Hard Reading

I am still trying to work out for myself why I want to use textile stitch and print to express myself.  I found a very interesting article in a book of essays Objects and Meaning edited by Fariello & Owen.      The essay Feminism, Crafts & Knowledge by Michele Hardy made a lot of sense.

This discussed how different types of knowledge are valued.  First wave feminism had the realisation that women were treated differently to men and that women wanted to be treated equally.  Then second wave feminism challenged patriarchy and the hegemony of the dominant discourse.  We are now in 3rd wave feminism which tries to dismantle the modes of exclusion and recognise subjective possessors of knowledge.    These definitions are fluid and may change as my understanding evolves.

Scientific methods of measuring knowledge indicate that objectivity, 'pure' reason and empiricism are privileged as the means of understanding.  This unclouded by bias or emotion.  However this means the scientist is autonomous but alienated and privileges theory over experience, quantitative over qualitative, detachment over responsibility.  Loraine Code, in 'What She Knows' states feminists question this, because it excludes women and 'traditional' skills from who counts as knowers and what counts as known.  Women's repeated experience is not given authoritative epistemic validity, but is belittled by calling it 'old wives tales', 'gossip' or 'witchcraft'.  This is gender politics at work in patriarchal societies.  Women's knowledge is subjugated and trivialised by those in power on the grounds of ideal objectivity.  Knowledge gained by experience of sensory objects in formed by the subjectivity of its knowers, ie women.

Many knowers are unrecognised and devalued by science and philosophies modelled on science.  In my opinion this attitude to knowledge was formed in Victorian times when reading was compulsorily taught in schools, and those who could read and write well were more valued than those who did not.  It would be natural for the teacher/person in authority to favour those who were 'like me' because they could demonstrate academic ability.  The abilities of those who did manual work (eg any form of service or apprenticeship) were less valued than those who did mental work.

Dualist concepts seem to state one is better than the other, or is more credible - female/male; nature/culture; subjective/objective.  My experience of people justifying their actions in the workplace, often comes down to a claim of a particular view being right (due to objectivity!), when in reality there is a lot of justification for a one side of an argument, and the other side being totally ignored (which is what I think is subjectivity).

Modern craft feminism is not about patriarchal scapegoats or victimhood - it acknowledges grey areas between poles.  It creates areas for discussion - to explore, re-evaluate personal experience and is subjective in the construction of knowledge.  We need to use both emotion and intellect to create and sustain knowledge, rather than seeing them as opposites.

Typically, feminism shows value in epistemic, moral and economic terms, when contrasted to objective, scientific models.  There is potential for multiple possibilities - intuitive, experiential and aesthetic ways of knowing.  There are many right answers - we just need to be able to see them.

I need to go back to the essay and look at what it said about use of feminine crafts.  I only noted what it said about feminism and thought, not the practical application to craft!