Can There Be A Feminist Science? Helen E.

Longino
This paper explores a number of recent proposals regarding "feminist science" and rejects a contentbased approach in favor of a process-based approach to characterizing feminist science. Philosoph of science can ield models of scientific reasoning that illuminate the interaction bet!een cultural values and ideolog and scientific in"uir . #hile !e can use these models to expose masculine and other forms of bias$ !e can also use them to defend the introduction of assumptions grounded in feminist political values.

%n this essa $ % shall be as&ing about the possibilit of theoretical natural science that is feminist and % shall as& from the perspective of a philosopher. 'efore beginning to develop m ans!er$ ho!ever$ % !ant to revie! some of the "uestions that could be meant$ in order to arrive at the formulation % !ish to address. (tephen )ould$ a friend of feminism$ dismisses the idea of a distinctivel feminist or even female contribution to the sciences. There is not masculinist and feminist science$ just good and bad science. The "uestion of a feminist science cannot be settled b pointing$ but involves a deeper investigation. %n the content sense the idea of a feminist science involves a number of assumptions and calls a number of visions to mind. (ome theorists have !ritten as though a feminist science is one the theories of !hich encode a particular !orld vie!$ characterized b complexit $ interaction and !holism. (uch a science is said to be feminist because it is the expression and valorization of a female sensibilit or cognitive temperament. The characterization of feminist science as the expression of a distinctive female cognitive temperament conflates feminine !ith feminist. #hile it is important to reject the traditional derogation of the virtues assigned to !omen$ it is also important to remember that !omen are constructed to occup positions of social subordinates. #e should not uncriticall embrace the feminine.

I want to suggest that we focus on science as practice rather than content$ as process rather than product$ hence$ not on feminist science, but on doing science as a feminist. The doing of science involves man practices ho! one structures a laborator $ ho! one relates to other scientists$ ho! and !hether one engages in political struggles over affirmative action. %t extends also to intellectual practices$ to the activities of scientific in"uir $ such as observation and reasoning. The claim that there could be a feminist science in the sense of an intellectual practice is either nonsense because ox moronic as suggested above or the claim is interpreted to mean that established science is !rong about the !orld. *eminist science is presented as correcting the errors of masculine$ standard science and as revealing the truth that is hidden b masculine +bad+ science$ as ta&ing the sex out of science. Each of these interpretations is the idea of a value-free science. This is the idea that scientific methodolog guarantees the independence of scientific in"uir from values of value-related considerations. % distinguish t!o &inds of values relevant to the sciences. ,onstitutive values$ internal to the sciences$ are the source of the rules determining !hat constitutes acceptable scientific practice or scientific method. The personal$ social and cultural values$ those group or individual preferences about !hat ought to be % call contextual values$ to indicate that the belong to the social and cultural context in !hich science is done. ,onstitutive and contextual features are clearl distinct from and independent of one another$ that contextual values pla no role in the inner !or&ings of scientific in"uir $ in reasoning and observation. Not all science is value free and, more im!ortantl", that it is not necessaril" in the nature of science to be value free. %f !e reject that idea !e+re in a better position to tal& about the possibilities of feminist science. There is a tradition of vie!ing scientific in"uir as someho! inexorable. This involves supposing that the phenomena of the natural !orld are fixed in determinate relations !ith each other$ that these relations can be &no!n and formulated in a consistent and unified !a . This is the idea that there is one consistent$ integrated or coherent$ true theoretical treatment of all natural phenomena. %t+s no longer possible$ in a centur that has seen the splintering of the scientific disciplines$ to give such a unified description of the objects of in"uir . 'ut the belief that the job is to discover fixed relations of some sort$ and that the application of observation$ experiment and reason leads ineluctabl to unifiable$ if not unified$ &no!ledge of an

independent realit $ is still !ith us. The scientific in"uirer$ and !e !ith her$ become passive observers$ victims of the truth. The idea of a value-free science is integral to this vie! of scientific in"uir . -nd if !e reject that idea !e can also reject our roles as passive onloo&ers$ helpless to affect the course of &no!ledge.

