Toole is the tool for ideology critique

In "Standpoint Epistemology as Ideology Critique," Professor Toole finds a mid-ground between Hegel and Marx's views. While Marx believes only a change in material conditions can take away from the dominant ideology, Hegel emphasizes the role of a "correct consciousness." Toole proposes that though social structures and the operative ideology are reflective of material conditions and originate from them, in order to change our social conditions "we must deconstruct the ruling ideologies" (13). In her critique of Marx, she explains how new technology has allowed the satisfaction of our basic needs, yet this change in material conditions has not displaced ideology. "Our social organizational structure remains largely unchanged" (12). 

However, Marx would likely respond that the change in material conditions and the current state of society are still part of the progression towards ideology displacement. In order for a social revolution and consensus of ridding of the ruling class/class altogether to happen, the entire world needs to have reached the point of rampant capitalism and recognition of the exploitation taking place. In addition, although not enough yet, our social organizational structure has changed over time. With the proliferation of technology, people have gained more access to knowledge and perspectives different from their own. While marginalized voices and standpoints are still oppressed by the ruling class, people are becoming increasingly aware of the suppression occurring. 

Furthermore, while standpoint epistemology is ideal in theory, even marginalized communities/voices/standpoints will lack consensus in many aspects. Standpoint epistemology will bring alternative perspectives and ways of thinking that differ from that of the ruling class, but aside from the marginalized communities themselves going through the process of consciousness-raising, the ruling class will not have motivation to consider epistemologies other than their own.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the social reality imply a natural reality?

I’m very interested in understanding where the boundary between what we might consider the (or a) ‘natural’ reality and our ‘social’ reality occurs. Professor Toole offers a compelling account of how the ideology of the ruling class shapes the body of knowledge and the conceptual tools available to understand social reality. Professor Toole’s account seems to imply the impossibility of social structures as being ‘natural.’ That is, the term natural social structure or formation would be an oxymoron. She writes, “social structures are…constituted by our choices and actions,” (4) which seems to indicate that social structures are the result of human choices and actions, and so they cannot exist in the absence of them. This also seems to suggest a division between our ‘social’ reality exclusively defined by and dependent on human action and choice and a ‘natural’ reality of things not affected by humans, say the ocean and uranium. I am interested in the boundary and relationship between t...
Read more

Is cancel culture democratic (with a small "d" even though it is also Democratic with a big "D")?

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...
Read more

Better Model?

     On page 54, Beitz says that human rights are like natural rights in that they are "critical standards" not determined by legal rules, but unlike natural rights in that they do not presuppose one view about their justification. He seems to be basing this off of Maritain's conclusion that human rights are a common ground for action despite different reasons for justification for different people. He uses this to say that human rights are not "out there" as natural rights are and continues the argument on 57. He argues that there seems to be no good reason for why we should  conceive of human rights as natural ones.      Beitz points to natural rights theorists like Locke, conceived of natural rights " formulate constraints on the use of a government’s coercive power in circumstances of religious and moral diversity" (57). While I suspect that Locke would argue that he had other reasons for posing these as natural rigthts and this was a just a desira...
Read more