No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Responsibility and Rhetoric
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2020
Abstract
In this paper I offer a retrospective rereading of my work on epistemic responsibility in order to see why this inquiry has found only an uneasy location within the discourse of Anglo-American epistemology. I trace the history of the work's production, circulation and reception, and examine the feminist implications of the discussions it has occasioned.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1994 by Hypatia, Inc.
References
Alcoff, Linda. 1988. Cultural feminism versus post‐modernism: The identity crisis in feminist rheory. Signs 12(3): 405–36.Google Scholar
Baier, Annette. 1992. Alternative offerings to mere logical consistency. Medical Humanities Review 6(1): 14.Google Scholar
Belenky, Mary Field, Clinchy, Blythe McVicker, Goldberger, Nancy Rule, and Tarule, Jill Mattuck. 1986. Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bonjour, Laurence. 1991. Review of Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility. The Philosophical Review XCIX(1): 123–26.Google Scholar
Braidotti, Rosi. 1991. Patterns of dissonance: A study of woman in contemporary philosophy. Trans. Guild, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buege, Douglas J. 1992. Environmental ethics: Exploring our relationship with nature. APA Feminism and Philosophy Newsletter Spring 1992.Google Scholar
Card, Claudia. 1990. Gender and moral luck, in Identity, character, and morality, ed. Flanagan, Owen and Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1981. Is the sex of the knower epistemologically significant Metaphilosophy 12(July/October): 267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1987. Epistemic responsibility Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1992. Who cares? The poverty of objectivism for a moral epistemology, In Rethinking objectivity II, Annals of Scholarship Volume 9, ed. Megill, Alan.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1993. Taking subjectivity into account. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Libby. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. Forthcoming a. Gossip, or in praise of chaos. In Good gossip, ed. Ze'ev, Aaron Ben and Goodman, Robert. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. Forthcoming b. Must a feminist be a relativist after all? In Code, Rhetorical spaces: Essays on (gendered) locations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. Forthcoming c. I know just how you feel: Empathy and the problem of epistemic authority. In The empathic practitioner: Essays on empathy, gender and medicine, ed.More, Ellen and Milligan, Maureen. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Kathy. 1992. Toward a feminist rhetoric: The Gilligan debate revisited. Women's Studies International Forum 15(2): 219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The discourse on language. In The Archaeology of Knowledge (Appendix). Trans. Swyer, Rupert. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1988. The art of telling the truth. In Michel Foucault: Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings 1977‐‐1984, ed. Kritzman, Lawrence D.New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 1989. Review of Lorraine Code Epistemic responsibility. Mind 98(391): 457–61.Google Scholar
Gallois, Andre. 1989. Review of Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67(2): 256–58.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haack, Susan. 1991. Critical notice of Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20(1): 91–107.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991a. Situated knowledges. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991b. A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist‐feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Henriques, Julian, Hollway, Wendy, Urwin, Cathy, Venn, Couse, and Walkerdine, Valerie. 1984. Changing the subject London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1993. The man of reason, preface to the second edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moser, Paul. 1988. Review of Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility. Philosophical Books 29: 155.Google Scholar
Moulton, Janice. 1983. A paradigm of philosophy: The adversary method. In Discovering Reality. ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio. 1992. Positionality, individuality, and the social basis of scientific knowledge: Lorraine Code's What Can She Know?. Discussion paper presented in the Canadian Philosophical Association panel discussion of What Can She Know?, May 1992, ms. 4.Google Scholar
Trebilcot, Joyce. 1991. Ethics of method: Greasing the machine and telling stories. In Feminist Ethics, ed. Card, Claudia. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Walker, Margaret Urban. Feminism, ethics, and the question of theory. Hypatia 7(3): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1968. Philosophical investigations, trans. Anscombe, G.E.M.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolf, Margery. 1992. A thrice told tale: Feminism, postmodernism and ethnographic responsibility Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- 10
- Cited by