Standpoint Theory, Part I

In which we discuss roughly what a 'standpoint' is supposed to be, its origins in Marxist political theory, and its relevance to Virginia Woolf.
Another origin for Standpoint Theory I have not discussed is Hegel. For a really good treatment of Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic (and its relation to identity), you might check out Philosophy Tube: • Intro to Hegel (& Prog...

[@angelshafiqa6526]

Nice

[@Cyberphunkisms]

search on the similarity between "standpoint epistemologies" and "market liberalism" and realize why one of the the greatest thinker of our times, hannah arendt wasn't a feminist

[@professorohatvassar1274]

Fwiw, Standpoint Theory / Standpoint Epistemology is not a prerequisite for feminism. Also, the view that "Arendt wasn't a feminist" depends on how one understands what feminism includes. One could reject Beauvoir and still be a feminist, for example. But rather than take anything I say about this, as I am not an Arendt scholar, see a source like: www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01446-6.html

[@professorohatvassar1274]

A separate but related issue: the relationship between liberalism, Marxism, and other political theories and feminist theory. Commitments vary in the field of feminist philosophy. We should speak of "feminist theories" perhaps rather than "feminist theory" singular.
But overall, I don't myself see any direct connection between market liberalism and standpoint epistemologies. The latter are as eclectic as the number of people writing about them.

[@Cyberphunkisms]

@@professorohatvassar1274 yes great book that is. ultimately, feminism's "personal is political" position is one that conforms to neoliberal subjectivity; the personal is political is ultimately opposed to the creation of community, because it reinforces capitalist social relationships.
you can check out my "ritual traces" series

[@Cyberphunkisms]

@@professorohatvassar1274 is there any feminism that rejects "the personal as political" or standpoint epistemology?
not today.
so we can say that ALL feminism rests on the notion of "the personal as political" which is exactly the thing that arendt was trying to warn us about,
the imposition of "the political" onto the deepest recesses of the personal, turning all human social relationships into a capitalist cost benefit analysis of privilege and emotional labor.
aka all feminism is neoliberalism

[@professorohatvassar1274]

@@Cyberphunkisms I'm afraid that doesn't make sense given my concept of the slogan. The slogan is about how personal experiences ultimately form a part of the web of social structure and are partly determined by it; and, furthermore, that personal experiences are a worthy subject for political concern. I don't think that it requires that personal experiences are *individual* experiences exclusively. Remember, the concept of "sexual harassment" had to be invented, and started with individual experiences shared by a community of women who realized they had a *shared* experience. The concept successfully communicates a public and collective concept. And, rather than emphasize capitalist individualism, in my view the concept empowers collective action. The slogan that the "personal is political" reminds us that often what seems isolated and private can actually be systemic and relevant to concerns of social justice and collective equity.
"Subjectivities" can be collective, on my view, unless one thinks perspectivalism, circumstantialism, and standpoint is necessarily individualistic (that requires further assumptions about mental ontology which are a better subject for a different medium than RUclips comments). On many views of standpoints, they are the achievements of groups, not individuals, for example. I, for instance, could achieve a standpoint with the assistance of other women or other Latinas, such as Gloria Anzaldúa and María Lugones; it would not be mine exclusively, and might depend on my ability to recognize the ways in which my experience is and is not like that of other women and Latinas.
What that epistemological view has to do with capitalism is several steps removed from this. For one thing, we have said nothing of property, markets, value, labor, or class.

[@pleasedontdestroythiseither]

3 10