Received: from cc-server9.massey.ac.nz (cc-server9.massey.ac.nz [130.123.128.11])
          by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with SMTP
	  id QAA10217 for <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:01:57 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ssf-pc16 by cc-server9 with SMTP(PP);
          Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:01:05 +1300
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971024110054.24e720f8@mail.massey.ac.nz>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:00:54 +1200
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
From: Ruth McManus <R.McManus@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: Standpoint Theory
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971023122703.26948A-100000@hydra.syr.edu>
References: <199710222214.SAA14470@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Also, if you are looking for interesting comment on/critique of standpoint
theory ( otherwise known as standpoint epistemology) see article 'Feminism,
epistemology and postmodernism:reflections on current ambivalence.' by G.
McLennan in SOCIOLOGY Vol. 29 No.2 p391-409 May 1995


At 12:31 23/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>a good starting point for understanding some of the issues of standpoint
>would be in Signs vol 22 issue 21 (i think it was the most recent issue of
>signs).  there is a review and critique by susan hekman and responses from
>dorothy smith, pat hill-collins, nancy hartsock, and sandra harding.  i
>recommend it highly.
>sarah
>
>On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Thomas F Brown wrote:
>
>> 
>> As my limited understanding goes, standpoint theory holds that
>> people's perceptions of society differ because they have different
>> perspectives.
>> 
>> That strikes me as a commonsensical observation, ambiguously
>> conceptualized, and of little explanatory value in an analysis
>> of any logical rigor. But I'm assuming it's just the starting
>> point for the better standpoint theorists.
>> 
>> Can anyone explain how the good standpoint theorists elaborate
>> the argument, or how they conceptualize it more concretely?
>> 
>> 
>
>
>

R.McManus@massey.ac.nz