Challenges for Institutional Ethnographers: On the Paradox of Standpoint Epistemology and the Complexities of Difference

Ian Hussey

doi:10.18740/ss27225

Authors

Ian Hussey Research Manager, Parkland Institute, University of Alberta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18740/ss27225

Keywords:

Feminist standpoint epistemology, reflexive materialism, institutional ethnography, intersectionality, experience, ideology, representation, subjectivity

Abstract

Feminist standpoint epistemology (FSE) is an important form of writing from below; that is, writing from embodied experience. FSE and other forms of writing from below involve practices of representation that are mediated by ideology. In this article, I tease out some of the complexities and limitations of feminist efforts to use FSE to situate and embody thought. Some feminist standpoint theorists understand Cartesian dualism as a dualism or a division that can be collapsed or reversed, but I show that what is called “Cartesian dualism” is in fact a paradox and therefore cannot be overcome but must be grappled with on an ongoing basis in our efforts to write from below. The article begins with an exploration of the basic tenets and presumptions of two schools of FSE. While neither school can evade the politics of representation, I show that one is able to withstand an intersectional critique whilst the other is not. Having unpacked these schools of FSE, I reflect on Himani Bannerji’s ideology critique of intersectionality to lay bare the limitations of this concept that some writers from below deploy and to advance a reflexive materialist epistemology.

Author Biography

Ian Hussey, Research Manager, Parkland Institute, University of Alberta

Research Manager, Parkland Institute, University of Alberta

References

Ahmed, Sara. “Affective Economies.” Social Text 22, no. 2 (2004): 117-139.

Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010.

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. Speech genres and other late essays, Edited by C. Emerson et al. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986.

Bannerji, Himani. “Building from Marx: Reflections on Class and Race.” Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order 32, no. 4 (2005): 144-160.

Brooks, Abigail. “Feminist Standpoint Epistemology: Building Knowledge and Empowerment Through Women’s Lived Experience.” In Feminist Research Practice: A Primer, edited by Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber and Patricia L. Leavy, 53-82. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.

Butler, Judith and Joan W. Scott. “Introduction.” In Feminist Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, XIII-XVII. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Collins, Patricia Hill. “The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 14, no. 4 (1989): 745-773.

Collins, Patricia Hill. “Black Feminist Epistemology.” In Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed., 269-290. New York: Routledge, [2000] 2009.

Daston, Lorraine J. and Peter Galison. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books, 2007.

Du Bois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folk. Toronto: Pocket Books, [1903] 2005.

Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Foucault, Michel. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” In Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, edited by Donald F. Bouchard, 139-164. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977.

Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” In Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, edited by Padmini Mongia, 110-121. London: Arnold, [1990] 1996.

Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 575-599.

Harding, Sandra. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Harding, Sandra. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: ‘What Is Strong Objectivity’?” In Feminist Epistemologies, edited by Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter, 49-82. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Harding, Sandra. “Rethinking feminist standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity’?” In The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies, edited by Sandra Harding, 127-140. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Hartsock, Nancy C.M. “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.” In Feminism and Methodology, edited by Sandra Harding, 157-180. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Hekman, Susan. “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Revisited.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22, no. 2 (1997): 341-365.

Hemmings, Clare. “Invoking Affect: Cultural theory and the ontological turn.” Cultural Studies 19, no. 5 (2005): 548-567.

Hemmings, Clare. “Affective solidarity: Feminist reflexivity and political transformation.” Feminist Theory 13, no. 2 (2012): 147-161.

Hussey, Ian. “‘Political Activist as Ethnographer’ Revisited.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 37, no. 1 (2012): 1-23.

Jaggar, Alison M. “Feminist politics and epistemology: The standpoint of women.” In The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies, edited by Sandra Harding, 55-66. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Marx, Karl. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft). Translated by Martin Nicolaus. London: Penguin Books and New Left Review, [1857] 1973.

Marx, Karl. “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” In Karl Marx: Selected Writings, edited by David McLellan, 300-325. Oxford: Oxford University Press, [1852] 1977.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The German Ideology, Edited by C.J. Arthur. New York: International Publishers, [1846] 1970.

Mignolo, Walter D. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Nielsen, Joyce McCarl. “Introduction.” In Feminist Research Methods, edited by J.M. Nielsen, 1-37. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990.

Pedwell, Carolyn. Feminism, Culture and Embodied Practice: The rhetorics of comparison. New York: Routledge, 2010.

Pedwell, Carolyn and Anne Whitehead. “Affecting feminism: Questions of feeling in feminist theory.” Feminist Theory 13, no. 2 (2012): 115-129.

Scott, Joan W. “The Evidence of Experience.” Critical Inquiry 17, no. 4 (1991): 773-797.

Smith, Dorothy E. “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology.” In Feminism and Methodology, edited by

Sandra Harding, 84-96. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Smith, Dorothy E. The Everyday World As Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987.

Smith, Dorothy E. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990.

Smith, Dorothy E. “The Social Organization of Subjectivity: An Analysis of the Micro-Politics of a Meeting.” In Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling, 53-85. New York: Routledge, [1990] 1993.

Smith, Dorothy E. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Smith, Dorothy E. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2005.

Smith, George W. “Political Activist as Ethnographer.” Social Problems 37, no. 4 (1990): 629-648.

Smith, George W. “The ideology of ‘fag’: Barriers to education for gay students.” Sociological Quarterly 39, no. 2 (1998): 309-335.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271-313. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988.

Thompson, Edward P. The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974.

Weir, Lorna and Eric Mykhalovskiy. Global Public Health Vigilance: Creating a World on Alert. New York: Routledge, 2010.