Género e interdisciplinariedad: el rol constitutivo del género en la generación del conocimiento.
Resumen
El texto que se presenta da cuenta de algunos elementos básicos en torno al papel constitutivo del género en la generación del conocimiento en las distintas disciplinas. Con el objeto de establecer los conceptos fundantes para abordar la tesis de que la generación de conocimiento se cualifica si se incorpora la perspectiva de género se partirá de una presentación introductoria de algunas definiciones con el fin de sentar las bases de la discusión. En un segundo momento se abordará la importancia del género y de cómo el género puede transformar las diferentes disciplinas y finalmente, a manera de conclusión, se abordará la relación género e interdisciplinariedad.Referencias bibliográficas
Acker, J. (1992). From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565. doi:10.2307/2075528
Anzaldúa, G. (2012). Borderlands: the new Mestiza = La frontera. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Bug, A. (2003). Has Feminism Changed Physics? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 881–899. doi:10.1086/345323
Code, L. (1991). What Can She Know?: Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Cornell University Press.
Code, L. (2006). Ecological Thinking: The Politics of Epistemic Location. Oxford University Press.
Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought. Social Problems, 33(6), S14–S32. doi:10.2307/800672
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, (140), pp.139–167.
Davis, A. Y. (2004). Mujeres, raza y clase. Ediciones AKAL.
Durlach, David. (n.d.). Introduction to Feminist Engineering. Technofrolics. Recuperado de http://www.technofrolics.com/about/writings/feminist-engineering/
Farmer, P. (2001). Infections and inequalities: the modern plagues. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: how our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fraser, N. (1997). Iustitia interrupta: reflexiones críticas desde la posición “postsocialista.” Siglo del Hombre Editores.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Harvard University Press.
Gowaty, P. A. (2003). Sexual Natures: How Feminism Changed Evolutionary Biology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 901–921. doi:10.1086/345324
Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: feminist and postcolonial issues. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Harding, S. G. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Harding, S. G. (1998). Is science multicultural? postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.
Hartsock, Nancy. (1983). “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.” In S. G. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 283–310). Dordrecht, Holland; Boston; Hingham, MA: D. Reidel ; Sold and distributed in the USA and Canada by Kluwer Boston.
Haslanger, S. (2008). Changing the Ideology and Culture of Philosophy: Not by Reason (Alone). Hypatia, 23(2), 210–223. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2008.tb01195.x
Haslanger, S., & University of Arkansas Press. (1995). Ontology and Social Construction: Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 95–125. doi:10.5840/philtopics19952324
Haslanger, Sally. (1993). “On Being Objective and Being Objectified.” In L. M. Antony & C. Witt (Eds.), A Mind of one’s own: feminist essays on reason and objectivity (pp. 209–253). Boulder: Westview Press.
Held, V. (1993). Feminist morality: transforming culture, society, and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: personal, political, and global. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Hennessy, R. (1993). Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse. Routledge, Chapman & Hall, Incorporated.
Hennessy, R. (2000). Profit and pleasure sexual identities in late capitalism. New York: Routledge.
Hennessy, R. (2003). Class. In M. Eagleton (Ed.), A concise companion to feminist theory (pp. 53–72). Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hull, Gloria T., Scott, Patricia B., & Smith, Barbara (Eds.). (1982). All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women’s Studies. New York: CUNY Feminist Press.
Kittay, E. F. (1999). Love’s labor: essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge.
Kittay, E. F., & Feder, E. K. (2002). The Subject of Care: Feminist Perspectives on Dependency. Rowman & Littlefield.
Jaramillo, Isabel. (2000). Estudio Preliminar, En: West, Robin, Género y Teoría del Derecho, Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes.
Lombrozo, T. (n.d.). Name Five Women In Philosophy. Bet You Can’t. NPR.org. Recuperado de http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/06/17/192523112/name-ten-women-in-philosophy-bet-you-can-t
Longino, H. E. (1987). Can There Be A Feminist Science? Hypatia, 2(3), 51–64. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1987.tb01341.x
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Martin, Emily. (1996). “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism and science (pp. 103–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (1983). This bridge called my back: writings by radical women of color. New York: Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press.
Mosedale, K. (n.d.). Physics is a feminist issue » The Institute of Physics blog. Recuperado de http://www.iopblog.org/physics-is-a-feminist-issue/
Okin, S. M. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.
Riley, D. (2003). “Am I that name?”: feminism and the category of “women” in history. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ruddick, S. (1995). Maternal thinking: toward a politics of peace ; with a new preface. Boston: Beacon Press.
Schiebinger, L. (2003). Women’s health and clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 112(7), 973–977. doi:10.1172/JCI200319993
Scott, J. (1998). “El género, una categoría para el análisis histórico.” In M. Navarro & C. R. Stimpson (Eds.), Qué son los estudios de mujeres? Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Scott, Joan W. (1991). The Evidence of Experience. Critical Inquiry, 17(4), 773–797.
Scott, Joan Wallach. (1996). Feminism and history. Oxford University Press.
Tuana, N. (2008). Viscous Porosity: Witnessing Katrina. In S. Alaimo & S. J. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 188–213). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Wilson, E. A. (1998). Neural geographies: feminism and the microstructure of cognition. New York: Routledge.
Wilson, E. A. (2004a). Gut Feminism. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 15(3), 66–94.
Wilson, E. A. (2004b). Psychosomatic: feminism and the neurological body. Durham: Duke University Press.
Women in Philosophy? Do the Math. (n.d.). Opinionator. Recuperado de http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/women-in-philosophy-do-the-math/
Descargas
