Hi
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, G. Marc Turner wrote:
> Okay, so you don't mean to imply that one form is better than another, but
> that methodologies and perspectives of the West are not superior. So, you
> are saying that different methodologies and perspectives are equally valid
> and work equally well at determining the "truth" about natural laws (both
> physical and psychological)?
>
> If so, then I would like you to clarify exactly what these perspectives and
> methodologies are from both the West and the non-eurocentric cultures you
> refer to. Are we talking about case studies versus experimental designs?
> Naturalistic observations versus experiments? Belief based approaches to
> knowledge versus empirical methods?
I have read with great interest the various postings related to
the possible Eurocentric nature of our beliefs about punishment
because I have been reading about culture and epistemology for
the past year or so. In fact Michael Sylvester's position is one
that I think we will have to deal with more and more in coming
years. That is, people will be challenging not only our findings
but also our ways of finding out (i.e., the natural science
approach). The criticisms overlap to a large extent with similar
notions coming from postmodernism (knowledge is relative),
radical feminist epistemologies (science represents a sexist way
of knowing), and the like Below are some posts from several
authors on this issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Native American Postcolonial Psychology
(Duran & Duran, 1995)
Early on, we began to realize that much of the study of
cross-cultural issues and the resultant literature was primarily
an exercise that had to be validated by the rules of the academy.
It did not take great revelation to discover that the people who
made up the rules of this academy were predominantly white males.
In this sense, knowledge from a cross-cultural perspective must
become a caricature of the culture in order for it to be
validated as science or knowledge. (p. 4)
As long as the language implies that the discourse is
cross-cultural, we are perpetuating the notion that other
cultures do not have their own valid and legitimate
epistemological forms. "Cross-cultural" implies that there is a
relative platform from which all observations are to be made, and
the platform which remains in place in our neocolonial discipline
is that of Western subjectivity.
... a postcolonial paradigm would accept knowledge from differing
cosmologies as valid in their own right, without their having to
adhere to a separate cultural body for legitimacy.
Postcolonial thinkers should be placed in the positions that act
as gatekeepers of knowledge in order to insure that western
European thought be kept in its appropriate place.
It is no longer acceptable for psychology to continue to be the
enforcement branch of the secularized Judeo-Christian myth.
Through the worshipping of logical positivism, our discipline has
been a coconspirator in the devastation and the control of those
peoples who are not subsumed under a white, male, heterosexual
Christian subjectivity.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And from another source:
One of the tenets of American Indian Science, she [Pam Colorado]
says, ... is that the search for truth and learning is a
spiritual relationship between the individual and the Creator. *
In her writings, Colorado deliberately refers to Native shamans,
medicine people, and other traditional elders as "scientists."
She also refers to traditional Native knowledge about the natural
world as "Native science." She adopts this convention for good
reason -- to counter the "intellectual imperialism" of the West
in aggressively denigrating indigenous knowledge, and to place
Native nature-wisdom on par with Western science. (Knudston &
Suzuki, 1992, Wisdom of the Elders, p. 180).
Sandra Harding wrote a number of years ago:
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
The radical feminist position holds that epistemologies,
metaphysics, ethics, and politics of the dominant forms of
science are androcentric and mutually supportive; that despite
the deeply ingrained Western cultural belief in science's
intrinsic progressiveness, science today serves primarily
regressive social tendencies; and that the social structure of
science, many of its applications and technologies, its modes of
defining research problems and designing experiments, its ways of
constructing and conferring meanings are not only sexist but also
racist, classist, and culturally coercive.
I haven't read it yet, but Harding has a new book out called
something like "Is science multicultural?"
> Also, what do you think should be done if the different methods end up
> giving different answers for the same population of interest? Do you then
> have to throw up your hands and say that it is not possible to answer the
> question?
This is no problem if one is a relativist, as truth depends on
the context. So different people can have different, even
conflicting, beliefs that are equally valid. Or perhaps truth
will be determined more by moral propriety than by empirical
tests, another dimension that intruded itself into the discussion
of punishment. Truth-finding becomes more like a political
struggle than science as we know it.
Those of us who think these ideas are bizarre, whether coming
from Michael or whomever, better get some better answers ready
for our students. We're likely to face these arguments more and
more in the future.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
