Where Standpoint Stands Now: An Introduction and Commentary

Abstract

Nancy Hartsock's article, standpoint: Towards a specifically historical in Discovering Reality (1983), is often described as the locus classicus of standpoint Although there were other scholars also working on standpoint theory (Jaggar, 1983; Smith, 1974, 1987; Rose, 1983), Hartsock's work is thought of in this way because it is the origin of the term feminist standpoint theory. From the moment Hartsock defined it, standpoint theory has been at the center of highly theoretical discussions, some bordering on contentious. There are, for example, nuanced theoretical discussions/ articles about the empiricism--the view that knowledge depends on experience--and of standpoint theory (Bar On, 1993; Campbell, 1994; Harding, 1991; Hartsock, 1983, 1990a, 1990b; Janack, 1997; Longine, 1993), about its postmodernism or lack thereof (Harding, 1991, 1997; Hartsock, 1997a; Hekman, 1997a; O'Brien Hallstein, 1999), the relationship between identity and politics in standpoint theory (O'Leary, 1997) and about its relationship to materialism (Hirschmann, 1997). Kenny (1997) notes that these nuanced debates are difficult to understand fully, even for the theoretically well educated. Moreover, Kenny explains that her experience teaching it has been complicated because students lacked a basic vocabulary and facility with philosophical concepts. They were interested in feminism but knew little about materialism, liberalism, psychoanalysis, postmodernism, or, most importantly, epistemology (p. 1). This difficulty is complicated by the recent response of several key standpoint theorists to criticism of their work. In response to Hekman's (1997a) recent critique and reconceptualization of key components of standpoint theory, many of the founding theorists (Hartsock, 1997a; Harding, 1997; Collins, 1997; Smith, 1997) claim that much of their work has been misunderstood by Hekman and other scholars. This response prompted Kenny to note, rightfully, that the confusion and disagreement about interpretation and meaning is not confined to novices (p. 1). Thus, it should come as no surprise that standpoint theory has not been used in a great deal of research. Why, then, do a significant number of communication scholars across areas (Allen, 1998; Bullis, 1993; Buzzanell, 1994; Makau, 1997; O'Brien Hallstein, 1999; Pointer and Young, 1997; Stewart, 1997; Wood, 1992, 1997), and as Hirschmann (1997) notes, scholars across disciplines--philosophy, social work, sociology, psychology, history, geography, and the biological and physical sciences--continue to suggest that we ought to use standpoint theory in research? Moreover, Why would Women's Studies in Communication devote this special issue to standpoint theory? The primary answer is that standpoint theory--with all its theoretical complexity and potential for obscurity--is grappling with the controversies that will define the heart and soul of scholarship in the next century. Because they are attempting to use standpoint theory in research, the authors in this special issue are implicitly participating in this history making. Understanding how they are doing so requires some historical background and a discussion of the basic tenets of standpoint This understanding also requires that I situate standpoint theory in both its historical and contexts and that I sketch the core tenets of current versions of standpoint Finally, I comment on the six key insights that emerge from this group's performance of standpoint research. Feminist Standpoint Theory: (1) History and Context As feminists debate issues of epistemology, identity, politics, and postmodernism in standpoint theory, these debates go well beyond the immediate concerns of standpoint theory and, ultimately, are addressing a much broader concern in feminism: whether or not women can and should be viewed as a group, as sharing a common experience of oppression. …