I'm writing in response to Angel Lin's message regarding "what's
public, what's private..." and the ideological sources of our
understandings of these notions.
I agree with Angel that terms such as "rational" vs. "personal"
or "emotional" are incredibly value laden. I often think that
the Western (and masculine) scientific, rational mode of inquiry
has brought us as far as we can go, and now we simply spin our wheels,
disecting the subject of our study to an extent that causes us to
lose the big picture. We forget that we can never understand the whole
by simply attempting to understand its parts.
I further believe that people draw a false dichotomy between "rational"
and "emotional" ways of behaving or viewing things. I do not see these
as opposites, nor do I see them as seperate. I think it is easier to
view the the world this way, it's easier to be linear in our thinking,
but such a way of thinking leaves no room for ambiguity, shades of grey.
I have long believed that emotional/rational modes of thinking are not
only linked, but inextricably interwoven and bound in such away that to
seperate the two is not only pointless, but gives us a rather artifical
(for lack of a better term)and simplistic view of the world.
Angel also wrote:
>It doesn't mean that women's works are not rigourous, are not grounded
in data and evidence..."
I agree. I will go a step further and say that the mere fact that we
have to defend our work on such a basis shows that the worth of any
study is still only measured in terms of linear Newtonian thinking.
We ask for hard evidence, statistical significance, when in fact these
things are merely the rhetoric of choice, and not at all (and I'm sure
there are those who would like to take issue with this) more valid than
any other form of rhetoric. In speaking in terms of hard data, rigorous
methodologies, and statistical evidence, we are merely speaking the language
of our peers. This language sounds objective, feigns objectivity, at the
cost of lulling us into believing that hard evidence is objective.
In the end, "hard" or "soft" are empty terms that I feel have definite
feminist implications (hard=masculine, objective, and valid; soft=
fuzzy, non-objective, non-rational, and, therefore, invalid).
For some, it seems that the emotional, intuitive, and spiritual world
has been lost, and in its place we now have "hard science" as a religion.
How sad.
-Pam
PAM SCHULZE
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
PAS94003 who-is-at UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU