Gender Relations in Mother Dulce's House

Abstract

Gender Relations in Mother Dulce's House Silvia Barbosa and Maria Gabriela Hita Initial considerations The theory of Standpoint, proposed by the author Sandra Harding (), presents itself as a controversial issue in the field of social sciences, for it both appropriates and challenges political theory, showing that while some degree of recognition of our political or axiological interests are needed in the production of knowledge, a complete immersion in these values damages the production of scientific knowledge. This theory has attracted both critics and enthusiasts for over three decades, since according to Harding, the controversies that she raises are valuable not only for a public that is interested in feminism, but also serve to amplify the discussion on the construction and solidification of contemporary science. In her analysis, proposed in: Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political, Philosophic and Scientific Debate (2004), Harding explains that Standpoint is not just a theory that criticizes sciences and the structures that build them, but is an epistemological perspective in and of itself that has both strong content and a political impact. Standpoint explains the different location and placement of distinct subjects in the social structure and identifies both where they are speaking from and how they are marked and/or influenced by different social relations. In order to understand and properly use this theory and epistemological perspective, one must first, of course, know how to recognize it. Some of its principal assumptions emerged from the critical incorporation of feminism with important Marxist and/or post‐structuralist concepts. Because of its commitment to location of voice and marginalized groups, it has, like Marxism in general, provided valuable resources for various social movements, as well as women in their reflection on personal practices. This has helped to broaden political awareness in different social groups. It is very close to the well‐known phrase by Donna Haraway () on “localized knowledge,” and that it is nothing more than a thought‐provoking update on Marxist assumptions when Marx himself spoke about people being socially conditioned by the historical moment in which we are inserted. Moreover, this Standpoint perspective allows for greater visibility and significance of the positions occupied by marginalized groups, since within this new perspective they come to be seen also as subjects, and in many cases, co‐participants in research, being categorized as qualified informants. They are no longer treated as mere inert or simple objects of our research, a perspective that marked and maintained distance between the subject with knowledge and the object being studied. Advocates and critics of Standpoint have different opinions about its potential and its final purpose of “how” or “what” it serves. In situating some of these debates, we first note that this knowledge was developed for and by feminist women, aiming to illuminate and visualize the specific nature of gender, and seeking to explain and better understand their situation in the contemporary world. We needed to self‐affirm ourselves in the field of scientific knowledge, challenging it, as well as affirming the presence and contributions of gender studies to the advancement of new and equally valid knowledge. So the first step was to challenge the field of science and some of the assumptions of its most traditional models, which are now being challenged by many of these ethnocentric and androcentric epistemologies. If the whole aim of science, even if a priori, would be to always achieve some degree of approximation to what is meant by “truth (s)” free from prejudice and ideologies or political influence, this would be a false and outdated assumption that feminist and other important thinkers of modern epistemology would challenge; deconstruct; and, at the same time, promote the development of new insights, theories, and major advances in the epistemology and understanding of modern science. From here, it starts to move away and criticize the commitment to defending “traditional science” with a supposed “objectivity” that would order a neutral and impartial manner to their understanding of social reality. This commitment is seen as a farce, for science was not socially neutral, neither in its discourse nor in its effects (Haraway ). The conclusion that will eventually be found after all this is that all knowledge is both...