity promotes. At the bane
of our existence, the slaves were able to survive against all odds like no
other American ever experienced. They passed this survival gene on to future
generations. Within the study of interdisciplinary epistemology, Huy and
Mintzberg (Rhoten) developed a triangle of change. Their paradigm would have
extrinsic attention at the top, with funding agencies and research leadership;
systemic implementation would be at the center, with university management and
structures; faculty and students provide intrinsic motivation at the bottom. They
have found sufficient evidence of extrinsic attention to interdisciplinary
research at the top.
Bibliography
Feldman, Richard. Epistemology. Prentice Hall, Pearson
Education, Upper Saddle River
Fuller, Steve. An Overview Social Epistemology. Chapter One.
From: Social
Epistemology. Second edition. : Indiana University Bloomington . 2002 p. 3-30
Lackey, Jennifer. The Nature of Testimony. From: Learning
from Words: Testimony as a
Source of Knowledge. Oxford University Oxford .
2008 p. 13-36
Lele, Sharachchandra, Norgaard, Richard. Practicing
Interdisciplinarity. From:
Bioscience. Volume 55(11). November
2005. p. 967-975
Nararyan, Uma. The Project of Feminist Epistemology:
Perspective from a Nonwestern
Feminist. From: Feminist Theory
Reader: Local and Global Perspectives. Eds.
Carole McCann and Seun-Kyung Kim.
Pub: Rutledge. New York .
2003 p. 308-317
Rhoten, Diana. Interdisciplinary Research: Trend or
Transition? From: Items and Issues.
Volume 591/2). Spring/Summer 2004.
p. 6-11
Thompson, Audrey, Professor of Philosophy of Education, University of Utah
for African-American Epistemologies
and Pedagogies, 1998
No comments:
Post a Comment