Strong Objectivity Analysis
Assess your standpoint. What social group memberships influence it? Which are most influential? How would Harding and Wood measure your degree of strong objectivity? Do you agree or disagree with their assessment? Through this analysis I will explore Sandra Harding and Julia Wood’s theory of standpoint in depth. I will be looking at my own standpoint as well as explore other individual’s standpoints. Through different standpoints, I will see the group or groups that have the most power in society. I will also be discussing the faults in strong objectivity concept. Based on the concept of strong objectivity that Harding and Wood’s described, I will be looking at my standpoint in society. They stated that those whom are marginalized groups
…show more content…
There are many more groups that are marginalized in American society that he fails to acknowledge. He also fails to incorporate the theory of intersectionality, which would change the concept that people with multiple non-dominant identities have a stronger objectivity. Ann says “At the same time, she argues, categories of signification have to be viewed as part of a creative, constructive process in which the relationships between positionings, identities and political values are all central and not reducible to the same ontological level (Phoenix 188).” I agree that we must look at all of the aspects that make up a person’s identity, because they are all relative to their standpoint. As stated, not all aspects can be the same ontological level, these levels are contingent on the person. We have this happen in the Deaf community, some people may hold their hearing status higher than their race and vice versa. Such as, someone who is white and Deaf might identify as Deaf first. On the other hand someone who is black and Deaf might identify themselves as black first (Holcomb 112). I say might, because people could choose both to represent their identity and may even be part of many marginalized group. People do not have to confine their identity to one, and if they do it can be a problem. Causing that given person to fighting for only one marginalized group that they belong to. This is one of the flaws with strong objectivity, how would one measure which marginalized groups have a more difficulty in society and how would one measure which identity a person hold higher in regards to
There are many more groups that are marginalized in American society that he fails to acknowledge. He also fails to incorporate the theory of intersectionality, which would change the concept that people with multiple non-dominant identities have a stronger objectivity. Ann says “At the same time, she argues, categories of signification have to be viewed as part of a creative, constructive process in which the relationships between positionings, identities and political values are all central and not reducible to the same ontological level (Phoenix 188).” I agree that we must look at all of the aspects that make up a person’s identity, because they are all relative to their standpoint. As stated, not all aspects can be the same ontological level, these levels are contingent on the person. We have this happen in the Deaf community, some people may hold their hearing status higher than their race and vice versa. Such as, someone who is white and Deaf might identify as Deaf first. On the other hand someone who is black and Deaf might identify themselves as black first (Holcomb 112). I say might, because people could choose both to represent their identity and may even be part of many marginalized group. People do not have to confine their identity to one, and if they do it can be a problem. Causing that given person to fighting for only one marginalized group that they belong to. This is one of the flaws with strong objectivity, how would one measure which marginalized groups have a more difficulty in society and how would one measure which identity a person hold higher in regards to