Feminist approaches in epistemology and philosophy of science have frequently been labelled as ’relativist’, both by feminist as well as by non-feminist philosophers. Regularly the so labelled distance themselves from even the mere suspicion of relativist tendencies. There is a remarkable discrepancy between an attributed and a self-declared relativism. Taking the self-declared relativism of Lorraine Code as an example, the article argues that it is a case of a rhetorical not epistemological relativism, better termed as anti-anti-relativism, but that there are nevertheless good reasons for feminists to follow Code along that path.
Barwell, Ismay (1994) ’Towards a Defence of Objectivity’, pp. 79-94 in K. Lennon and M. Whitford (eds) Knowing the Difference: Feminist Perspectives in Epistemology. London: Routledge .
2.
Betzler, Monika (1998) ’“Objektivität” als epistemische Norm feministischer Erkenntnistheorie’ , Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie46: 783-797 .
3.
Clough, Sharyn (1998) ’A Hasty Retreat from Evidence: The Recalcitrance of Relativism in Feminist Epistemology’ , Hypatia13: 88-111 .
4.
Clough, Sharyn (2003) Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield .
5.
Code, Lorraine (1991) What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press .
6.
Code, Lorraine (1995) ’Must a Feminist be a Relativist After All?’, pp. 185-207 in Rhetorical Spaces: Essays on Gendered Locations. New York: Routledge .
7.
Code, Lorraine (1996) ’What is Natural about Epistemology Naturalized?’ , American Philosophical Quarterly33: 1-22 .
8.
Code, Lorraine (1998) ’How to Think Globally: Stretching the Limits of Imagination’ , Hypatia13: 73-85 .
9.
Feyerabend, Paul (1962) ’Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism’, pp. 28-97 in H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds) Scientific Explanation, Space and Time. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
10.
Fleck, Ludwik (1999) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
11.
Fricker, Miranda (2000) ’Feminism in Epistemology. Pluralism without Postmodernism’, pp. 146-165 in M. Fricker and J. Hornsby (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Feminism in Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
12.
Geertz, Clifford (1989) ’Anti Anti-Relativism’, pp. 12-34 in M. Krausz (ed.) Relativism: Interpretation and Confrontation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press .
13.
Giere, Ronald N. (1996) ’The Feminism Question in the Philosophy of Science’, pp. 3-15 in L. Hankinson Nelson and J. Nelson (eds) Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
14.
Gorham, Geoffrey (1995) ’The Concept of Truth in Feminist Science’ , Hypatia10: 99-116 .
15.
Haack, Susan (1993) ’Knowledge and Propaganda: Reflections of an Old Feminist’ , Partisan Review60: 556-564 .
16.
Haack, Susan (1998) ’Reflections on Relativism: From Momentous Tautology to Seductive Contradiction’, pp. 149-166 in Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate: Unfashionable Essays. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
17.
Hankinson Nelson, Lynn (1990) Who Knows: From Quine to Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press .
18.
Haraway, Donna (1991) ’Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, pp. 183-201 in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Routledge .
19.
Harding, Sandra (1991) Whose Science Whose Knowledge: Thinking From Women’s Lives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press .
20.
Harding, Sandra (1993) ’Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”?’, pp. 49-82 in L. Alcoff and E. Potter (eds) Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge .
21.
Harding, Sandra (1995) ’“Strong Objectivity”: A Response to the New Objectivity Question’ , Synthese104: 331-349 .
22.
Harré, Rom and Michael Krausz (1996) Varieties of Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell .
23.
Hollis, Martin and Steven Lukes , eds (1982) Rationality and Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell .
24.
Hönig, Kathrin (forthcoming) ’Im Spiegel der Bedeutung’ - Über die Begründbarkeit von Relativismus.
25.
Kornblith, Hilary (1999) ’The Epistemology of Science and the Epistemology of Everyday Life’ , Facta Philosophica1: 21-37 .
26.
Krausz, Michael , ed. (1989) Relativism: Interpretation and Confrontation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press .
27.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
28.
Lloyd, Elisabeth (1995) ’Objectivity and the Double Standard for Feminist Epistemologies’ , Synthese104: 351-381 .
29.
Lloyd, Elisabeth (1996) ’Science and Anti-Science: Objectivity and its Real Enemies’, pp. 217-259 in L. Hankinson Nelson and J. Nelson (eds) Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
30.
Longino, Helen (1990) Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
31.
Moore, Adrian (1997) Points of View. Oxford: Clarendon Press .
32.
Niiniluoto, Ilkka (1996) ’The Relativism Question in Feminist Epistemology’, pp. 139-157 in L. Hankinson Nelson and J. Nelson (eds) Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
33.
Pinnick, Cassandra (1994) ’Feminist Epistemology: Implications for Philosophy of Science’ , Philosophy of Science61: 646-657 .
34.
Scheffler, Israel (1967) Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Hackett .
35.
Suppe, Frederick (1974) ’The Search for Philosophic Understanding of Scientific Theories’, pp. 3-232 in F. Suppe (ed.) The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press .
