There are numerous links between social constructionism and feminism. Feminists have recognized that traditional, modernist approaches to science have rendered women invisible in significant ways. This invisibility of women in science has discouraged women from being knowers (i. e., scientists in search of knowledge), restricting them to being objects of knowledge (Henwood & Pidgeon, 1995). “The feminine body functions as the imaginary site where meaning (or life) is generated; yet, in this scheme, women can never be meaning makers in their own right” (Jacobus, Keller, & Shuttleworth, 1990, p. 7). Feminists have responded to these epistemological concerns in three fundamentally different ways: feminist empiricism, standpoint epistemology, and feminist postmodernism (Harding, 1986; Riger, 1992). Each is described below. A major distinction between each rests on the primary research methods advocated. However, all argue that knowledge generated by traditional modernist methods is seriously flawed, operates to disadvantage women, and reproduces basic inequalities. These problems are elucidated in the area of sexuality in later chapters.
Feminist empiricists endorse using the scientific method toward the feminist goal of achieving greater equality for women. They contend that androcentric biases can be eliminated in traditional scientific methods. Feminist empiricism advocates for nonsexist research as a starting point, while recognizing that all science is value laden (McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986). In addition, this approach suggests that the research endeavor should include an examination of one’s own subjectivity or biases. Feminist empiricists argue that despite postmodern critiques, quantitative data serve useful functions in knowledge construction (Unger, 1995; Weis — stein, 1993). Experimental methods are powerful tools that should be used. Science has the potential to address feminist as well as patriarchal concerns (Unger, 1995; Weisstein, 1993). Rhoda Unger (1995) argues that feminist empiricism is necessary for social change within psychology and society at large. She argues for researchers to transcend the empiricist feminist dilemma of how to be a social constructionist and still use data. Feminists must be comfortable with contradictions between theory and social activism. These contradictions should not stop us from using a tool that is valued and respected by our society. The feminist empiricism called for by Unger is one informed by social constructionism, is reflexive and skeptical, but dares to have values and fight for a social agenda. Chapter 2 in this volume on biological models and the meta-analysis of gender differences in sexuality presented in chapter 3 reflect feminist empiricist approaches.
In contrast, feminist standpoint epistemologies argue that all research reflects the researcher’s perspective. Therefore, oppressed people have the potential to better see their own and their oppressors’ position than do other groups of people (Nielsen, 1990). Minorities who live in both their own culture as well as in the larger White community are sometimes said to be bilingual or to possess a double consciousness. It is this ability to understand two cultures or to be the outsider within that offers unique insights for science (Collins, 1986). Standpoint theorists argue that researchers and participants from oppressed groups offer a valuable perspective, and in this volume both chapter 6, which focuses on ethnocultural experience, and chapter 11, which focuses on heterosexism, reflect elements of cultural standpoint feminism. It is now accepted that ethnic cultural diversity is a fundamental component of any feminist approach (Lan — drine, 1995). Standpoint theorists rely extensively on interviews, narratives, or other methods that allow people to describe their experiences and points of view (Riger, 1992). Inherent in feminist standpoint theories is a belief in objective reality (Nielsen, 1990). Some people are more oppressed than others. Some people through their oppressed position can see the true state of affairs more clearly than others. Thus, standpoint theory differs from social constructionism by asserting that there is an objective reality. It relies primarily on atheoretical subjective experience as the basis of knowledge.
Feminist postmodernism, in contrast to feminist empiricism and standpoint epistemology, allows for the heterogeneity of voices, multiple per
spectives, and multiple methods. Postmodern feminists question the nature of reality and objectivity in research. They argue that attention to power relations and the political implications of research are essential (Riger, 1992). Thus, postmodernist feminist analyses tend to be distinguished by attention to the personal, social, and political context (see chapter 9, this volume, on humor and chapter 10, this volume, on body politics). Some researchers suggest using traditional methodologies while recognizing that the results will be just one of many competing truths (Gergen, 1985). These researchers have used traditional Q-sort methodologies (Kitzinger,
1987) , story completion tasks (Kitzinger, 1995), and surveys (Unger, Draper, & Pendergrass, 1986), as well as discourse analysis (Crawford, 1995; Gavey, 1989; Potter & Wetherell, 1987), interviews, and emancipatory research (Lather, 1986). In short, how methods are used, not the type of method, guides classification of research. Indeed, empirical methods are forms of discourse. Social constructionist practices can include any type of method, as long as one does not claim to have discovered a singular truth.
Language and the power of language have been aspects of the sociopolitical context that have received considerable attention by postmodern feminists. Traditional language and usual categories are derived from the experience of the dominant group and therefore simply are not adequate to bring forward women’s experience. Linguistic arrangements also reflect social architecture. Language and convention limit what can be said and how it can be said. Postmodern feminists recognize that modem science reflects a worldview based on dualities, such as rational—irrational, logical — intuitive, objective-subjective, public-private. Susan Heckwood (1990) has argued that these dualities are really variations of one underlying duality: masculinity-femininity, the first side being associated with men, the second with women. She suggests that this formulation privileges men over women. She concludes that the denigration of women is integral to the entire system of modem science. Language thus often marks that which is out of place, as indicated by woman doctor or female executive (Unger,
1988) . Language also can function to keep certain things hidden. For example, linguistic reference to sexual harassment did not come into regular use until approximately 1982, although the behavior certainly flourished prior to that time (see chapter 13, this volume). Mary Crawford illustrates these points with respect to humor and sexuality in chapter 9. In chapter 11, Laura Brown discusses language as a mechanism of constructing the social and points out that one hidden assumption in traditional theory is the assumption of heterosexuality.
Along with focusing on language, postmodern feminists have used deconstruction as a way to illuminate androcentric biases. For example, a deconstruction of the use of terms for sexual dysfunction in men and women, impotence and frigidity, respectively, reveals that both terms are from a man’s perspective. The legal definition of consent in rape trials typically also comes from a man’s perspective, as discussed by Patricia Donat and Jacquelyn White in chapter 14, this volume.
Not surprisingly, each of these feminist epistemologies has been subject to criticism by the others. For example, feminist standpoint views argue that women’s subjective experiences cannot be understood in the context of laboratory studies and numbers. Conversely, standpoint epistemology has been criticized for its atheoretical approach: “Some (all?) narratives (yes, even women’s) are so saturated with denial, gaps, and invisible privilege, that their stories dare not stand alone without benefit of theory” (Fine & Bertram, 1995, p. 464).
Although each of the feminist approaches has limitations, each approach has contributed to scholarship and activism. Feminist postmodernism is clearly aligned with social constructionism and offers new perspectives on sexuality. In the next segment of this chapter we review how traditional science historically functioned as a tool to construct sexuality. This is followed by a brief presentation of several examples that challenge traditional views. As a means of reconciling these examples, we show how social constructionism can be used to deconstruct the traditional view of sexuality and offer alternative constructions. We conclude with recommendations for feminists who want to use social constructionism to transform knowledge and promote social change to enhance the lives of women.