Critique of Euro-centric Science: Post-Colonial and Feminist Critique
Harding, Sandra. Sciences from Below: Feminism,
Postcolonialities and Modernities. Duke: Duke University Press, 2008.
Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont. Fashionable
Nonsense Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse o f Science. New York: Picador, 1998.
Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and
Religion: An Introductory Study. New Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2017.
1. Basic Introduction to the Eurocentric and
male centric nature of Science with Criticisms from Post-Colonial and Feminist
perspective.
.jpg)
Post- colonial is a condition of a period after
colonialism. It also refers to a theory and which refers an attitude of
position with de-centralised with the Euro-centrism. A postcolonial
critique is a primarily critique of the influence of modern Western science on
other cultures. It is also fit within a broader framework of critiques of
Eurocentrism, colonialism and the construction of the Non-West as other. Within
Science, the postcolonial critiques argue that Western Science has resulted in
partial and distorted accounts of nature and social relations. Modern science
and technology has dislocated the so called third world countries and
societies, distorted the traditional cultures and played havoc with the
environment of these nations. It has also replaced a way of knowing which is
multi-dimensional and based on synthesis, in these societies with a linear,
clinical, inhuman and rationalist mode of thought.
The emergence of post colonial critique of
science shows that the Western sciences are just one kind of culturally
specific ‘ethnoscience’ among the many that have existed. According to Sandra
Harding, western science which is simply science for Eurosentrists is
conceptualized as fundamentally pure ideas, not as the culturally determinate
institutions and practices that historians, sociologists and anthropologists
report. The post colonial studies of science intent to address such as
distortion of ideas in the realm of science.
Post- colonialism argues that Euro-centrism is
not the best. Post- colonialism basically means perspectives which
explore/highlights the potential of colonialized. Looking at the reality
through the eyes of colonialized.
1. Post- colonial critique argues that science
is multi-faceted socially form embodied knowledge.
2. Science and technology where integral part
of civilising machine of Europe. In other words, Science and technology
Dominate and control the colonialized. This modern science was a partner of
colonialized.
3. Some tools: Medicine- was the one of the
tools of colonisation, Steam ships, Guns, Different crops and plants.
4. Modern European science always ignores the
local knowledge. And this modern science actually destroys the local knowledge
system. Modern science and technology basically destroy our knowledge system
and expanded the boundaries of their empire.
Joseph Neodham_ Scientific contribution to military, factory,
industry, railways, etc.
Sasitharu- Book_
in Glories Empire- the British Empire louted our resources with all the
sophisticated methods and equipment.
K.S. RathaKrishna-
the statement of Lord Macaulay_ India had no science to worthy to be taught in
school or college.
Vergirius Xaxa-
the introduction of euro centric communication facilities and transportation
basically affected the life of tribal people.
1. It
allowed The entry of non-tribal into tribal light
2. Disposes
of tribal lad and tribal resources
3. Factory
based production let to the large scale exploitation of mineral resources
particularly tribal.
4. Euro
centric came and encourage to tribal to cultivate the crops which really need.
(shifting cultivation)
Frantz Fanon-
Settlers used gun to control the colonist. This gun culture made the
colonist violent.
Nelson Mandela-
“we are soldiers who will never fight for we have no weapons to fight with”
Desmond Tutio- “we
had land after becoming Christians, we have the bible, they have land”.
Albert Memmi-Book_
colonies and coloniser_ in every colonies, coloniser is always
privilege.
Feminist critique on Science
The feminist discussion of science is part of
the whole feminist movement, done within the walls of feminist discourse.
Scholarship on feminist critique on science emerged in the 1960s and got
momentum in 1970s. Feminist of science raise various questions concerning the
androcentric nature of science and scientific research mostly male biases in
scientific research. Feminist of science are not happy about science and
scientific development as it is more androcentric with all its biases in favour
of men neglecting women and women issues. Feminist critique mainly argues-
exclusion in science, discrimination of women in science job, the androcentric
biases in sciences, western dualism and male science superiority, lack of
women’s contribution in science, negative portrayal of women in science and a
gender free science.
Euro- centric science is basically man centric
science. Feminist critique on science exposed the male centre of the science.
Women are almost completely excludes the science.
Some of the Feminist or Scholars on Science and
Feminism:
Evelyn Fox Keller and Ruth Hubband- Women are excluded from scientific institution
and women participation are very less in scientific invention and scientific
project. Most of the scientific studies are man centre. In the past women are
excluded from higher education.
Edward Clark in
1873- women would ruin their help if they go to college. It will also to damage
The western society also
thinking that women are not capable therefore, they cannot do scientific
invention.
Where were women in scientific studies? Where
is women voice?
Sandra Handiy- while
accepting the utility and value of scientific endeavour, scientific judgement
are not uninfluenced by cultural, individual, values and beliefs.
Viginia Woolf-
science is not sexless he is a man, a father.
David Noble- in the
middle ages clericalism envisioned and attempt to maintain a society without
women. Though in the 19th century women were able to enter into
academia, they have to face another clericalism that is a male scientific
professionalism.
Eco feminist scholar- modern science and technology to dominate
women
Vandhana Siva- nature
and women suffer because of modern scientific and technological invention.
Marya Mies- women
and nature becomes an object of experiment
Reflections’:
Most of the Feminist critique question
objectivity. They argue against one perspective and one value. It is the myths
that women are unfit for science. Why scientific jobs are given only men rather
than women? The ideologies or theories that project women as inferior or
emotional.
Feminist perspectives on science therefore
reflect a broad spectrum of epistemic attitudes toward and appraisals of
science. These perspectives range from urging the reform of gender inequities
in the institutions of science by calling attention to the underrepresentation
of women or neglected questions while still embracing the standards and
practices of the sciences they engage, to critical and constructive alternative
programs of research that, to varying degrees, aim at transforming the
framework assumptions, methodologies, substantive content, and epistemic ideals
that shape the sciences. Feminist perspectives appear to have had greater
impact on sciences that deal with objects of inquiry that are understood as
gendered—those in the social and human sciences—and, secondarily, on sciences
where the objects of inquiry are often characterized in gendered terms,
metaphorically or by analogy (projectively gendered subjects)—chiefly the
biological and life sciences. Feminist perspectives are relevant to sciences
that deal with non-gendered subject matters, but perspectives vary
substantially in content and in critical import depending on the sciences and
the particular research programs they engage.
Science is conventionally understood as
objective in the sense that scientific work and the results of that work are
free of contextual/non-epistemic values, i.e., moral, social, or political
values. Feminist philosophers of science have offered alternative accounts of
objectivity in order to explain how science that incorporates feminist values
can be better, more objective, science. They do so with the aim of giving
accounts that are empirically adequate to the case studies as they stand,
without excessive rational reconstruction. This focus on case studies also
calls for alternative analyses of how objectivity is understood. We have
reviewed a variety of alternative approaches that use feminist empiricism and
feminist standpoint theory. In summary, feminist perspectives on science arise
from concerns to improve the lives of all who are affected by gender inequity
by encouraging and using better understandings of the natural and social worlds.
In a world dominated by the dualities of
victors and victims, oppressors and the oppressed, haves and have-nots, the
strong and the weak, producers and consumers, creators and beneficiaries, the
powerful and the powerless, there will never be a spirit of harmony, even in
such a collective and purely intellectual enterprise as science.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)