How is scientific theory and research affected by sexism and gender bias?
An overview of Elizabeth Anderson’s article Feminist Epistemology: An Interpretation and a Defense from the journal Hypatia
Context
Published in 1995, this article by Anderson is a noteworthy contribution to both fields — feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. At this time, the discussion about ways in which class, race, gender and other social/cultural constructs affect knowledge production was in the forefront amongst feminist philosophers. Through her article, Anderson aims to give a comprehensive analysis of the ways in which scientific theory and research is affected by sexism and gender bias.
Critiquing the limited ability of traditional forms of rationalism and empiricism to produce inclusive and diverse forms of knowledge by drawing from feminist epistemology and philosophy of science, she puts forward a naturalized feminist epistemology. This system/method would take into consideration the local and contextual nature of knowledge production, and would also assimilate different forms of knowledge in scientific enquiry.
Anderson stressed upon the need to call into question the gender symbolism that is prevalent in knowledge production. It is because of this that women’s experiences in these fields have been overlooked and marginalized. Additionally, she highlighted how it is possible for scientific theories to be shaped by androcentric and sexist gender biases, and why this needs to be recognized in order to move towards producing more inclusive and just forms of knowledge.
For the sake of understanding where and how such gender divisions and biases make themselves prevalent, we can take the example of the medical diagnosis of heart attack in women. In the past, women were more likely to die from heart attack than men, because the diagnosis and treatment was based on the research done on men. And since men and women differ in terms of experiences/symptoms, this marginalization led to the formation of incorrect and incomplete knowledge (particularly at the disadvantage of women).
A Modest Modern Empiricism
Anderson expresses her favor for replacing traditional empiricism with a ‘modest empiricism’. As per the former, all knowledge is gained from sensory experience (observations and experiments). This limits its ability to account for social and cultural factors involved in knowledge production. The latter (modest empiricist) would recognize the importance of sensory experience without overlooking its limitations. It is possible for sensory experience to be distorted by power relations and cultural biases, and to ensure the integrity of such knowledge (derived from this sensory data), these factors need to be accounted for. Such an approach would also accommodate different perspectives that help shape knowledge production as it would recognize how perspectives and experiences differ from one social group to another. Addressing these social and cultural dimensions would make for a more even-handed and scrupulous approach to science and philosophy.
Thus, such a modern, modest empiricist method would pave the way towards a more inclusive and just system of knowledge production as it would be more contextualized than the traditional method.
Rationality as Reflective Endorsability
Expressing her discontentment with the approach of traditional conception of rationality, Anderson puts forward the approach of rationality as reflective endorsability as an alternative. The former lays a stronger emphasis on formal rules and procedures aiming to remove bias and subjectivity. It overlooks the social and political factors that contribute in knowledge formation. The latter (reflective endorsability approach) deems a belief or action to be rational when it can be endorsed after reflective deliberation from a socially responsible perspective.
Anderson emphasizes that reflective endorsability is not limited to individual reflection. It also requires engagement with diverse perspectives and having room for critique and revision. Such an approach would help in improving epistemic justice and acknowledging the political and social dimensions of knowledge production.
The following goals are achieved by adopting this approach:
- realization of the value of social responsibility and context in understanding rationality
- development of a more inclusive and just form of knowledge production
- better consideration of social impact of knowledge and action on others
- encouragement for working towards the common good
Feminist Epistemology as a Branch of Naturalized, Social Epistemology
Anderson points out that feminist epistemology uses empirical research and analysis to comprehend the nature of knowledge and its relationship with socio-cultural factors.
Feminist epistemology is naturalized and social in the sense that it takes into consideration the ways in which knowledge is produced and used in particular cultural and social contexts, and considers an understanding of these factors as essential to understanding the world. It is concerned with the influence of factors like gender, race, power relations, class and the like on knowledge production and dissemination.
In other words, feminist epistemology is interested in the empirical study of knowledge use and production, and aims to include a diverse range of experiences and perspectives into the scope of scientific inquiry by both recognizing and challenging them.
Gendered Division of Theoretical Labor
Elizabeth Anderson discusses the ways in which different types of expertise and work are gendered in philosophy and science, with women (and other groups) being marginalized or excluded from positions of power. Their contributions are devalued and often are overlooked. She believes that this is a result of the deeply entrenched cultural norms and biases.