Feminism is man things to man people$ but it is at its core in !art about the e#!ansion of human !otentialit" . #hen feminists tal& of brea&ing out and do brea& out of sociall prescribed sex-roles$ !hen feminists criticize the institutions of domination$ !e are thereb insisting on the capacit of humans.male and female.to act on perceptions of self and societ and to act to bring about changes in self and societ on the basis of those perceptions. *eminists.in and out of science.often condemn masculine bias in the sciences from the vantage point of commitment to a value-free science. -ndrocentric bias$ once identified$ can then be seen as a violation of the rules$ as "bad" science. *eminist science$ b contrast$ can eliminate that bias and produce better$ good$ more true or gender free science. *rom that perspective the process %+ve just described is anathema. 'ut if scientific methods generated b constitutive values cannot guarantee independent from contextual values$ then that approach to sexist science !on+t !or&. %f !e recognize that &no!ledge is shaped b the assumptions$ values and interests of a culture and that$ !ithin limits$ one can choose one+s culture$ then it+s clear that as scientists/theorists !e have a choice. #e can continue to do establishment science$ comfortabl !rapped in the m ths of scientific rhetoric or !e can alter our intellectual allegiances. #hile remaining committed to an abstract goal of understanding$ !e can choose to !hom$ sociall and politicall $ !e are accountable in our pursuit of that goal. %n particular !e can choose bet!een being accountable to the traditional establishment or to our political comrades. (uch accountabilit does not demand a radical brea& !ith the science one has learned and practiced. The development of a "ne!" science involves a more dialectical evolution and more continuit !ith established science than the familiar language of scientific revolutions implies.

% am suggesting that a feminist scientific practice admits political considerations as relevant constraints on reasoning$ !hich$ through their influence on reasoning and interpretation$ shape content. %n this specific case$ those considerations in combination !ith the phenomena support an explanator model that is highl interactionist$ highl complex. The integration of a political commitment !ith scientific !or& !ill be expressed differentl in different fields. %n some$ such as the complex of research programs having a bearing on the understanding of human behavior$ certain moves$ such as the one described above$ seem "uite obvious. %n others it ma not be clear ho! to express an alternate set of values in in"uir $ or !hat values !ould be appropriate. The first step$ ho!ever$ is to abandon the idea that scrutin of the data ields a seamless !eb of &no!ledge. The second is to thin& through a particular field and tr to understand just !hat its unstated and fundamental assumptions are and ho! the influence the course of in"uir . 0no!ing something of the histor of a field is necessar to this process$ as is continued conversation !ith other feminists. The feminist interventions % imagine !ill be local$ the ma not be exclusive$ and the !ill be in some !a continuous !ith existing scientific !or&. The accretion of such interventions$ of science done b feminists as feminists$ and b members of other disenfranchised groups$ has the potential$ nevertheless$ ultimatel to transform the character of scientific discourse. $oing science differentl" re%uires more than &ust the will to do so and it would be disingenuous to !retend that our !hiloso!hies of science are the onl" barrier. Scientific in%uir" ta'es !lace in a social, !olitical and economic conte#t which im!oses a variet" of institutional obstacles to innovation, let alone to the intellectual wor'ing out of o!!ositional and !olitical commitments. The nature of universit" career ladders means that one(s wor' must be recogni)ed as meeting certain standards of %ualit" in order that one be able to continue it. %f those standards are intimatel bound up !ith values and assumptions one rejects$ in- comprehension rather than conversion is li&el . (uccess re"uires that !e present our !or& in a !a that satisfies those standards and it is easier to do !or& that loo&s just li&e !or& &no!n to satisf them than to stri&e out in a ne! direction. -nother push to conformit comes from the structure of support for science. 1an of the scientific ideas argued to be consistent !ith a feminist politics have a distinctivel non-production orientation. The doing of science re"uires financial support and those !ho provide that support are increasingl industr and the militar . -s might be expected the support research

projects li&el to meet their needs$ projects !hich promise even greater possibilities for intervention in and manipulation of natural processes. 2ur sciences are being harnessed to the ma&ing of mone and the !aging of !ar. The possibilit of alternate understandings of the natural !orld is irrelevant to a culture driven b those interests. To do feminist science !e must change the social and political context in !hich science is done. (o can there be a feminist science3 %f this means is it in principle possible to do science as a feminist3$ the ans!er must be es. %f this means can !e in practice do science as feminists3$ the ans!er must be not until !e change present conditions.