Feminists have drawn attention to, and rightly criticized, the tendency of dominant groups unthinkingly to universalize their own values and practices. In so doing, however, many feminists have appeared inclined to criticize almost any practice of generalizing, a development that has proven problematic for feminist epistemological and emancipatory projects. Such considerations invite a questioning of how, if at all, the general and the particular are, or might legitimately be, combined in any context. The argument here is that addressing this sort of question can benefit from a more explicit attention to ontology than is to be found in much of the feminist literature. Illustrations of how ontology can make a difference are developed.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Article provided by Taylor and Francis Journals in its journal Feminist Economics.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)