Sciences From Below Feminisms Postcolonialism And Modernities Pdf

  • and pdf
  • Thursday, January 28, 2021 7:38:34 AM
  • 1 comment
sciences from below feminisms postcolonialism and modernities pdf

File Name: sciences from below feminisms postcolonialism and modernities .zip
Size: 1536Kb
Published: 28.01.2021

By Sandra Harding.

More about this series. Author: Sandra Harding. Describing the work of the post-Kuhnian science studies scholars Bruno Latour, Ulrich Beck, and the team of Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowtony, and Peter Scott, Harding reveals how, from different perspectives, they provide useful resources for rethinking the modernity versus tradition binary and its effects on the production of scientific knowledge.

Decolonizing Postcolonial Rhetoric (english)

The title of this essay appears to be a tautology. Critique becomes rhetoric when it detaches ideas from practices, finding its ultimate goal in rewording concepts, rather than in the transformation of institutional practice. In the s, the role of the "universal objective scholar" was challenged by feminist standpoint theory. From an African-American feminist perspective Patricia Hill Collins, for example, criticizes the presumption of disembodied knowledge rooted in the principle of scientific objectivity, based on the presumption of the socially detached and omniscient scholar.

Numerous introductory books on foundational concepts and ideas in Sociology reproduce this assumption, representing an almost exclusive lineage of white male European scholars as the founders of this discipline. By accident, sometimes we might find the portrait of a female scholar, and more recently, an exclusive selection of a few Caribbean or African-American male scholars. Female or queer scholars with an Asian, African, Caribbean or Latin American background are almost absent in these foundational narratives.

Still, in the twenty-first century, Social Sciences are institutionally thought within the paradigm of European modernity, omitting what Enrique Dussel has coined the "underside of modernity," its interpenetration with coloniality. Against the perception of the production of knowledge as a geopolitically and socially unmarked moment, decolonial feminists such as Patricia Hill Collins demonstrate that knowledge productions are linked to knowledge positions, a heuristic position, a standpoint.

Demonstrating the ontological dimension of epistemology, standpoint theory evokes the historical and material conditions from which knowledge emerges. Informing the fabric of knowledge, geographical, social and political conditions pervade our creative and intellectual potential, configuring a specific angle towards the world, people and things, reminiscent of their place and time. Scientific knowledge as such is always situated, as Donna Haraway argues, always partial and located.

Every scholar, every intellectual is a product of the discourses and material conditions of their time. They are embedded in a historical, geographical and social context, in which their ability to speak is in formed by their access to economic and public resources.

The access to jobs in Higher Education, research funding, professional networks and publishers is fundamental to the generation and public dissemination of ideas. Within the Western European context, the production of institutionalized knowledge was largely defined by a white, male upper and middle class until the second half of the 20th century. Charles Mills goes as far as interpreting the ontological foundation of social sciences as "white supremacist". While white upper and middle class women have been gaining access to leading positions in research and teaching in European universities since the s, scholars with a non-White European background are hardly represented, for example, in the UK, the Netherlands and France, and almost completely absent in countries such as Germany, Spain and Austria.

Universities in Western Europe are projects of national elites. Whilst some countries' research ambitions have opened the doors to international competition as is the case in the UK and the Netherlands, in most countries universities remain in the hands of the national White elites. Moreover, on an international scale, the geographical situatedness of institutional knowledge production and the hegemony of the English language in the academic world prioritize and favour research coming from the United States, Australia or Britain.

Consequently, research from the global South and in other languages is hardly noticed by the Anglo-Saxon world, if they are not published in English and in high impact journals, mostly located in Britain and the United States.

Spivak, discusses as the "geopolitical" embeddednes of knowledge production. This geopolitical situatedness is marked by the "dark side" of European modernity, coloniality. In this context, coloniality of power, knowledge, and being does not refer to the prevalence of a colonial administration, rather it points to "a modality of being as well as to power relations that sustain a fundamental social and geopolitical divide".

Decolonial epistemology, while focusing on "embodied knowledge", is also interested in challenging the foundational myth of European modernity. Introducing the "perspective of coloniality" as an epistemological point of departure in order to understand European modernity, authors like Dussel and Mignolo reveal the negation of modernity in modernity itself.

The other side is the colonial and imperial experience negated by celebratory accounts of European progress and civilization. Coloniality, however, is entangled with modernity and constitutes it in an inextricable way. Through the discourse of modernity in European and North Atlantic Philosophy and Social Sciences, an "ontology of continental divides" has been produced, in which a hierarchical and judgemental classification of the world is at work.