This division is perpetuated by the assumption that women are more suitable for a certain type of work (like care work), whereas men are more suitable for theoretical and abstract work. This results in women’s contributions to the work deemed ‘suitable’ for them being neglected, and their contribution to the traditionally theoretical fields (like science and philosophy) being devalued.
Such a gendered division becomes an obstruction to epistemic justice as it limits the marginalized groups’ ability to contribute to the creation of knowledge in impactful ways. To remedy this and make knowledge production more inclusive, it is essential that recognition and respect is given to varying types of expertise and perspectives.
There are a number of ways in which these gendered assumptions and divisions can be challenged. By creating more opportunities for marginalized groups to contribute to knowledge production, and by challenging the biases and norms that lead to such gendered divisions, we can move towards a more inclusive form of knowledge production.
Gender Symbolism
Gender symbolism can be understood as the ways in which gendered values and meaning are attached to different forms of knowledge, resulting in the marginalization of some forms of knowledge and preferment of others.
The Hierarchy of Knowledge
Anderson believes that the hierarchy of knowledge is gendered. It perceives masculine-associated forms of knowledge (like mathematics and physics) as being superior to feminine-associated forms of knowledge (like care work). This is because such a perception is rooted in cultural norms and biases as per which traits like rationality, objectivity and universality are associated with men, and traits like subjectivity, particularity and emotion are associated with women.
It is important to understand this gendered division because of the implications it has for knowledge production — most importantly the marginalization of selected forms and groups of knowledge. For instance, because they are associated with femininity and emotionality, women’s experiences and knowledge are often underestimated, whereas this is not the case for men’s experiences and knowledge, which are viewed as being more objective and valuable.
Anderson calls for a need to challenge this gendered hierarchy of knowledge for a recognition of the value that stems for different forms of knowledge. This, again, would lead us towards a more inclusive method of knowledge production.
The Content of Theories
This is closely associated with the gendered hierarchy of knowledge (content coming from men is considered more rational/objective/universal as compared to that coming from women). This gendered conception of theories results in women’s contributions being undervalued because they do not fit within the privileged male-associated concepts. To remedy this, a just recognition of women and other marginalized groups’ contribution is required. Additionally, the kinds of knowledge linked with femininity (like emotional intelligence) need to be better valued.
Androcentrism
Androcentrism is the practice of considering the male perspective to be central in social, cultural and intellectual spheres. It can be seen in diverse domains like language, scientific and medical research, cultural norms and so on.
For example — when it comes to medical research, because the male body has historically been considered as the ‘default’, and female’s as a ‘deviation’ from the default, there has been a dearth in the research for the latter for medical treatment and understanding of health issues. Thus, the research done on male bodies is generalized to apply to female bodies also, ignoring the differences in physiology/biology. This has resulted in the development of less effective/harmful treatments for women.
Another example can be taken from science. In fields like sociology and psychology, women’s perspectives are often overlooked. If there is a study on, say, aggression and violence, chances are that it would be more focused on male behavior (even though women might have different responses). This would not only result in the perpetuation of problematic stereotypes about women’s disposition (for instance, them being passive/non-aggressive as compared to men), but would also result in an incomplete and misleading knowledge pool/understanding of a certain theory.
One of the most common manifestations of Androcentrism in scientific language (or even language, in general) is the use of terms like “man” and “mankind” to refer to all people, in general.
Sexism in Scientific Theories
Sexism in scientific theories is not limited to the use of male pronouns/terminology. Apart from the use of gendered language, women and their perspectives face marginalization and exclusion from scientific research. Because they have been historically ignored in scientific research and theory, there is a lack of understanding on social and medical issues that are central to them (like gender-based violence and reproductive health).
Identifying and eliminating such androcentric biases is an essential part of making a headway in feminist epistemology and scientific inquiry.
The Local Character of Naturalized Feminist Epistemology
This refers to the idea that the production of knowledge is situated and contextual. In other words, the methods used to formulate questions and answer them are a result of the particular social, cultural and historical context they are based in. This makes knowledge situated and contingent (as opposed to being universal and objective).
Naturalized feminist epistemology (also discussed towards the beginning of this blog) would account for the diverse perspectives and experiences of all people/groups (including marginalized ones). The influence of factors like gender, class, sexuality and race in knowledge production would be accounted for and the importance of reflexivity highlighted. Those involved in knowledge production would need to be aware of any biases/prejudices that they might harbor that would hamper the production of just and comprehensive knowledge.
