Feminism loves another science: the sciences of interpretation and politics of interpretation, translation, stuttering, and the partly understood. Feminism is about the sciences of the multiple subject with (at least) double vision. Feminism is about a critical positioning in unhomogenous gendered social space. Translation is always interpretive, critical, and partial. Here is a ground for conversation, rationality, and objectivity – which is not power-sensitive, non-pluralist, “conversation”…So location is about vulnerability; location resists the politics of closure, finality, or to borrow from Althusser, feminist objectivity resists “simplification in the last instance”. That is because feminist embodiment resists fixation and is insatiably curious about the webs of differential positioning. There is no single feminist standpoint because our maps require too many dimensions for that metaphor to ground our visions. But the feminist standpoint theorists’ goal of an epistemology and politics of engaged, accountable positioning remains eminently potent. The goal is better accounts of the world, that is, “science”.
-From Donna Haraway’s ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’
It has been long time since I have been excited by feminist writing, but returning to theory as opposed to pop cultural analysis shot through a simplified and watered-down feminist lens, reminds me of what feminist writing should and must be about. Haraway’s classic text, ‘Situated Knowledges’ on embodied objectivity, has reinvigorated my waning interest in feminist theory, and I invite everyone to read this persuasive, passionate and intellectually rigorous essay.