Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Read ” Women’s Way of Knowing” by Mary Belenky, etc. Write a critical response t
Read ” Women’s Way of Knowing” by Mary Belenky, etc. Write a critical response to her article (250 words). Analyze the main points she covered, the problem she is trying to solve, explain the purpose she is trying to achieve; describe the audience she addressed.
Answer the following question: Where on Belenky’s series of levels would you put yourself?
Use MLA Format, Text Entry only. Submit by 11:59 p.m. 02.28.2024.
Additional information: Mary Belenky about women and children:
Link (Links to an external site.)
You can find more information in the book (Available in amazon.com):
“Women’s Way Of Knowing” by Mary Belenky.
This information can help you understand Women’s Worldview.
Recognize the potential need on the part of some women to reject their past.
Recognize the role of sexual harassment, abuse, and violence in many women’s lives and its subsequent influence on cognitive development.
Recognize the potential disconnection from authority experienced by some women.
Nurture voices of both separate and connected knowing and the integration of the two.
Women’s development theory refers to the seminal work of Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule, published under the title “Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind” (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule 1986). This work describes the process of cognitive development (Links to an external site.) in women as five knowledge positions (or perspectives) through which women view themselves and their relationship to knowledge.
The study and writing of “Women’s Ways of Knowing” was a shared process of authorship, which the authors describe in the 1997 10th anniversary addition of the book.
(Links to an external site.)
Women’s ways of knowing
Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule examined the epistemology (Links to an external site.), or “ways of knowing”, of a diverse group of women, with a focus on identity and intellectual development across a broad range of contexts including but not limited to the formal educational system. While conceptually grounded originally in the work of William G. Perry (Links to an external site.) in cognitive (or intellectual) development and Carol Gilligan (Links to an external site.) in moral/personal development in women, the Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule discovered that existing developmental theories at the time did not address some issues and experiences that were common and significant in the lives and cognitive development of women.[4] (Links to an external site.) While the developmental positions described in “Women’s Ways of Knowing” overlap to a large degree with Perry’s cognitive developmental scheme, the authors describe additional knowledge perspectives not observed in Perry’s study and report gender-related influences on cognitive development in women.
The 135 women who participated in Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule’s study ranged from age 16 to over 60, came from rural and urban populations, and varied in socioeconomic class, ethnicity and educational history. (Links to an external site.) As such, they represented a more diverse group than was included in Perry’s 1970 study of male students at Harvard (Links to an external site.). The authors illustrated how the epistemological assumptions of the participating women were intimately linked to their perceptions of themselves and their relationship to their world.[1] (Links to an external site.) Each of the five “ways of knowing”, or knowledge perspectives, represents a different point in the women’s cognitive development, dependent on conceptions of self (self), relationship with others (voice) and understanding of the origins and identity of authority (Links to an external site.), truth (Links to an external site.) and knowledge (Links to an external site.) (mind). (Links to an external site (Links to an external site.)
Ways of Knowing
Silence
Silence is the name given to the first epistemological position, and describes women who felt disconnected from knowledge, the sources of knowledge and their relationship to knowledge.[6] (Links to an external site.)[4] (Links to an external site.)[1] (Links to an external site.) This knowledge perspective, while relatively rare in the women studied and not a necessary precursor to other positions, was absent in Perry’s scheme (1970) and not represented in other cognitive developmental theories of the time.[6] (Links to an external site.)
Women describing this position were notable for their extreme sense of isolation (Links to an external site.) and fear of authorities, their fragile sense of self (Links to an external site.), and feelings of being “deaf and dumb”, i.e., having no independent voice. Women in this knowledge position were often young, of limited education, and socioeconomically poor, and very often had experienced a history of abuse (Links to an external site.).[7] (Links to an external site.) These women viewed themselves as being incapable of knowing or thinking, appeared to conduct little or no internal dialogue and generally felt no sense of connection with others.[1] (Links to an external site.) Their “acts of knowing” involved only specific actions and behaviors occurring in the present.[4] (Links to an external site.) Notably, amongst these women, words were viewed as weapons used to inflict harm, to isolate and to diminish others.[1] (Links to an external site.) Authorities of knowledge were viewed as all-powerful and experiences with authority were overwhelmingly negative for these women.[1] (Links to an external site.)
Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule emphasize that women who are characterized by the position of silence were overwhelmingly raised “in profound isolation under the most demeaning circumstances” and that their feelings of being “deaf and dumb” originate in a profound lack of confidence in their own “meaning-making (Links to an external site.) and meaning-sharing abilities”, rather than a lack of intellectual endowment.[8] (Links to an external site.)
Received Knowledge: Listening to the voices of others
Received knowledge describes the epistemological position in which women in the study perceived knowledge as a set of absolute truths received from infallible authorities. The process of learning, as understood by received knowers, involves receiving and repeating the knowledge and words of authorities. In this sense words are no longer viewed as weapons, and are seen as critical to the learning process, but the origin and meaning of words and knowledge remain external.[4] (Links to an external site.)
Women characterizing this position lacked confidence in their own ability to speak and generally defined themselves externally, usually in relation to social norms (Links to an external site.), gender roles (Links to an external site.) and expectations of others, i.e., cultural ideals of women as set forth by external authorities.[1] (Links to an external site.) Received knowers tended to find disagreement, paradox or ambiguity intolerable since these violated the black-and-white absolutist nature of knowledge.[4] (Links to an external site.)
The authors note that in their study received knowers generally had little experience with female role models in authority positions and often emphasized selflessness and care of others as their primary role in life.[1] (Links to an external site.) However, Love and Guthrie emphasize Belenky et al.’s finding that the experience of giving birth provided an important stimulus in moving women from a position of silence to a position of received knowledge.[4] (Links to an external site.)
Subjective Knowledge: The inner voice
Subjective knowledge is characterized by the recognition of the self as an authority. Subjective knowers rely on their own subjective thoughts, feelings and experiences for knowledge and truth – the “infallible gut” as Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule refer to it.[1] (Links to an external site.)
Women with this perspective at some point experienced the development of a “protesting inner voice”,[4] (Links to an external site.) which allowed them to make their own claims to truth and knowledge. Along with the nascent discovery of the inner voice, subjective knowers showed a general distrust of analysis and logical reasoning and did not see value in considering the weight of evidence in evaluating knowledge.[4] (Links to an external site.) Instead, they considered knowledge and truth to be inherently personal and subjective, to be experienced rather than intellectualized.[1] (Links to an external site.) Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule state that subjective knowers often block out conflicting opinions of others, but may seek the support and affirmation of those in agreement.[1] (Links to an external site.) The authors note that half of the women in their study occupied this position, but that they were spread across the full range of ages.[1] (Links to an external site.)
Like women characterizing the first two positions, pervasive sexual harassment (Links to an external site.) and abuse was evident in the personal histories of subjective knowers, but unlike the first two positions, these women generally felt optimism and positivity towards the future.[1] (Links to an external site.) Love and Guthrie emphasize that the transition to subjective knowledge was most often driven by positive changes in the personal lives of women (a shift to equitable, mutually-respectful and supportive relationships and away from abusive relationships in particular), rather than experiences within the educational system.[4] (Links to an external site.)
Procedural Knowledge: Separate and connected knowing
Procedural knowledge reflects the recognition that multiple sources of knowledge exist, and that procedures are necessary for evaluating the relative merit of these sources.[1] (Links to an external site.) Procedural knowers focus on methods and techniques for evaluating the accuracy of external truth and the relative worth of authority. The transition to procedural knowledge was experienced by many women in the study as a regression or crisis of confidence initially, as the inner voice of subjective knowing became critical both of external authorities and internal subjective knowledge.[4] (Links to an external site.) However, what followed was the recognition that insights and information outside of personal experience could have bearing on knowledge. Procedural knowers sought to understand authorities, focusing on reasoned reflection rather than absolutism[4] (Links to an external site.) and the use of context-specific procedures to evaluate information that could be interpreted in multiple ways.[6] (Links to an external site.)
Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule describe two alternative modes of procedural knowledge: separate knowing and connected knowing. Separate knowers tend to be adversarial and focused on critical analysis that excludes personal feelings and beliefs. Academic environments often favored this form of procedural knowledge. Connected knowers on the other hand seek to understand others’ ideas and points of view (Links to an external site.), emphasizing the relevance of context in the development of knowledge and the fundamental value of experience.[1] (Links to an external site.)
Most procedural knowers in this study were economically privileged, Caucasian, young college students or graduates.[1] (Links to an external site.)
Constructed Knowledge: Integrating the voices
Constructed knowledge as a position is characterized by a recognition of the interrelatedness of knowledge, knowing and the knower.[4] (Links to an external site.) Women with this perspective considered all knowledge as constructed, and understood that knowledge is inherently mutable, subject to time, experience, and context; they saw knowledge as “a constant process of construction, deconstruction and reconstruction”.[4] (Links to an external site.)