This classification reflected in the division of the world into first, second, third and fourth, is rooted in Eurocentric paradigms of economic, political and cultural development. Covering the entanglement between modernity and colonialism, these categories obfuscate the origins of these divisions as a result of European colonialism and its aftermath. Social Sciences, and in particular, Sociology, engages with this perception, by situating the origins of modernity in Europe.

In the late twentieth century, feminist epistemology questioned the colonizing effects of academic knowledge. Decolonial queer-feminism introduced an intersectional perspective on domination, a critical analysis of the persistence of colonial power and racism in Western societies, and the geographical situatedness of knowledge and knowledge production into feminist theory.

I remember how I used to have tedious debates as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Hamburg regarding the seriousness of Cultural Studies or Gender Studies as specialist areas of this discipline. To teach Black feminism or Chicana feminism or postcolonial critique was deemed inadequate and placed me at the margins.

Black and Chicana feminist social and cultural theorists were branded as "not serious" academics and not properly situated within disciplinary boundaries.

Due to their creative and innovative writing techniques, their analyses of society were reduced to the field of literary studies or women's history. The particularization of this critical perspective on society and culture diminishes the contributions of these thinkers to key concepts in social theory such as social change, transformation, agency, social inequality and processes of differentiation, to name just a few.

Occasionally, some contributions find their way into gender or postcolonial studies curricula, though not always referenced back to the source. Let me illustrate this argument further through the example of the debate in German Gender Studies on "intersectionality", a concept conceiving of the simultaneity and interlocking nature of various relations of domination and power. In the last few years, German Gender Studies seems to have re-discovered "intersectionality", as numerous workshops and conferences with international guest speakers were organized.

From a British or US American Gender studies perspective this might seem a little bit odd, considering that the debate took place at least twenty-five years ago. Also, from an activist's perspective, the belated reception of this debate in German Gender Studies seems surprising, given that this discussion had already taken place in the s led by migrant and exilic, Jewish and Black women.

The answer could lie in the academization of a debate that might consider the contributions of these feminists as interesting testimonies of their times, but lacking in a thorough analysis. Perhaps using theory from the United States or Britain enables the theoretical insight that is assumed to be absent from German feminism.

But maybe the problem lies somewhere else. Maybe these protagonists, Jewish, Black, diasporic and migrant German feminists, are not perceived as members of the German women's movement or even as feminist theorists. Elsewhere I have discussed how through racialization these women are constructed by the official discourse as "objects", but not "agents" of knowledge.

The antagonism of the moment of emergence of "intersectionality" in Germany in the s is thus bypassed, avoiding its inclusion into the canon of German Gender Studies. This academic approach to epistemology detaches knowledge production from its ontological dimension. The adaptation of debates happening in other parts of the world creates the perception of "intersectionality" as a foreign problem, which needs first to be translated into and through its own academic context. What this perspective disregards is that this translation already happened, long before an academic debate started in Prevalent forms of racism, orientalism and xenophobia in Germany led to Black, migrant and exilic women's movements from the late s on.

In the course of their struggle these movements have looked for explanatory models adopting them to their specific societal circumstances. In the debate on "intersectionality", this detail is overlooked, reducing a critical concept emerging from and engaging with political struggle, to a mere object of scientific contemplation. Critical analysis is thus robbed of its transformative potential for society. A similar situation can be observed in regard to the increasing interest in Postcolonial Studies in German Sociology.

Here the debate is detached from social actors, who have translated and critically questioned the adaptation of his theoretical framework into the German context. The uncomfortable debate about Germany's colonial past and colonial patterns of governing and knowledge production as well as the existence of racism are foreclosed by immunizing local voices. Instead, an apparently "purely" academic, depoliticized approach is followed and adapted. This brief insight into the German context illustrates how the reception and critical adaptation of decolonial epistemology and postcolonial critique in the s is tied to specific societal conditions and political struggle, in which knowledge production takes place.

It also reveals the material conditions in which critical theory is produced. Decolonial feminism, postcolonial critique and the "perspective of coloniality" are not just motivated by the discontent with insufficient paradigms and models of analysis to understand complex social realities based on a heteronormative social order, configured within the tension between modernity and coloniality.

