Universalism vs. Global Relativism in Epistemic Ideology Critique - Kara

     After reading these two papers, I was curious about the way we use epistemology for ideology critique. In Shelby’s it seems this critique can be from a basis of some universal claim, and thus some universal claims in ideologies. However, Toole’s paper seemed to reject this idea, since critiques on ideologies do not need an objective basis.

    In Shelby’s paper he states “the epistemic aspect of ideology-critique simply assumes that some claims are true or well-grounded and others false or ill-founded, and that we are sometimes, using our best methods of inquiry in a position to reliably and rationally adjudicate between competing validity claims” (Shelby 168). He continues, by stating that this means the epistemic aspect “entails a rejection of global relativism and subjectivism about knowledge claims” (Shelby 168). Thus, he believes to some extent there is universality in these claims. 

    Toole’s paper expands on this concept of ideology critique through epistemology. Specifically, Toole claims that standpoint epistemology provides a way to critique ideologies while not suffering from the fault of the bias paradox or status quo paradox. Further “standpoint epistemology suggests that knowledge of the social world is grounded in one’s social/material relations” (Toole 10). This knowledge of the social world is created by the conceptual resources which are determined by the ruling class. Ideologies reflect what we know, and are thus controlled by the ruling class. 

    Now, Toole states that “the standpoint epistemologist doesn’t need to claim an objective basis from which to critique, but to undermine claims of objectivity on the part of the ruling ideology” (Toole 10). She explains that the experience of marginalized groups can undermine these claims of objectivity. Thus, one’s experience who is not in the ruling class is sufficient to critique an ideology. 

    From Shelby’s paper it seems that despite differing experiences, material and social conditions, there may be some true claims within these ideologies. With that, it seems his view of epistemology in ideology criticism differs from Toole’s. How would Toole respond to Shelby’s statement? Is there a middle ground between these two? 


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