Critically evaluate the claim standpoint approaches to social research foster strong objectivity.

Historically traditional theories have been built upon the biased assumption women’s differences are not too different to that of men’s, often ignoring women’s struggles. Standpoint theory emerged within the 1970s/80s as a feminist critical theory about the relations between the practices of power and the resulting production of knowledge. It challenged the assumption that politics was damaging and obstructive to the production of scientific knowledge and became propositioned as a methodology to aid future feminist research. Standpoint theory is both normative and explanatory in its basis of concepts of human nature and the belief that feminist research can pave way for the ideal society to flourish.

Standpoint theory evolved out of feminist philosophers of science asking how science can produce a disinterested knowledge, when most of its theories are embedded in racist, classist, and ethnic social prejudices. It has largely remained controversial due to its nature of challenging the theory that politics obstructs and harms the production of scientific knowledge (Harding 2004). Objectivity’s pretence influenced feminist philosophers into thinking about what kind of positive notion objectivity could be once it is stripped away of its embedded problematic uses. Harding reimagined objectivity as a social accomplishment creating it as a social epistemological approach (Harding 2004). Objectivity is linked with the notion of individualism; whereby the scientist is seen as a rationalist, but for Harding objectivity does not happen at the site of the individual researcher because it is a social process. Personal experiences cross the spectrum of those most privileged and those disadvantaged; individuals gender identity; heteronormativity or queerness; their able-bodiedness or disability all affect the perspective and interpretations one understands of the world around them.

Feminists have attempted to highlight this unconscious bias that is embedded within these ‘value-free’ research methods, along with the view that researchers can be neutrally objective to their external factors. Standpoint theory can be used both as a theory; to understand the experiences of those subordinated we must situate ourselves in their point of view and understand the relations of a ruling-structural focus, e.g., male domination and a methodology; understanding those who are being researched goes against the traditional impartiality that is expected from researchers, it “helps to produce oppositional and shared consciousness in oppressed groups – to create oppressed peoples as collective ‘subjects’ of research rather than only as objects of others’ observation, naming, and management”(Harding 2004, 3). Dorothy Smith sees this as an advantage that should be used since it is simply not enough to add to the current frameworks of theories as it ignores the relations of power (Smith 1974). Whilst remaining a controversial theory, its methodology has been deployed across a plethora of research disciplines.

Standpoint theory determines what should be focused on and what we do not know. The social groups we belong to inextricably shape how we see the world, and individuals will see things in a similar way dependent upon where one is located, “Our kind of society is known and experienced rather differently from different positions within it” (Smith 1974, 30). Standpoint theory argues that the lives of those marginalised provide a more objective point of view than those most powerful, and that the knowledge we know of the world is preorganised for us even before we participate as willing knowers in the process (Smith 1974). Early feminist standpoint theory was influenced by Marx and Engel’s ‘ideal knowers’ in that a person’s social position is inversely related to the epistemic situation, that mirror specific values and social interests (Jaggar 1983). Unlike traditional thoughts that culture, and politics create prison houses for information, standpoint theory fostering a strong objectivity is counterintuitive since it sees itself as a toolbox that provides access to voices often spoken for or not spoken for at all.

Feminist issues cannot be confined to pigeon-holed slots or continued to be ignored as women’s only issues. Rather, it holds an intersectional nature that informs theoretical, methodological, and political thought. Standpoint theory arises whenever those oppressed gain a public voice, “The standpoint of the oppressed is not just different from that of the ruling class; it is also epistemologically advantageous.” It is “more impartial because it comes closer to representing the interests of society as a whole.” The oppressed are able to see relations of power between ruler and ruled. “Standpoint of the oppressed includes and is able to explain the standpoint of the ruling class.” (Jaggar 1983, 57). Within Western society knowledge is meant to transcend particular historical moments that produce it. However, this is not the case as the conceptual frameworks that our society is built upon ensures that knowledge benefits cis, white, middle-class men since these are the very individuals who provide the research that speaks for all of humanity. Standpoint theory also faces issues of a false universalism, often being misunderstood to hold a single, monolithic feminist standpoint. Whilst standpoint theories recognise women’s social and economic marginalisation’s, the formation of such standpoint theories rely on the shared experiences of the oppressed and as a result can risk generalising the significant differences that occur between women. Standpoint theory can be mistakenly taken as a stance for all women, however its exclusion of intersectional intersects, race, sexuality, class and other factors. These differences frame the structure of the power relations that oppress marginalised groups, yet often it is not implemented despite it being taken as the basis which forms such standpoints.

Truth is never value-free, values are historically embedded within, therefore a whole singular truth cannot be achieved. However, this does not mean we should stop looking for the truth, in fact it is a reason we should continue to discover partial truths to gain a more complete understanding. Strong objectivity incorporates the different ways one understands the world, as opposed to weak objectivity that only speaks for the most powerful groups within society. Traditional ways of knowing knowledge are defined as universal (Harding 2003), standpoint theory opposes this arguing the most marginalised groups within society offer perspectives that rock the status quo. However, strong objectivity can overgeneralise a category or group of individuals. Recently feminism itself, especially Western feminism, a movement that began for women, is facing the very same critiques by assuming a universality within their theories (Uma 1989). Strong objectivity takes into account the perspectives of those most marginalised within society. This works by allowing those to express their own experiences through their own voice rather than researchers who could appropriate concerns of groups they are not a part of, distorting the contexts and speaking for – Othering groups further (Uma 1989).

There is an epistemic advantage to standpoint theory, offering a double consciousness that is experienced by marginalised groups within an oppressive society. It provides knowledge of both the oppressed and the dominant since the dominant ideologies are intertwined within all social and cultural institutions. Those subordinated understand the framework which they live in out of a necessity to survive, however the same is not always seen within dominant groups as there is no necessity for them to understand those they oppress.

Strong objectivity fosters the assumption of a value-neutral framework, which is what standpoint theory wants to avoid since this concept benefits the hegemonic interests of dominant groups and aids in the marginalisation of the oppressed. The trouble for standpoint theorists is its account focuses primarily on experiences, and whilst experiences ground human knowledge, their abandonment of epistemological concepts of truth and objectivity. The focus on experiences, whilst valuable have issues with their relativism globally since cultures across the Western and Eastern world differ both in moral and ethical principles. What stance of moral and ethical principles is universally valid that will fairly arbitrate differing cultural practices that is fostered within a strong objectivity, since standpoint theory acknowledges that all knowledge is socially situated. Although standpoint theory rejects a universalist stance, it does not mean it holds a relativist position. It attempts to offer an account that views subjects in the way as objects of knowledge, both are social and can only be understood in their historical and cultural contexts, within their communities, providing contradictory and incoherent knowledge that arguably gives a more in-depth and explanatory finding that highlights the differences the marginalised groups face, but also the differences between those marginalised groups (Harding 1993).

Strong objectivity requires the subject of knowledge to be placed on the same critical, causal plane as objects of knowledge. Thus, strong objectivity requires one to think of it as ‘strong reflexivity’ – reflexivity is suggested as a methodological norm or principle, meaning that a full theoretical account of the social construction of, say, scientific, religious or ethical knowledge systems, should itself be explainable by the same principles and methods as used for accounting for these other knowledge systems – due to the understanding that culturewide beliefs operate as evidence within scientific enquiry (Harding 2003). The subject of knowledge from the perspective of scientific method of both the studied and studiers nature and social relations must be accounted for. Therefore, strong objectivity requires that scientists and communities integrate on both an epistemological and scientific standpoint, as well as moral and political too. Objectivity is traditionally a concept of value-free, impartial research. However, if the researchers who decide these judgements exclude anyone who is not a heterosexual, white, middle-class male it is plausible to concur that racist and sexist interests and values would not be identified since those with the power benefit, whether it be intentionally or not, from the construction of institutionalised sexism and racism. This belief that information can only be achieved by controlled methods is perpetuated by the understanding that real science can only be controlled by these very same methodological rules. Whilst standpoint theory can use reflexivity to its advantage with strong objectivity taking both the subject of knowledge and the object to be significant in social explanations, many feminist theorists believe objectivity needs to be completely abandoned as it is a theory that is tied to the historical binary relation of subject and object – the self and Other.

Objectivity is not a binary it is a continuum phenomenon and is achieved in social communities. The greater the diversity the better. This essay has attempted to establish an understanding of standpoint theory, and that it is in fact its ability to offer multiple various perspectives – that although can conflict – that makes its so valuable within current research. Understanding the researcher as a factor themselves within research, and not as an impartial and neutral participant further allows for a more collective and comprehensive analysis that benefits political and scientific discourse. With regards to fostering a string objectivity, standpoint theory offers this by forcing researchers to ask the other question since research can never be value-free we must, rather, decide what side we are on. Moreover, in taking a strong objective stance, the understanding that a whole truth is impossible is established and partial truths are of more value. This is because research needs to be characterised by its diversity that will constantly be redefined and understood by those who have for too long been overlooked and marginalised within politics and society.

Bibliography

Harding, Sandra. (1993) “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is ‘Strong Objectivity’?” in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual & Political Controversies, 2004, New York and London: Routledge, 127-140.

Harding, Sandra. (2004) “Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political, Philosophic, and Scientific Debate” in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual & Political Controversies, 2004, New York and London: Routledge, 1-15.

Jaggar, Alison M. (1983) “Feminist Politics and Epistemology: The Standpoint of Women” in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual & Political Controversies, 2004, New York and London: Routledge, 55-66.

Narayan, Uma. (1989) “The Project of a Feminist Epistemology: Perspectives from a Nonwestern Feminist” in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual & Political Controversies, 2004, New York and London: Routledge, 213-224.

Smith, Dorothy E. (1974) “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology” in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual & Political Controversies, 2004, New York and London: Routledge, 21-33.