Abstract
Feminist theory and politics have emerged from within two great traditions in Western moral, political, and social thought.1 They have emerged from liberalism, which assumes that conflicts between the timeless and universal natural rights of rational individuals should be adjudicated within the free market of social contracts. And they have emerged from Marxism, which assumes that conflicts between the socially determined needs of “animals who labor” are created by divisions of labor in the social relations of production.
After receiving an undergraduate degree in literature from a women’s college in the mid-1950s, I worked for 10 years in the entertainment industry in New York City. After my second daughter was born, I returned to graduate school, first in sociology and then in philosophy; at this time, I commuted back to New York University in Manhattan from Albany, New York. Thus, during the period when many of my earlier and later friends were active in the civil rights movement and the radicalism of the 1960s, I was busy changing diapers, maintaining a style of living suitable for a faculty household, and going to graduate school. When the women’s movement arrived in Albany in the early 1970s, I was more than ready for it. In 1973, I began teaching at The Allen Center, an interdisciplinary college (which no longer exists) within the State University of New York at Albany. Since 1976, I have been in the philosophy department at the University of Delaware and have taught many women’s studies courses. Since 1981, I have been, by joint appointment, also in sociology. I have been a single parent since 1974, and my two daughters are now heading off on their own.
In philosophy, I began examining the problems created by positivist inheritances in current American epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of social science. During the last five years, my research and publications have focused on how the most abstract and formal aspects of Western thought reveal the distinctive “fingerprints” of the social groups that created this thought. Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, which I coedited with Merrill Hintikka, was published in March 1983 by Reidel; I am currently completing a monograph, (supported by the National Science Foundation and a Mina Shaughnessy Fellowship from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education) that examines the problems for mainstream liberal and Marxist theories of knowledge created by the new research on women and gender in the social sciences and biology.
The opening paragraphs of the second section of my paper indicate some of the ways in which I suspect that my experiences have influenced my beliefs about the politics and the social values that lie beneath the surface of the abortion dispute.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Mary O’Brien, The Politics of Reproduction(Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981); cf. review by Sandra Harding and Shakuntla Bhaya, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8 no. 2 (1982), pp. 361 – 363.
Heidi Hartmann, “The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 6, no. 3 (1981), pp. 383–385.
For key discussions of the feminist epistemological issues, see Jane Flax, “Political Philosophy and the Patriarchal Unconscious: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Epistemology and Metaphysics”; Nancy Hartsock, “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism‘ Sandra Harding, ’Why Has the Sex/Gender System Become Visible Only Now?” all in S. Harding and M. Hintikka, eds., Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983)
D Smith, “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology,” Sociological Inquiry 44 (1974), pp. 7–13.
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex( New York: Knopf, 1953 ).
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex( New York: Knopf, 1953 ) p. xv.
For key arguments favoring these alternatives, see Jack W. Meiland and Michael Krausz, eds., Relativism: Cognitive and Moral( Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1982 ).
James C. Mohr, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978 ).
Data supporting and explanations of this claim can be found in the papers in M Blaxall and B Reagan, eds., Women and the Work-place (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1976)
R Pollack Petchesky, “Antiabortion, Antifeminism, and the Rise of the New Right,” Feminist Studies 7, no. 2 (1981), pp. 206–246; Hartmann.
Eli Zaretsky, Capitalism, The Family, and Personal Life( New York: Harper and Row, 1976 ).
Phillippe Ariès, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life(New York: Knopf, 1970)
Carol Brown, “Mother, Fathers, and Children: From Private to Public Patriarchy,” in L. Sargent, ed., Women and Revolution( Boston: South End Press, 1981 ).
David Solomon, “Philosophers on Abortion,” in E. Manier, W. Liu, and D. Solomon, eds., Abortion: New Directions for Policy Studies( Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1977 ), p. 162.
David Solomon, “Philosophers on Abortion,” in E. Manier, W. Liu, and D. Solomon, eds., Abortion: New Directions for Policy Studies( Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1977 ), p. 162.
A notable exception is Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy and Public Affairs1, no. 1 (1971), pp. 47 – 66.
John Finnis, “The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion,” Philosophy and Public Affairs2, no. 2 (1973), pp. 117 – 6145.
Michael Tooley, “Abortion and Infanticide,” Philosophy and Public Affairs2, no. 1 (1972), pp. 37 – 65.
Sandra Harding, ed., Can Theories Be Refuted?: Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976).
W. V. O. Quine, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969)
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press 1970).
Donna Haraway, “Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society4, no. 1 (1978), pp. 21–60, shows how cultural influences have shaped both the best and worst of biology
A Jaggar, “Human Biology and Feminist Theory: Sex Equality Reconsidered,” in C C. Gould, ed., Beyond Domination: New Perspectives on Women and Philosophy(Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield Adams, 1983), criticizes the nature—culture dichotomy itself.
S Harding, “Does Objectivity in Social Science Require Value-Neutrality?”, Soundings60, no. 4 (1977), pp. 351–366
“Four Contributions Values Can Make to the Objectivity of Social Science,” in P. D. Asquith and I. Hacking, eds., PSA 1978, vol. 1 (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978)
“The Norms of Social Inquiry and Masculine Experience,” in P. D. Asquith and R. N. Giere, eds.,PSA 1980, vol. 2 (East Lansing, Mich. Philosophy of Science Association, 1980).
Petchesky makes clear the inseparability of these issues. See also Zillah Eisenstein, “Antifeminism in the Politics and Election of 1980,” Feminist Studies7, no. 2 (1981), pp. 187 – 205.
Milton Friedman, quoted by Solomon, p. 171.
Zillah Eisenstein, The Radical Implications of Liberal Feminism (New York: Longmans, 1979)
Susan Moller Okin, Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979).
Cf. Sandra Harding, “Is Equality of Opportunity Democratic?”, The Philosophical Forum nos. 10, 2–4 (1979), pp. 206–223.
Esther Spector Person, “Sexuality as the Mainstay of Identity: Psychoanalytic Perspectives,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society5, no. 4 (1980), pp. 605 – 630.
See the essays in Lydia Sargent, ed., Women and Revolution( Boston: South End Press, 1981 ).
Frederick Engels, “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works( New York: International Publishers, no date ), p. 359.
Mary O’Brien, “Reproducing Marxist Man,” in Lorenne M. G. Clark and Lynda Lange, eds., The Sexism of Social and Political Theory: Women and Reproduction from Plato to Nietzsche( Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1979 ). See also Note 2.
Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (Berkeley University of California Press, 1984).
Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, presentation at The Feminist and the Scholar, Barnard Conference, New York City, March 1980.
Sara Ruddick, “Maternal Thinking,” Feminist Studies 6, no. 2 (1980), pp. 342-367
Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975)
Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1984 The Hastings Center
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harding, S. (1984). Beneath the Surface of the Abortion Dispute. In: Callahan, S., Callahan, D. (eds) Abortion. The Hastings Center Series in Ethics. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2753-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2753-0_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9703-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2753-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive