Why are there so few women philosophers? In most fields of the humanities there are about the same number of women as men, yet the number of women in philosophy looks more like those in mathematics and physics. Why is that? Is it because women cannot think? Is it simply because, as Hegel puts it: “Women can, of course, be educated, but their minds are not adapted to the higher sciences, philosophy, or certain of the arts …. The difference between man and woman is the same as between animal and plant.” (Hegel, Philosophy of Right, 1820, par. 166, note)
Other explanations for this trend tend to locate themselves in psychological reasons: implicit bias, stereotypes, threats and unusual high levels of sexual harassment in the field of philosophy. What I will argue is that there is something underlying all of these manifestations in our social reality, a philosophical notion that goes beyond the historical perspective that philosophy was created by men and therefore focuses on male ideas.
Philosophy has developed as a paradigm that in its foundation is male oriented, putting women outside of what is considered rational, normal, and sane. We need to acknowledge the limits of this male foundation, that is not only influencing philosophy but also for instance science, social science and psychoanalysis. Otherwise women have no choice but to either adapt and conform to the basic principles outlined by this paradigmatic male truth, or to leave philosophy and science altogether.
Read more about this event on the blogsite of the of the Bahá’í Chair for World Peace at the University of Maryland.
Or read & listen to the complete talk.
2 reacties op “Can women think?”
[…] my talk on ‘Can Women Think‘ (that will be put online hopefully soon), I showed how a group of people can be defined by […]
There’s nothing inherently wrong with having to adapt. Men have had to adapt to an entirely new environment, and had to learn and grow when ideas such as chivalry became antiquated, and feminism came into being. Particularly the men living in the west. We’ve had to develop an entirely new vernacular, new mannerisms, approaches, social norms, and yes, even philosophy. While philosophy can has changed over the years, for the most part, the principals are unchanging. You’re expected to provide evidence, inductive reasoning, applications of the scientific method, etc. We can’t simply throw these tools away in order to accommodate others. The job of philosophy and by extension the philosopher is to seek truth, it’s not the job of philosophy to placate certain classes of people. The applications that we employ are damn near immutable, like physical laws of the universe.
There are of course others who ignore the scientific method, use studies that aren’t peer reviewed, conducted studies of their own which lack decent sample sizes or made sure to use samples that would confirm bias. We do have some irresponsible and downright bad actors in the scientific and philosophical community who are only interested in confirming bias and spearheading certain causes they support, certain agendas if you will. This is thankfully a minority in both communities. If it was the majority, scientific advancements would drive to a screeching halt, and philosophers would simply exist to be mouthpieces for certain political or social interest groups.