The Truth of the Matter Developing Standpoint Theory from a Critical Realist Perspective SWIPI Conference Trinity College, Dublin 27th Nov 2015 Helen Mussell, University of Cambridge

Overview Three sections to the paper: 1)PAST: Historical context through outlining two previously unconnected theoretical exchanges. 2)PRESENT: Brief outline of New Materialism & Critical Realism. 3)FUTURE: Substantiating fruitful collaborations.

PAST Standpoint theory and realism – engaging with history for future development 1990’s: A decade of ontological dialogue “Recognition that standpoint theories are naturalistic has been impeded by narrow and reductive conceptions of nature and naturalism prominent within philosophy” (Rouse, 2009, Symposium on Standpoint edition of Hypatia)

PAST The Hekman exchange 1) Outlining the Truth & Method approach 2) The Marxist connection - identifying residues of realism 3) Critique of Hartsock: “Throughout her work Hartsock struggles with the relationship between these two definitions of reality. It constitutes a kind of fault line that runs through her articulation of the feminist standpoint. Although her formulation changes over the years, she continues to maintain both that reality is socially and materially constructed”(Hekman, 1997) 4) Contradiction or narrow conception? - Positivist realism to motivate contradiction 5) Untenable dualism: New developments – New materialism: “Language does construct our reality. What we are discovering now, however, is that this is not the end of the story. Language interacts with other elements in this construction; there is more to the process than we originally thought. What we need is not a theory that ignores language as modernism did, but rather a more complex theory that incorporates language, materiality, and technology into the equation”(Hekman, 2008)

PAST The Lawson exchange 1) Appeal against universalizing positivist realism 2) A different realism – critical realism (CR) “there is nothing essential to scientific or ontological realism that supposes or requires that objects of knowledge are naturalistic or other than transient, that knowledge obtained is other than fallible, partial and itself transient, or that scientists or researchers are other than positioned, biased, interested, and practically, culturally and socially conditioned” (Lawson, 1999) 3) Suggested ontological reorientation for feminist theory 4) Supporting epistemic practice: Contrastive explanation & FST 5) Complimentarity: CR to shore up FST, FST to shore up CR “much feminist theorizing is well advanced along the road already. This is precisely an area where an ontologically oriented project like critical realism can be especially enriched by past and ongoing feminist philosophical achievements” (Lawson, 2003)

PRESENT Critical RealismNew Materialism 1 Roy Bhaskar (originator 's), Margaret Archer, Tony Lawson, Andrew Sayer, Lena Gunnarsson, Angela Martinez Dy Karen Barad, Elizabeth Grosz, Susan Hekman, Stacy Alaimo, Iris van der Tuin Similarities 2 Alternative to positivism and post-structuralism (hermeneutic tradition) 3 Focus on emergence, causation, process Differences 4 Embrace contributions of both established philosophies, but acknowledges limitations Acknowledges contributions from post- structuralism 5 Acknowledges nature’s limited conditioning and underpinning role NOT its determinismFavours indeterminacy of nature 6 Depth ontology - stratified reality - empirical, real and actual - avoiding ontological flatness & monovalence No stratification. Reality comprises fluctuating intra-acting material 7 Unity-in-difference (resolves unproductive dualisms between separateness and unity)Focus on inseparability and intra (not inter) action 8 Differentiate social and non-social naturalDo not delimit social from the natural 9 Distinguish ontology from epistemology (epistemic fallacy is to conflate being and knowing)Do not distinguish ontology from epistemology 10 Retains category of humanPost-humanist

PRESENT Posthumanism of NM and the minimal humanism of CR Feminist standpoint: A collective political project celebrating unity in difference “Standpoint theories remind us why a naturalistic conception of knowing is so important. Knowledge claims and their justification are part of the world we seek to understand. They arise in specific circumstances and have real consequences. They are not merely representations in an idealized logical space, but events within a causal nexus. It matters politically as well as epistemically which concepts are intelligible” (Rouse, 2009) “Although I sympathise with the posthumanist project of emphasising the continuities between the non-human and the human, if we are to better understand the political it is crucial that we do not avoid the question of what is specific about human nature.” (Gunnarsson, 2013)

FUTURE To conclude Points from the PAST: Contrastive explanation - an ontology to compliment existing feminist epistemology. Points from the PRESENT: Dialectical Critical Realism and Unity in difference – a tool to overcome problematic dualism and the inseparability problem. FOR the FUTURE: A collaborative and complimentary future for standpoint, accommodating a collective political standpoint of unity in difference.

Thank You Questions? E: Acknowledgements: Research generously sponsored by Cambridge Political Economy Society Trust [