{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1","title":"技术批判理论","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"7301082207","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1","id":"e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1","uuid":"e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1","title":"技术批判理论","normalized_title":"技术批判理论","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"7301082207","isbns":["7301082207"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":306,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E6%89%B9%E5%88%A4%E7%90%86%E8%AE%BA","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/e47e5c4c-5343-4dfa-8855-9d5325d10ec1/search"},"page":{"printed_page":215,"pdf_page":234,"physical_index":234,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"b4ec952cf4911c69c2189481646912cc9c4fca46135ab2603430ce7eec9cab91"},"chapter":"第七章 技术批判理论","content":"女权主义立场的认识论将一种独特的女权主义的科学建立在带有性别的活动和社会经验的理论中。她们自发地在认识论上给予妇女或女权主义者以特权(解释是多样的)，同时也宣称要克服作为启蒙运动/资产阶级世界观及其科学的特点的二分。就像诉诸于女权主义的经验主义一样，将这种立场的认识论当作“后继科学”的规划是很有用处的：这些后继科学的规划以非常重要的方式，试图重新建构现代科学的最初目标。(Harding，1986:142)\n\n马尔库塞对现代科学—技术思维的压制含意的批判也在一种后继科学的规划中达到了顶点。他拒斥了科学自命的价值中立，为了承认自然内部和外部的受到压制的方面，他赞成科学“变成政治”的说法(Marcuse，1964:233-234)。与此类似，哈丁将一种女权主义的解释概括为要求“一种认识论，这种认识论认为诉诸于主观性是合法的，认为理智和情感这两个领域必须统一起来，认为必须用整体论和复杂性的协调来代替还原论和线性思维的统治”(Harding,1986:144)。\n\n一种替代的科学的观点在一种更基础的层次上与一种替代的技术的类似想法相并行。如果事实和理论像机器一样是社会建构的，它们怎么会是清白的和中性的呢？一旦社会批判表明了这些被认为是自主的领域是如何深深地打上政治的烙印们就会被当作在一种新的霸权情境中可以重新建构的两重性制度来对待(Marcuse,1964:233-234)。\n\n169\n\n性：后殖民主义、女权主义和认识论》等。\n\n第七章技术批判理论\n\n215","previous_page":214,"next_page":null}