Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:06:36.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Barad's Feminist Naturalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Joseph Rouse
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Philosophical naturalism is ambiguous between conjoining philosophy with science or with nature understood scientifically. Reconciliation of this ambiguity is necessary but rarely attempted. Feminist science studies often endorse the former naturalism but criticize the second. Karen Barad's agential realism, however, constructively reconciles both senses. Barad then challenges traditional metaphysical naturalisms as not adequately accountable to science. She also contributes distinctively to feminist reinterpretations of objectivity as agential responsibility, and of agency as embodied, worldly, and intra-active.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 19 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Feminist Science Studies , Winter 2004, pp. 142 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barad, Karen. 1996. Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction. In Feminism, science and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, Jack and Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Barad, Karen. 1998. Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. differences 10(2): 87–128.Google Scholar
Barad, Karen. 1999. Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In The science studies reader, ed. Biagioli, Mario. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barad, Karen. 2000. Reconceiving scientific literacy as agential literacy, or learning how to intra‐act responsibly within the world. In Doing Cultural Studies of Science and Medicine, ed. Reid, Roddey and Traweek, Sharon. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barad, Karen. Forthcoming. Meeting the universe halfway.Google Scholar
Birke, Linda. 1986. Women, feminism and biology: The feminist challenge. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1979. Freedom and constraint by norms. American Philosophical Quarterly 16(3): 187–96.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1997. What is a law of nature? Dialectica 51(1): 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, Patricia. 1986. Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind‐brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, Paul. 1989. A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1965. The logic of statistical inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haugeland, John. 1998. Having thought: Essays in the metaphysics of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Don. 1994. What makes a classical concept classical? Toward a reconstruction of Niels Bohr's philosophy of physics. In Niels Bohr and contemporary philosophy, ed. Faye, Jan and Folse, Henry, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1992. Secrets of life, secrets of death: Essays on language, gender and science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1995. Refiguring life: Metaphors of twentieth‐century biology. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996. The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1982. Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth. 1996. Science and anti‐science: Objectivity and its real enemies. In Feminism, science and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, Jack and Hankinson, Lynn. Nelson. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1992. Essential tensions—phase two: Feminist, philosophical, and social studies of science. In The social dimensions of science, ed. McMullin, Ernan. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1980. Epistemological crises, dramatic narrative, and the philosophy of science. In Paradigms and revolutions: Applications and appraisals of Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science, ed. Gutting, Gary. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1974. The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows? From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1993. Epistemological Communities. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1995. Feminist Naturalized Philosophy of Science. Synthese 104(3): 399–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alex. 1996. A field guide to recent species of philosophical naturalism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, Joseph. 2002. How scientific practices matter: Reclaiming philosophical naturalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1997. Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sokolowski, Robert. 1978. Presence and absence: A philosophical investigation of language and being. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Samuel. 2000. Deconstruction as analytic philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 1999. The engendering of archaeology: Refiguring feminist science studies. In The science studies reader, ed. Biagioli, Mario. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2002. Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar