David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Epistemology 22 (2):145 – 164 (2008)
In this paper I question the tendency within some feminist circles to criticise attempts to develop typologies that delineate different feminist theoretical perspectives. I agree that many of the criticisms are valid, but only if typologies are viewed in a particular way. This particular way is when typologies are regarded as ahistorical, all-encompassing entities containing discrete categories that are designed for the once and for all fixing of individuals and their work in one box. Reading Max Weber through Karl Mannheim's work on the sociology of knowledge, I argue that typologies, as ideal-types, are indispensable, socially situated practical tools for measuring similarities, differences and developments in thought within and across time and space. Despite being noted as an “attractive” argument by at least some of those who are otherwise critical of typologies (for example, Liz Stanley and Sue Wise), I believe that the “attractiveness” of this particular position has not been granted serious consideration.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
[author unknown] (2001). Feminisms. Philosophy Now 33:4-4.
Michèle Barrett & Anne Phillips (eds.) (1992). Destabilizing Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates. Stanford University Press.
Patricia Ticineto Clough (1994). Feminist Thought: Desire, Power, and Academic Discourse. Blackwell.
Mary Evans (1997). Introducing Contemporary Feminist Thought. In Association with Blackwell Publishers.
David Kaiser (1998). A Mannheim for All Seasons: Bloor, Merton, and the Roots of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Science in Context 11 (1).
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
T. Carlos Jacques (1997). From Savages and Barbarians to Primitives: Africa, Social Typologies, and History in Eighteenth–Century French Philosophy. History and Theory 36 (2):190–215.
Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn (1997). Webers Idealtypus AlS Methode Zur Bestimmung Des Begriffsinhaltes Theoretischer Begriffe in den Kulturwissenschaften. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 28 (2):275 - 296.
H. Aronovitch (2012). Interpreting Weber's Ideal-Types. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42 (3):356-369.
Aryeh Botwinick (1977). Typologies of Theories of Justice and Political Obligation and the Vision of a No-Growth Society. World Futures 15 (3):289-297.
Gordon F. Woodbine (2008). Moral Choice and the Concept of Motivational Typologies: An Extended Stakeholder Perspective in a Western Context. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 79 (1/2):29 - 42.
Joseph Milne (1997). Advaita Vedānta and Typologies of Multiplicity and Unity: An Interpretation of Nondual Knowledge. [REVIEW] International Journal of Hindu Studies 1 (1):165-188.
Ian G. Barbour (2002). On Typologies for Relating Science and Religion. Zygon 37 (2):345-360.
William Sacksteder (1964). Inference and Philosophic Typologies. The Monist 48 (4):567-601.
Helen Gunter & Peter Ribbins (2003). The Field of Educational Leadership: Studying Maps and Mapping Studies. British Journal of Educational Studies 51 (3):254 - 281.
Gordon Francis Woodbine & Dennis Taylor (2006). Moral Choice in an Agency Framework: The Search for a Set of Motivational Typologies. Journal of Business Ethics 63 (3):261 - 277.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #201,792 of 1,699,442 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,699,442 )
How can I increase my downloads?