Abstract
In the following critique of Sandra Harding’s 2015 book Objectivity and Diversity I will raise three sets of interrelated issues. One: that Harding’s arguments for re-conceptualizing the term ‘objectivity’ may not be persuasive to those who continue to cling to the ‘view from nowhere’ understanding of the term. Two: that because of this entrenchment of the view from nowhere, Harding’s rhetorical strategy of referring to traditional knowledge as ‘science’ may result in further marginalization of already marginalized groups. And Three: that not all cases of multiple and conflicted selves are necessarily cases of increased access to knowledge and increased empowerment. Thus, while I am deeply sympathetic to the arguments being made in Harding’s book, I think this new scientific self that Harding proposes at the end of her book needs to be developed and clarified further.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It will become increasingly apparent towards the end that the term ‘knowledge’ may not at all be appropriate in these cases. However, lacking any better label at present, I will continue to refer to indigenous ways of life, and the epistemically significant claims made from within those way of life, as TK.
‘Inuk’ is the singular form of ‘Inuit’.
References
Anthony, L. (2003). Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminist interpretations of quine. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Hacking, I. (1995). Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the science of memory. Cambridge Massachusetts: Princeton University Press.
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Howard, A., & Widdowson, F. (1996). Traditional knowledge threatens environmental assessment. Policy Options, 17(9), 34–36.
Lokken, N. (2015). Attitudes, trust, and wildlife co-management in Igluligaarjuk, Qamani’tauaaq and Tikirarjuaq, Nunavut, Canada. MA Thesis, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan.
Nadasdy, P. (1993). Re-evaluating the Co-management success story. Arctic, 56(4), 367–380.
Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and bureaucrats: Power, knowledge and Aboriginal state-relations in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press.
Acknowledgements
An early version of this paper was circulated and discussed at a reading group on Harding’s book I participated in in the Winter of 2016 at the University of British Columbia. I am indebted to my fellow participants—Alan Richardson, Michelle Pham, Bianca Crewe and Andrea Javor—for their comments on that early draft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fellows, J.J. The way of life of Mr. Nowhere: examining Harding’s “Objectivity and Diversity”. Philos Stud 174, 1807–1818 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0837-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0837-6