Their claims emerged in regard to a modern-colonial world-system, in which access to wealth distribution and to knowledge production is unevenly organized along the lines of "race", gender, sexuality, able-bodiedness and class.

Knowledge is produced under these conditions and is fuelled by the experience of exclusion, appropriation and marginalization.

While elements of feminist-queer decolonial thought, postcolonial critique and the decolonial Latin American epistemology project in the United States could enter some niches of the English publishing market, within academia these voices come from Area Studies, Languages departments, Gender and Women's Studies.

Thus, these debates are taking place in what some see as the fringes of academia, leaving Sociology departments almost untouched. What happens when these theoretical approaches, textured by specific conditions of knowledge production and power struggle between dominant and marginalized groups, become part of the curricula? This question has been repeatedly raised in Women's and Gender Studies regarding the professionalization of knowledge.

Inclusion into the mainstream agenda very often ensures a silencing of the question of who has access to Higher Education and also who is part of the faculty. The privatization of Higher Education, the increase in student fees, the decrease in grants for disadvantaged students and students from the Southern peripheries, reinforces the inequalities structuring academic institutions. A paradoxical situation emerges in which advanced critical thinking is promoted in the classroom without questioning for whom this teaching is made available.

Thus, in research institutions, postgraduate programmes and academic staff, encounter a situation in which the internal, local, cosmopolitan configuration from below is almost absent in the class room, while debates on cosmopolitanism might stand at the heart of curricula. Sociology departments may develop their research agendas and strategies solely in terms of their own personal networks.

These discriminatory procedures may leave candidates who are external to the local professional networks out of the selection process.

While research on the recruitment of Black scholars and scholars with a migration and diasporic background is underdeveloped, some preliminary observations suggest that racial discrimination might be an issue.

Remarkably, scholars with a diasporic or migrant background are amongst the first in leaving the country in search of academic job opportunities, for example, to Britain or the United States. Significantly, it was this generation, who in the s and s started to adopt a postcolonial framework of analysis to the German context.

While their contributions have been widely read, this is rarely cited in publications on "postcolonial Sociology". It is this paradoxical situation of inclusion of knowledge production on the one side and exclusion of the local translators and originators of these debates on the other, which a perspective on coloniality unravels.

The decolonial project aims to foreground subjugated knowledge, creative and intellectual foundations in the global South and within the margins of the "global North" as I suggest here.

Decolonizing European Sociology could contribute, at least on an academic level, to unmasking the limitations of this discipline and its link to coloniality. Under these conditions a specific knowledge is produced, acquired through the struggle for liberation, a knowledge conditioned by the historical and material circumstances circumventing this context.

The "mestiza" figure is a kind of a trickster, somebody that unites the moon and the sun, the night and the day. She has mestiza consciousness , created at the crossroads of simultaneous systems of domination, in which ambivalent lines of belonging and the ambiguous position of inside-outsider are created.

She describes herself as a "mestiza", someone who "is in all cultures at the same time, alma entre dos mundos, tres, cuatro, me zumba la cabeza con lo contradictorio. This consciousness is caught in the paradox of the border as the site of rigid boundaries and the trespassing of them, at the same time. Whilst "la facultad" is imbued with the experience of dispossession, persecution and violence, living at the borderlands also unleashes new strategies of coping and transgressing boundaries.

Transgression represents the driving force of border consciousness, an aspect that Walter Mignolo develops further in regard to "border thinking". Border thinking accentuates the "de-linking from the colonial matrix of power". It traces the threshold between modernity and coloniality in that it acknowledges the centrality of Western traditions of thought for the development of modern sciences and the dominant conceptualization of the world, at the same time that it makes clear the limitations and epistemic violence of this perspective.

This transgressive and transversal movement in which contradictions are dissolved into myriad infinite series of differences resonates with Giles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's rhizomatic movement. The heuristic standpoint for knowledge is not the rhizomatic movement of ideas and practices, but the constant tension between agentic transgression and violent sublimation.

Thus, "critical border thinking is the method that connects pluriversality … into a universal project of delinking from modern rationality and building other possible worlds.

Critical border thinking involves and implies both the imperial and colonial difference". To read it against the grain means to destabilize disciplinary boundaries and its European paradigm by confronting it with colonial difference. Edited version.

Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities

Describing the work of the post-Kuhnian science studies scholars Bruno Latour, Ulrich Beck, and the team of Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowtony, and Peter Scott, Harding reveals how, from different perspectives, they provide useful resources for rethinking the modernity versus tradition binary and its effects on the production of scientific knowledge. Yet, for the most part, they do not take feminist or postcolonial critiques into account. As Harding demonstrates, feminist science studies and postcolonial science studies have vital contributions to make; they bring to light not only the male supremacist investments in the Western conception of modernity and the historical and epistemological bases of Western science but also the empirical knowledge traditions of the global South. Sciences from Below is a clear and compelling argument that modernity studies and post-Kuhnian, feminist, and postcolonial sciences studies each have something important, and necessary, to offer to those formulating socially progressive scientific research and policy. Women as Subjects of History and Knowledge pp. Interrogating Tradition: Challenges and Possibilities 7.

Anticolonial theories analyze complex power relations between the colonizer and the colonized to promote the political project of decolonization. It compares key theoretical arguments and political projects associated with intersectionality, postcolonial feminism, and the decolonial feminism that Maria Lugones has advanced with her notion of the coloniality of gender. The chapter explores the reception of Lugones work in Latin America and the critical insights that decolonial theory offers contemporary social justice projects. Keywords: intersectionality , postcolonial feminism , decolonial option , decolonial feminism , coloniality of power , coloniality of gender. Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Postcolonial theory is a body of thought primarily concerned with accounting for the political, aesthetic, economic, historical, and social impact of European colonial rule around the world in the 18th through the 20th century. Postcolonial theory takes many different shapes and interventions, but all share a fundamental claim: that the world we inhabit is impossible to understand except in relationship to the history of imperialism and colonial rule. It also suggests that colonized world stands at the forgotten center of global modernity. Other forms of postcolonial theory are openly endeavoring to imagine a world after colonialism, but one which has yet to come into existence. Postcolonial theory emerged in the US and UK academies in the s as part of a larger wave of new and politicized fields of humanistic inquiry, most notably feminism and critical race theory. As it is generally constituted, postcolonial theory emerges from and is deeply indebted to anticolonial thought from South Asia and Africa in the first half of the 20th century.

Technology and Culture

A preeminent science studies scholar shows how feminist and postcolonial science studies challenge the problematic modernity versus tradition binary. Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies ; and Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Sciences from Below. EN English Deutsch.

More about this series. Author: Sandra Harding. Describing the work of the post-Kuhnian science studies scholars Bruno Latour, Ulrich Beck, and the team of Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowtony, and Peter Scott, Harding reveals how, from different perspectives, they provide useful resources for rethinking the modernity versus tradition binary and its effects on the production of scientific knowledge.

The academic study of world affairs has traditionally been left to experts of the Euro-American discipline of International Relations. Although claiming to provide a truly global account, these experts have framed, explained and critiqued world affairs almost exclusively from within the cultural framework of modernism. This paper seeks to contribute to the discussion surrounding two questions of significant importance which arise from this fact: what limitations are placed on the study of world affairs by the strict adherence to modernism that is the norm within International Relations, and how can these limitations be overcome? Though not traditionally applied to world affairs, postcolonialism has allowed non-modern accounts of International Relations to be developed and taken seriously. Thus, to address the questions outlined above this paper will examine the contribution and significance of postcolonialism to contemporary International Relations.

Technology and Culture

The title of this essay appears to be a tautology. Critique becomes rhetoric when it detaches ideas from practices, finding its ultimate goal in rewording concepts, rather than in the transformation of institutional practice. In the s, the role of the "universal objective scholar" was challenged by feminist standpoint theory.

Чатрукьян слышал гулкие удары своего сердца. ТРАНСТЕКСТ заклинило на восемнадцать часовМысль о компьютерном вирусе, проникшем в ТРАНСТЕКСТ и теперь свободно разгуливающем по подвалам АНБ, была непереносима. - Я обязан об этом доложить, - сказал он вслух. В подобной ситуации надо известить только одного человека - старшего администратора систем безопасности АНБ, одышливого, весящего четыреста фунтов компьютерного гуру, придумавшего систему фильтров Сквозь строй. В АНБ он получил кличку Джабба и приобрел репутацию полубога.

 - Кто знает, какая разница между этими элементами. На лицах тех застыло недоумение. - Давайте же, ребята. -сказал Джабба.  - Вы же учились в колледжах.

1 Comments

  1. Arber L. 30.01.2021 at 21:38

    Why has this scholar, known for her research in feminist and postcolonial science studies, turned her attention to modernity studies? It is, she.