I want you to find at least three things in "Situated Knowledges" that either reference, build on, critique, or otherwise apply something or someone we've talked about in class. But don't just quote them -- explain them. What/who is she referencing? What does she mean by this? Translate her prose into your own words. And if you have an opinion, by all means, state it.

Haraway's begins her criticism of activist feminist inquiry by pointing out that much of it revolves around the idea of an imagined "they," the "maculinist scientists," and an imagined "we," the "embodied others, who are not allowed not to have a body." I agree with her completely, that when you get down to it, whether you're studying sexism, racism, or homophobia, there are very few "bad guys" to which it makes sense to refer to as "them." I think, for the most part, it's "us."

This reminds me of Foucault's idea that we are not individuals whom power acts upon, but rather we are the vessels of power. Bringing a more systemic view to feminist theory that sees sexism as an interaction between people, rather than as the evil acts of powerful men, will allow the movement to reach far more people than the man-hating technique.

Haraway also criticizes those who believe that "science is a contestable text and a power field."' She doesn't necessarily refute that statement, but she doesn't think it's a good way to think about science: "So much for those of us who would still like to talk about reality..." Then she talks about the difficulty of fighting for legitimacy and trying to stay organized while also rejecting many principles of science.

This idea seems to have stemmed from Foucault's "power/knowledge," the word he invented to describe both power and knowledge, which he saw as inseparable. It sounds like Haraway agrees with that, for the most part, but she's also saying that it doesn't mean a lot of science is still good science that should be learned--even by feminists.

Haraway writes, "There is no way to 'be' simultaneously in all, or wholly in any, of the privileged (i.e., subjugated) positions structured by gender, race, nation,
and class." This idea is in keeping with many psychoanalytic theories, especially those of Freud's. Many of our gender, class, and even race performances in social situations mirror the inner plays we put on in our minds. Freud believed that we mature to sexuality by identifying with others, our parents in particular, and then internalizing those modes and eventually settling on a way of being. Although this model only works rarely when it's being used to understand sexual maturity, one of Freud's greatest contributions to psychology was the idea that we don't just have one personality, but rather a constellation of internalized characters that consult each other, ignore each other, and occasionally even fight each other.

So, if we apply that to the idea of subject and object, straight and gay, black and white, and oppressor and oppressed, we can see that in some situations we are straight, others we are gay, and in others we are neither, since the words only have meaning in relation to each other. In some situations we are oppressed, in others we are oppressive, and in others we are neither. I believe that it would be beneficial to the field of gender studies, and probably most other fields, too, for people to learn that no one is oppressed all the time, and no one is oppressive all the time.

When I was sixteen, the dean of my high school, a black woman, shouted into my face, "You don't know anything about racism because you're white!" I was then suspended for a week. Because she is a black woman, she sees herself as continually oppressed, even when she's shouting at and punishing a white teenager whom she would be treating quite differently if he were black.