Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-7c2ld Total loading time: 0.228 Render date: 2021-12-01T07:03:04.291Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Responsibility and Rhetoric

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Abstract

In this paper I offer a retrospective rereading of my work on epistemic responsibility in order to see why this inquiry has found only an uneasy location within the discourse of Anglo-American epistemology. I trace the history of the work's production, circulation and reception, and examine the feminist implications of the discussions it has occasioned.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcoff, Linda. 1988. Cultural feminism versus post‐modernism: The identity crisis in feminist rheory. Signs 12(3): 405–36.Google Scholar
Baier, Annette. 1992. Alternative offerings to mere logical consistency. Medical Humanities Review 6(1): 14.Google Scholar
Bartky, Sandra. 1990. Femininity and domination New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Belenky, Mary Field, Clinchy, Blythe McVicker, Goldberger, Nancy Rule, and Tarule, Jill Mattuck. 1986. Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bonjour, Laurence. 1991. Review of Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility. The Philosophical Review XCIX(1): 123–26.Google Scholar
Braidotti, Rosi. 1991. Patterns of dissonance: A study of woman in contemporary philosophy. Trans. Guild, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buege, Douglas J. 1992. Environmental ethics: Exploring our relationship with nature. APA Feminism and Philosophy Newsletter Spring 1992.Google Scholar
Card, Claudia. 1990. Gender and moral luck, in Identity, character, and morality, ed. Flanagan, Owen and Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cavell, Stanley. 1979. The claim of reason Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1981. Is the sex of the knower epistemologically significant Metaphilosophy 12(July/October): 267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1987. Epistemic responsibility Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1992. Who cares? The poverty of objectivism for a moral epistemology, In Rethinking objectivity II, Annals of Scholarship Volume 9, ed. Megill, Alan.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1993. Taking subjectivity into account. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Libby. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. Forthcoming a. Gossip, or in praise of chaos. In Good gossip, ed. Ze'ev, Aaron Ben and Goodman, Robert. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. Forthcoming b. Must a feminist be a relativist after all? In Code, Rhetorical spaces: Essays on (gendered) locations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. Forthcoming c. I know just how you feel: Empathy and the problem of epistemic authority. In The empathic practitioner: Essays on empathy, gender and medicine, ed.More, Ellen and Milligan, Maureen. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R.G. [1939] 1972. Essay on metaphysics. Chicago: Gateway Edition.Google Scholar
Davis, Kathy. 1992. Toward a feminist rhetoric: The Gilligan debate revisited. Women's Studies International Forum 15(2): 219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The discourse on language. In The Archaeology of Knowledge (Appendix). Trans. Swyer, Rupert. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1988. The art of telling the truth. In Michel Foucault: Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings 1977‐‐1984, ed. Kritzman, Lawrence D.New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 1989. Review of Lorraine Code Epistemic responsibility. Mind 98(391): 457–61.Google Scholar
Gallois, Andre. 1989. Review of Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67(2): 256–58.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haack, Susan. 1991. Critical notice of Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20(1): 91107.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991a. Situated knowledges. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991b. A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist‐feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Henriques, Julian, Hollway, Wendy, Urwin, Cathy, Venn, Couse, and Walkerdine, Valerie. 1984. Changing the subject London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1993. The man of reason, preface to the second edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lovibond, Sabina. 1989. Feminism and postmodernism. The New Left Review 178: 528.Google Scholar
Moser, Paul. 1988. Review of Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility. Philosophical Books 29: 155.Google Scholar
Moulton, Janice. 1983. A paradigm of philosophy: The adversary method. In Discovering Reality. ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio. 1992. Positionality, individuality, and the social basis of scientific knowledge: Lorraine Code's What Can She Know?. Discussion paper presented in the Canadian Philosophical Association panel discussion of What Can She Know?, May 1992, ms. 4.Google Scholar
Trebilcot, Joyce. 1991. Ethics of method: Greasing the machine and telling stories. In Feminist Ethics, ed. Card, Claudia. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Walker, Margaret Urban. Feminism, ethics, and the question of theory. Hypatia 7(3): 2338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1968. Philosophical investigations, trans. Anscombe, G.E.M.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolf, Margery. 1992. A thrice told tale: Feminism, postmodernism and ethnographic responsibility Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
9
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Responsibility and Rhetoric
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Responsibility and Rhetoric
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Responsibility and Rhetoric
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *