Prof. Menon recommended Sandra Harding’s The Science Question in Feminism (1986)  for an introduction to the different approaches to feminist epistemology. Harding proposes three broad categories of feminist epistemology which are not watertight but overlapping and interactive:

• Feminist empiricism: challenges the uncritical focus on men, advocates ADDING women to knowledge systems and knowledge production. Discomfort: just adding women is not enough because that doesn’t allow us to engage with the fundamental patriarchal assumptions underlying this kind of knowledge production.

• Feminist postmodernism: sceptical of universal claims of reason and progress of science, argues that only political solidarities across social locations can ground feminist foundings. Says that there is no singular feminist epistemology. There are feminisms, hence there are feminist epistemologies. 

• Feminist standpoint theory: calls for a recognition of the situatedness of knowledge and the knower. Flags off a history of departures from conventional ideas of epistemology, such as:- 
  “knowledge is a priori, production of normative principles and values and frameworks”
  “Knowledge should be objective and apolitical”
  “Knowledge should be impersonal”: in fact, standpoint theory argues that “the personal is political”, and one must write oneself into the knowledge that one is producing. It is a sleight of hand to pretend that there is no tangible producer of knowledge, as personal experiences have a place when recording knowledge. According to standpoint theory, people may understand the same object in different ways, depending on the distinct relation in which they stand to it, i.e. their distinctive social location. 
  Standpoint theory also offers a critique of the individualism of modern epistemology. Epistemic subjects are reconstructed here as situated knowers since there is no “pure” individual knower holding zero social identities. Menon brings up the Cartesian beginnings of modern epistemology, according to which knowledge is viewed as the result of the careful exercise of an individual’s mental faculties, which leads to the notion that epistemic subjects are interchangeable, while knowledge is unchanging. Feminist epistemologists say that this characterization is inadequate.

​

Feminist epistemology argues against the traditional view that knowers are abstract and isolated individuals. On the contrary, knowledge production is collaborative. For instance, we depend on each other for specialized forms of knowledge, e.g. laypersons depend on the experts (interchanging label), and even within epistemic communities, there is interdependence (e.g. research teams have cognitive divisions of labour as per specialization).

​

There is a need to be mindful of power dynamics within these knowledge activities, even though knowledge is produced cooperatively. People in social authority have cognitive power, as they can project their knowledge as the normative standard, e.g. Rosalind Franklin’s work on DNA structure being stolen by Watson, Wilkins, and Crick, who got a Nobel for it, in an instance of the social authority that men have been mapped onto cognitive authority. Feminist epistemology is responsible for uncovering these power dynamics.

​

Individual knowers are conceptualized as generic in the mainstream framework, i.e. they are interchangeable in the act of knowing. In feminist epistemology, each knower comes from a specific location and brings to the activity of knowledge production their own experiences, e.g. sex-specific bodily experiences, like childbirth pain, that men cannot experience. One’s perspective shapes the limits of how and what one can know. 
 

Certain groups in academia have long dictated the nature of  “true knowledge”, but this is not some self-evident truth. The underrepresentation of women in STEM is a problem because women aren’t being given equal opportunities in this field, but the way scientific knowledge (discourse, experiment, discovery) is shaped also reflects only some dominant groups and their sensibilities. Hence the underrepresentation of women in STEM is not just a justice issue, but also an epistemic issue. 

​

The knower’s self-identity, which is dependent on the ascribed social identities that are mapped onto their person, shapes how and what they know, and with what confidence they can produce knowledge. 
 

Orthodox epistemology presupposes a standardized knower (everyone, and no one in particular), which has also been called the “god trick” by Donna Haraway as it implies seeing everything from nowhere in particular. But we have seen that the knowledge thus produced consistently benefits dominant groups. Hence, there is an unequal distribution of power in society, but if the knower cannot see from nowhere, the knowledge is seen as unreliable. This results in EPISTEMIC OPPRESSION. Those who have social authority also have cognitive authority, and so their statement has credibility. Everyone else who is marked with a specific identity can only talk about their experiences (which are dismissed as subjective and politicized opinions, rather than being facts)). Any resistance to mainstream epistemology is dismissed as coming from some bias. 
 

Experience and Embodiment: people experience the world using differently located bodies. 

• Disability studies: challenges normativization of able bodies. 

• Anita Ghai: temporarily able body. 

• Knowledge reinforces notions of the “perfect” normative human body, which PRODUCES the disabled body in its arrogance, e.g. public planning, health, the economy--public washroom access for women, etc.

• It is assumed by the dominant framework that a  special interest group cannot be objective, as their experiences cannot yield knowledge. Our knowledge of ourselves differs from the expert’s knowledge of ourselves, and feminist epistemologies, therefore, call for us to move away from expert knowledge to experiential knowledge.

• Feminist Critiques of Modern Medical Practices:  women’s pain is often dismissed by doctors as fiction or some vague condition.

• Several 19th Century practitioners gained fame as “Hysteria Doctors”. The belief was that the “uterus” is the root cause of all the problems. Marriages and Pregnancy were considered as the ultimate treatment of the “semen-hungry women”. These kinds of diagnosis became popular when women demanded their rights to gain access to Universities and professions in the U.S. and Europe. Falling rates of marriages and low birth rates coincide with these diagnoses that criticise the “new-women”. 

• Philadelphia-based psychiatrist, Silas W.Mitchell championed what he called the  “rest cure”.
  Sick women put to bed, ordered not to move a muscle, away from all intellectual and creative work. They were fed four ounces of milk every two hours and they were not even permitted to visit the washroom in many cases. 

• U.S. Women Artists and Writers were diagnosed with Hysteria, they were attributed as Rebels. This is all the outcome of overeducation, “Shameless-ness” etc.  It was suggested that too much energy was going into their brains and instead of staying in the reproductive organs of the women and this is why women are behaving strange, popularly called them as “troublemakers”.

• U.S. suffragettes were also thought of in the same way. They were treated as “hysterics” in prison. Prof. Menon has also provided examples of Indian society, calling women mad and witches when they demand their property rights or do unconventional activities. These women are forcibly treated and forcibly institutionalized.

• If you have heard of the rest cure, chances are you learned about this once-popular treatment for nervous illness through Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s semi-autobiographical short story, “The Yellow Wall-paper” (1892). The narrator of this harrowing tale is a mother suffering from depression and her controlling husband, John, confines her to a nursery in hopes that “perfect rest” will restore her to health. When her recovery stalls, John threatens a more drastic treatment. The narrator relates, “if I don’t pick up faster he will send me to Weir Mitchell in the fall. But I don’t want to go there at all”.

• This story reflects how a husband who thinks of himself as an expert/doctor belittles her experience. Her experience of loneliness, postpartum depression that she was going through. She was not allowed to do anything and suggested lying in bed. Prof. Menon recommended the book to the audience and wanted them to relate it with it.

​​

One of the most influential theorists of the new feminist epistemology was political scientist Nancy Hartsock (1983), who formulated and named feminist standpoint theory. Prof. Menon believes her theory is significant in the lecture. 

She argues that women’s contribution to sustenance i.e., daily maintenance, care-work, child-rearing that women employ, that results in a systematic difference of experience across genders. The kind of work women do routinely provides a different experience about life, relationships and social structures. These activities place them in a socially underprivileged position. Theoretically, they aren’t “working” and “earning”.

 

Despite that this becomes the basis of privileged epistemic standpoint, because they can get access to a perspective with a deeper understanding of patriarchal institutions and ideologies can be reached. In simple words, women can see their lives and the systematic marginalization that one experiences despite the primary role one is playing. The under-privileged position and powerlessness are evident to the women. One can see that by the work they are doing other members in the society are living the life of pleasure, privilege and leisure. When one can make a connection, one acquires a feminist standpoint. This becomes a moment of epistemic privilege which women could acquire. Prof. Menon believes it has connections with Marxist theory.

 

Prof. Menon has mentioned a Malayalam movie, “The Great Indian kitchen” (2021). She recommends this movie to the audience. The film showcases the daily grind of domesticity the protagonist engages in contrasted with the life of leisure man enjoys because it is remarkable.

 

Standpoint theory is sometimes understood as an “achieved stance”, not as a “perspective” alone, one acquires Epistemic Privilege (“privilege” here means, a position from where one can perceive the connection ). Many women experience this and understanding that it happens in different socio-temporal regions is crucial. 

 

Two important ideas here are:-

1. Shared Marginalization: Understanding that there are many others differently located subjects feeling the same thing is crucial.
2. Systemic Activity: A systematic practice that is non-accidental.

 

The idea of  “Intersectionality” by Patricia Hill Collins has broadened Feminist Epistemology. Feminist Epistemology leads us to the Experiential and Relational aspect of Knowledge Production especially in the institutions of knowledge like Universities. Like Indian Universities are also the agents of social transformation, however, sometimes universities collude with powerful interests, hence lending credibility to certain forms and kinds of knowledge. 

 

Prof. Menon mentioned “Rhodes Must Fall”, a protest movement that began on 9 March 2015, originally directed against a statue at the University of Cape Town (UCT) that commemorates Cecil Rhodes. The campaign for the statue's removal received global attention and led to a wider movement to "decolonise" education across South Africa. 

 

The History of imperialism, slavery, loot etc., provided so much wealth and prosperity to these centres of epistemic knowledge production, what kind of knowledge they will provide when their foundations are based on marginalization?

 

Is their knowledge ethical?

Non-consultative, authoritarian institutions cannot produce epistemic systems that are democratic. Universities and classrooms are the sites of liberation but “Dalit Women's Education in Modern India: Double Discrimination” by Shailaja Paik showcases an important point how classrooms, especially for marginalised communities become a site of intimidation, hurt and humiliation which can turn into the deaths of marginalised students. Prof. Menon establishes the promise v/s practice aspect of these institutions. Distrusts amongst different social locations if strong, then friendships are a good way to bridge this gap between people. Dalit and OBC students complain that despite accessing the popular institutions, they are kept outside the social circle.

 

The feeling of Exclusion and Isolation thus seeks its way inside. Feminist Epistemologists in the domain of epistemic oppression talks about persistent exclusion. Prof. Menon, mentioned, “Raya Sarkar’s list of alleged sexual predators” (2017) which a crowdsource Facebook list about sexual harassers in Indian Universities is a key example of the sexual exploitation women face in Universities. 

 

iranda Fricker in her book “Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing” (2007),  has argued that undermining subjects in their capacity of the knower is grave. However, Hermeneutical Injustice undermines them in their capacity as interpreters of their own social experience.

 

Prof. Menon has given the example of women experiencing sexual harassment and has given the account of Kancha Ilaiah. She concluded the lecture with her remarks on dealing Pandemic with a situated-ness aspect of Feminist Epistemology.

​