Women in this position generally came to it after intense self-reflection.[1] (Links to an external site.) They were able to engage in what Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule refer to as real talk: the ability to listen, share and cooperate while maintaining one’s own voice undiminished.[1] (Links to an external site.) The position of constructed knowledge often involves enormous “empathetic potential”: a capacity to feel connected with another person despite potentially enormous differences. Many women in this position nonetheless experience loneliness and discouragement, largely due to difficulty in finding companionable and supportive partners.
(Links to an external site.)
The Five Stages of Knowing
Silence: total dependence on whims of external authority
Received Knowledge: receive and reproduce knowledge
Subjective Knowledge: truth and knowledge are conceived of as personal, private, and intuited
Procedural Knowledge: rely on objective procedures for obtaining and communicating knowledge
Constructed Knowledge: view all knowledge as contextual; value subjective and objective strategies
What is Meant by Silence?
Words viewed as weapons–worried about being punished for using words
Ways of knowing available limited to the present, the actual, the concrete, the specific and to actual behaviors–life see in polarities
Blind obedience to authorities of utmost importance for keeping out of trouble
Speaking of self was almost impossible
Women often talked about voice and silence in describing their lives
The development of a sense of voice, mind, and self were connected
Received Knowledge
Feel confused and incapable when required to do original work
Paradox is inconceivable–intolerant of ambiguity
The longer you work, the higher the grade
Worry that developing their own powers would be at the expense of others
Look to others for self-knowledge–unable to see themselves as growing.
Think of words as central to the knowing process–learn by listening
Concrete and dualistic thinking
Little confidence in their own voice–trust that their friends share exactly the same thoughts and experiences–apt to think of authorities, not friends, as sources of truth because of their statues
Equate receiving, retaining, and returning the words of authorities with learning
Subjective Knowledge
Distrust logic, analysis, abstraction, and even language itself–some see these methods belonging to men
Lack of grounding in a secure, integrated, and enduring self-concept
Fear that using combative measures in support of her opinion may jeopardize connections with others
“…Not at all the masculine assertion that ‘I have a right to my opinion’; rather, it is the modest, inoffensive statement, ‘It’s just my opinion.'”
A sense of voice arises
Truth is an intuitive reaction, experienced not thought out.
Still the conviction that there are right answers; the source of truth shifted locale–truth comes from within the person and can negate external answers–women become their own authorities
First hand experience is a valuable source of knowledge–The predominant learning mode is inward listening and watching
Procedural Knowledge
The orientation toward impersonal rules is separate knowing–“impersonal procedures for establishing truth”
Relationship orientation has to do with connected knowing–truth emerges through care
Thinking is encapsulated within systems–“can criticize a system, but only in the system’s terms, only according to the system’s standards. Women at this position may be liberal or conservatives, but they cannot be ‘radicals.'”
Knowing requires careful observation and analysis–simple becomes problematic
At first this does not feel like progress–confidence wanes–the inner voice becomes critical
“The notion of ‘ways of looking’ is central to the procedural knowledge position”–knowledge is a process.
Procedural Knowledge has elements of separate knowing and connected knowing
Connected Knowing (procedural):
· Based in capacity for empathy
· Hope to understand another person’s ideas by trying to share the experience that has led to the forming of the idea–begin with an attitude of trust
· Dialogue is more like a clinical interview–“If one can discover the experiential logic behind these ideas, the ideas become less strange and the owners of the ideas cease to be strangers.”
Separate Knowing (procedural):
· Opposite of subjectivism: “While subjectivists assume that everyone is right, separate knowers that everyone–including themselves–may be wrong.”
· Realize that relationships are not on the line–enables defense against authorities–experts only as good as their arguments.
· Separation from feelings and emotions of self in the cause of objectivity
Constructed Knowledge
Integration
Develop a narrative sense of self
High tolerance for internal contradiction and ambiguity
Do not want to compartmentalize reality
Constructed Knowledge
“Once knower assumes the general relativity of knowledge, that their frame of reference matters and that they can construct and reconstruct frames of reference, they feel responsible for examining, questioning, and developing the systems that they will use for constructing knowledge.”
Opening of the mind and the heart to embrace the world–establish a communion with what they are trying to Understand.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount