Some exceptional and surprising mistakes of scholarship made in the writings of a number of feminist academics (Ruth Bleier, Ruth Hubbard, Susan Bordo, Sandra Harding, and Rae Langton) are examined in detail. This essay offers the psychological hypothesis that these mistakes were the result of political passion and concludes with some remarks about the ability of the social sciences to study the effect of the politics of the researcher on the quality of his or her research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bacon, F. [1620] 1994. Novum organum, edited and translated by P. Urbach and J. Gibson. Reprint, Chicago: Open Court.
2.
Barash, D.1977. Sociobiology and behavior. New York: Elsevier.
3.
Barash, D.1978. Evolution as a paradigm for behavior. In Sociobiology and human nature, edited by M. S.Gregory, A. Silvers, and D. Sutch, 13-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Barash, D.1979. The whisperings within. New York: Harper & Row.
5.
Barthes, R.1974. S/Z: An essay. New York: Hill and Wang.
6.
Belenky, M. F., B. M. Clinchy, N. R. Goldberger, and J. M. Tarule. 1997. Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. 10th anniversary ed.New York: Basic Books.
7.
Birke, L., and R. Hubbard, eds. 1995. Reinventing biology: Respect for life and the creation of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
8.
Bleier, R.1978. Bias in biological and human sciences: Some comments. Signs4 (1): 159-162.
9.
Bleier, R.1984. Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories about women. New York: Pergamon.
10.
Bleier, R.1986a. Sex differences research: Science or belief? In Feminist approaches to science, edited by R. Bleier, 147-164. New York: Pergamon.
11.
Bleier, R. ed. 1986b. Feminist approaches to science. New York: Pergamon.
12.
Bleier, R.1988. Science and the construction of meanings in the neurosciences. In Feminism within the science and health care professions: Overcoming resistance, edited by S. V. Rosser, 91-104. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
13.
Bordo, S.1987. The flight to objectivity: Essays on cartesianism and culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
Bordo, S.1993. Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Bordo, S.1997. Twilight zones: The hidden life of cultural images from Plato to O. J. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Check, J.V.P., and T. H. Guloien. 1989. Reported proclivity for coercive sex following repeated exposure to sexually violent pornography, nonviolent dehumanizing pornography, and erotica. In Pornography: Research advances and policy considerations, edited by D. Zillmann and J. Bryant, 159-184. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Dawkins, R.1976. The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
Dawkins, R.1989. The selfish gene. 2d ed.New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Dershowitz, A. M.1994. The abuse excuse and other cop-outs, sob stories, and evasions of responsibility. Boston: Little, Brown.
20.
Donnerstein, E., D. Linz, and S. Penrod. 1987. The question of pornography: Research findings and policy implications. New York: Free Press.
21.
Dummett, M.1997. Review essay. Journal of Philosophy94 (7): 359-374.
22.
Duran, J.1998. Philosophies of science/feminist theories. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23.
Dwyer, S., ed. 1995. The problem of pornography. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
24.
Fausto-Sterling, A.1992. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. Rev. ed.New York: Basic Books.
25.
Firestone, S.1971. The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. New York: Bantam.
26.
Garry, A., and M. Pearsall, eds. 1996. Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy. 2d ed.New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
27.
Gilligan, C.1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Ginzberg, R.1996. Uncovering gynocentric science. In Introduction to the philosophy of science, edited by A. Zucker, 364-375. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
Goldberger, N. R.1996. Looking backward, looking forward. In Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing, edited by N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. M. Clinchy, and M. F. Belenky, 1-21. New York: Basic Books.
30.
Goodchilds, J. D., G. L. Zellman, P. B. Johnson, and R. Giarrusso. 1988. Adolescents and their perceptions of sexual interactions. In Rape and sexual assault II, edited by A. W. Burgess, 245-270. New York: Garland.
31.
Gould, S. J.1984. Similarities between the sexes. New York Times Book Review, 12 August, 7.
32.
Haack, S.1992. Science “from a feminist perspective.”Philosophy67 (259): 5-18.
33.
Haack, S.1996. Concern for truth: What it means, why it matters. In The flight from science and reason, edited by P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, and M. W. Lewis, 57-63. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
34.
Haraway, D.1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14 (3): 575-599.
35.
Harding, S. G.1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
36.
Harding, S. G.1987a. Ascetic intellectual opportunities: Reply to Alison Wylie. In Science, morality and feminist theory, edited by M. Hanen and K. Nielsen, 75-85. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
37.
Harding, S. G.1987b. Feminism and theories of scientific knowledge. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, November, 9-14.
38.
Harding, S. G.1987c. The method question. Hypatia2 (3): 19-35.
39.
Harding, S. G.1987d. Struggling for self-definition. Women’s Review of Books4 (6): 6-7.
40.
Harding, S. G.1989a. Feminist justificatory strategies. In Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy, edited by A. Garry and M. Pearsall, 189-201. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
41.
Harding, S. G.1989b. How the women’s movement benefits science: Two views. Women’s Studies International Forum12 (3): 271-283.
42.
Harding, S. G.1990. Starting thought from women’s lives: Eight resources for maximizing objectivity. Journal of Social Philosophy21 (2-3): 140-149.
43.
Harding, S. G.1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
44.
Harding, S. G.1992. After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and “strong objectivity.”Social Research59 (3): 567-587.
45.
Harding, S. G.1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Feminist epistemologies, edited by L. Alcoff and E. Potter, 49-82. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
46.
Harding, S. G.1995. “Strong objectivity”: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese104 (3): 331-349.
47.
Harding, S. G.1996a. Feminism, science, and the anti-enlightenment critiques. In Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy, 2d ed., edited by A. Garry and M. Pearsall, 298-320. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
48.
Harding, S. G.1996b. Gendered ways of knowing and the “epistemological crisis” of the West. In Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing, edited by N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. M. Clinchy, and M. F. Belenky, 431-454. New York: Basic Books.
49.
Harding, S. G.1997. Women’s standpoints on nature: What makes them possible? In Women, gender, and science: New directions, edited by S. G. Kohlstedt and H. Longino, 186-200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
Harding, S. G.1998. Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
51.
Heilbrun, A. B., Jr., and M. P. Loftus. 1986. The role of sadism and peer pressure in the sexual aggression of male college students. Journal of Sex Research22 (3): 320-332.
52.
Hubbard, R.1983. Social effects of some contemporary myths about women. In Woman’s nature: Rationalizations of inequality, edited by M. Lowe and R. Hubbard, 1-8. New York: Pergamon.
53.
Hubbard, R.1988. Some thoughts about the masculinity of the natural sciences. In Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge, edited by M. M. Gergen, 1-15. New York: New York University Press.
54.
Hubbard, R.1989. Science, facts, and feminism. In Feminism and science, edited by N. Tuana, 119-131. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
55.
Hubbard, R.1995. Profitable promises: Essays on women, science and health. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
56.
Iannone, C.1989. Feminist scholarship: A case history. In Gender sanity, edited by N. Davidson, 187-196. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
57.
Jacobson, D.1995. Freedom of speech acts? A response to Langton. Philosophy and Public Affairs24 (1): 64-79.
58.
Jaggar, A. M.1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
59.
Jaggar, A. M., and S. R. Bordo, eds. 1989. Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
60.
Jaggar, A. M., and P. S. Rothenberg, eds. 1984. Feminist frameworks: Alternative theoretical accounts of the relations between women and men. 2d ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
61.
Jaggar, A. M., and P. R. Struhl, eds. 1978. Feminist frameworks: Alternative theoretical accounts of the relations between women and men. New York: McGraw-Hill.
62.
Keller, E. F.1983. A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
63.
Langton, R.1990. Whose right? Ronald Dworkin, women, and pornographers. Philosophy and Public Affairs19 (4): 311-359.
64.
Langton, R.1992. Duty and desolation. Philosophy67:481-505.
65.
Langton, R.1993. Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs22 (4): 293-330.
66.
Langton, R.1995. Sexual solipsism. Philosophical Topics23 (2): 149-187.
67.
Langton, R.1997a. Love and solipsism. In Love analyzed, edited by R. E. Lamb, 123-152. Boulder, CO: Westview.
68.
Langton, R.1997b. Pornography, speech acts, and silence. In Ethics in practice: An anthology, edited by Hugh LaFollette, 338-349. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
69.
Langton, R.1998a. Kantian humility: Our ignorance of things in themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
Langton, R.1998b. Subordination, silence, and pornography’s authority. In Censorship and silencing: Practices of cultural regulation, edited by R. C. Post, 261-283. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
71.
Lasson, K.1992. Feminism awry: Excesses in the pursuit of rights and trifles. Journal of Legal Education42:1-29.
72.
Lewontin, R. C.1994. Women versus the biologists. New York Review of Books, 7 April, 31-35.
73.
Locke, J. [1689] 1963. An essay concerning human understanding. In The works of John Locke, vol. 1. Reprint, Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen.
74.
Lowe, M.1978. Sociobiology and sex differences. Signs4 (1): 118-125.
75.
Lowe, M., and R. Hubbard. 1979. Sociobiology and biosociology: Can science prove the biological basis of sex differences in behavior? In Genes and gender: II. Pitfalls in research on sex and gender, edited by R. Hubbard and M. Lowe, 91-111. New York: Gordian.
76.
MacKinnon, C. A.1987. Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
MacKinnon, C. A.1989. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
78.
MacKinnon, C. A.1993. Only words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79.
McLellan, D., ed. 1977. Karl Marx: Selected writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80.
Malamuth, N. M., and J. Ceniti. 1986. Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography: Likelihood of raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women. Aggressive Behavior12 (2): 129-137.
81.
Mendelsohn, D.1996. The stand: Expert witnesses and ancient mysteries in a Colorado courtroom. Lingua Franca, September/October, 34-46.
82.
Munévar, G.1993. New directions, really? In PSA 1992, vol. 2, edited by D. Hull, M. Forbes, and K. Okruhlik, 341-350. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
83.
Nelson, L. H.1990. Who knows: From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
84.
Nelson, L. H., and J. Nelson, eds. 1997. Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
85.
Nemeth, M.1992. Chilling the sexes. Maclean’s, 17 February, 42-45.
86.
Nicholson, L. J., ed. 1990. Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
87.
Patai, D., and N. Koertge. 1994. Professing feminism: Cautionary tales from the strange world of women’s studies. New York: Basic Books.
88.
Rape guilty plea, after acquittal. 1989. New York Times, 7 December, B21.
89.
Remick, L. A.1993. Read her lips: An argument for a verbal consent standard in rape. University of Pennsylvania Law Review141 (3): 1103-1151.
90.
Rosser, S. V.1989. Ruth Bleier: A passionate vision for feminism and science. Women’s Studies International Forum12 (3): 249-252.
91.
Schweickart, P.1996. Speech is silver, silence is gold: The asymmetrical intersubjectivity of communicative action. In Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing, edited by N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. M. Clinchy, and M. F. Belenky, 305-331. New York: Basic Books.
92.
Soble, A.1992. Review of S. Harding, Whose science? Whose knowledge?International Studies in the Philosophy of Science69 (2): 159-162.
93.
Soble, A.1994. Gender, objectivity, and realism. Monist77 (4): 509-530.
94.
(Reprinted and revised in A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science, edited by N. Koertge, 195-215. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.)
95.
Sommers, C. H.1994. Who stole feminism? How women have betrayed women. New York: Simon & Schuster.
96.
Sommers, C. H.1996. Pathological social science: Carol Gilligan and the incredible shrinking girl. In The flight from science and reason, edited by P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, and M. W. Lewis, 369-381. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
97.
Trostle, L. C.1993. Pornography as a source of sex information for university students: Some consistent findings. Psychological Reports72:407-412.
98.
Warnock, M.1996. Women philosophers. London: Everyman.
99.
Warshaw, R.1988. I never called it rape: The Ms. report on recognizing, fighting, and surviving date and acquaintance rape. New York: Harper & Row.
100.
Wolf, N.1992. The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: Doubleday.
