FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES: FROM SCIENCE TO ART A Thesis submitted to the faculty of Z o \ < l San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Philosophy by Hilda Loury San Francisco, California August 2018 Copyright by HILDA LOURY CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read Feminist Perspectives: From Science to Art by Hilda Loury, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in Philosophy at San Francisco State University. Professor Professor FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES: FROM SCIENCE TO ART Hilda Loury San Francisco, California 2018 I offer a taxonomy to situate various positions in the spectrum of feminist perspectives on both science and art. I defend the contention that feminist perspectives are crucially important for the empirical sciences because they have promoted and generated more reflexive bodies of scientific research. My thesis is, since the fields of science and art are relevantly similar - they share epistemic, representational, and interpretive characteristics and objectives that are relevant in the application of feminist perspectives from science to art - feminist perspectives have been and will continue to be crucially important in both aesthetic theorizing and art practice. Feminist perspectives promote and generate more reflexive theories of art, beauty, taste, and value as well as contribute to more advancement, diversity, and inclusion throughout the artworld. I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work dedicated to my mother, Flora. My gratitude for her labor, love, and wisdom is beyond language. Thank you for everything, maman. ?jE ££**j J I thank my committee, Dr. Anita Silvers and Dr. Shelley Wilcox, for their sharp and insightful feedback, for continuously advocating on my behalf, and for the countless conversations and hours they dedicated to guiding my personal and professional growth. I am also indebted to the many professors and mentors who have inspired or supported my journey of navigating through the landscape of philosophia in one way or another: J. Armstrong, M. Azadpur, D. Deaver, J. Granitto, G. Greenberg, S. Goering, V. Keyser, W. Lennertz, D. Lopes, C. Montemayor, M. Pimentel, A. Sowaal, J. Viveros, and C. Whitley. My hope is to offer my future students and mentees the support they readily offered me. Finally, I am grateful for the women who have come before me and for the women who will come after me. You are my greatest inspiration. TABLE OF CONTENTS 0. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1 1. Feminist Perspectives on Science.........................................................................................................6 1.1. Soft Perspectives on Science................................................................................................ 8 Equity in Science.............................................................................................................. 9 Correcting Omissions in Science...............................................................................14 1.2. Hard Perspectives on Science............................................................................................20 Correcting Conceptual Distortions in Science.................................................... 21 Restructuring Methodology in Science....................................................................25 2. Science and A rt........................................................................................................................................35 3. Feminist Perspectives on Art.................................................... 45 3.1. Soft Perspectives on Art..................................................................................................... 47 Equity in A rt..................................................................................................................48 Correcting Omissions in Art..................................................................................... 51 3.2. Hard Perspectives on Art...................................................................................................55 Correcting Conceptual Distortions in Art............................................................ 56 Restructuring Methodology and Traditional Theories in Art..........................62 4. Conclusion.............................................................................................,..................................................81 5. Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................82 1 0. Introduction The application of feminist perspectives on science have generated new theories, questions, and methodology that complicate and illuminate our understanding of empirical truth and how it is acquired. The primary contribution of this thesis is to extrapolate the merits of feminist perspectives on science onto art. 1 show how feminist perspectives on art, like those on science, generate new theories, questions, and methodology that complicate and illuminate both theory and practice within aesthetics. In the first section, 1 offer a taxonomy to situate various positions in the spectrum of feminist perspectives on science. First, 1 clarify my usage of the term “science” to refer to the empirical sciences, i.e. the sciences that employ the scientific method: physical science, life science, and social science. Additionally, 1 distinguish between what I refer to as “soft” and “hard” feminist perspectives. Soft feminist perspectives on science embrace or defend traditional systems in scientific research yet are interested in critically expanding on traditional research programs. In other words, there are lacunae in research programs - both in terms of the practitioners of scientific research and the content of their research targets - that ought to be filled in order to improve diversity and inclusion and encourage a more accurate, comprehensive, and nuanced body of scientific research. 1 focus my discussion on two soft feminist perspectives: concerns about equity and concerns about correcting omissions. In the section on equity in science, 1 offer statistics regarding the 2 gender disparity within the sciences, which is sometimes referred to as the leaky pipeline problem, and touch on issues regarding epistemic injustice and implicit bias contributing to the inhospitable and discouraging epistemic and social climate within the sciences. In the section on correction omissions in traditional bodies of scientific research, I offer examples of remedial research programs in both clinical research about female bodies and statistical data regarding hard-to-reach populations. I argue that there are at least three epistemic and social benefits to advocating for soft feminist perspectives in the sciences: greater representation, alternate hermeneutical standpoints, and more accurate and precise research. On the other hand, hard feminist perspectives on science argue that soft feminist perspectives are insufficiently critical and that a radical conceptual shift must occur for true advancement, diversity, and inclusion within the sciences. I focus my discussion on two hard feminist perspectives: correcting conceptual distortions and restructuring scientific systems. In the section on correcting conceptual distortions in science, I offer examples regarding fallacious gender-based associations, namely in primatology in research on baboon populations, paleoanthropology in research on hunter-gatherer societies, and biology in research on sperm and egg cell interaction. In the section on restructuring scientific systems, I clarify my usage of the terms methods, methodology, and epistemology. I show that “restructuring scientific systems” essentially means “restructuring scientific 3 methodology.” Restructuring scientific methodology involves four commitments, as outlined by contemporary feminist philosophers of science: relevance, experiential grounding (as well as the significance of what I refer to as “social identity-linked experience”), accountability, and reflexivity. Finally, I argue against the objection that hard feminist perspectives collapse into epistemic relativity and defend the position that hard feminist perspectives promote a more accurate, comprehensive, nuanced, and useful body o f scientific research. In the second section of this thesis, I demonstrate how the fields of science and art are relevantly similar - they share epistemic, representational, and interpretive characteristics and objectives - in order to extrapolate what I have argued are the merits of feminist perspectives of science onto art. I propose that both science and art offer information about the world, albeit through different means and methods, and that the epistemic characteristic of each is influenced by how humans observe and reason. In other words, science and art share epistemic, representational, and interpretative characteristics that are relevant in the application of feminist perspectives from science to art. In the third section of this thesis, I turn to feminist perspectives on art. I argue that the soft feminist perspectives, i.e. equity and correcting omissions, and