Women's Ways Of Knowing: The Development Of Self, Voice, and Mind 10th Anniversary Edition [Paperback]

Perhaps one criticism I would hold is that, while this work looks at women's experience, it still seems to remain very Euro-centric. I am reminded of the arguments of black women against feminist theological processes, which led to the development of womanist theological discourse.

Recently I received an email from a friend with a link to an on-line quiz, which was attempting in a Turing-machine sort of way to be able to determine one's gender from the answers given to a set of questions. As I was taking the test, I thought about it in the context of women's ways of knowing and learning, and realised that this test was very objective, non-connected, largely non-feeling, and very masculine in approach. Certainly this test did not have the kind of objectivity called for in the text. 'Objectivity in connected teaching, as in connected knowing, means seeing the other, the student, in the student's own terms.' (p. 224) This test was seeing everyone in terms of a standard model, a model derived from male-dominant considerations.

For the sake of liturgy and learning, which is my particular field of study, and the purpose behind reading this book, the kinds of issues raised here are important. The authors begin with the idea of silence. This is not a silence like monastic silence or the silence between prayers, hymns and readings, but rather a silence of voices from the shaping and practice of the community. Too often liturgy is viewed, by laity and clergy, as something handed to them from 'authority' with little or no room for adaptation or adjustment to context. When liturgical practice becomes this rigid or this 'unlistening', it can cease to have any many or validity for the community of worshippers.

The authors also develop ideas of received, subjective and procedural knowledge, all of which can be used in liturgical practice. There can be, particularly in my prayer-book-heavy tradition, a tendency to emphasise received knowledge and some aspects of procedural knowledge, while confining other types of knowledge to secondary or tertiary roles in the liturgy. Dialogue sermons and opening up the participation to others can enhance the service, broadening it to other forms of learning styles.

Applying the principles of connected teaching to liturgy can have important results. 'Connected teachers try to discern the truth inside the students.' (p. 223) Perhaps this same kind of constructed style of shaping the liturgy to be more inclusive, more sensitive to the voices of the members of the community while still paying respect to the overall shape and intention of the community, can lead to greater connectivity of the community amongst itself, and of the community members to the experience of the liturgy.

Overall, this book can yield insights into many types of practices, learning, and knowledge. While it does not constitute the final word on intelligence by any means, it is a valuable conversation partner.

The small size of the sample of women interviewed may be looked upon by some as a weak point of the study, but there are some strong motives behind this conscious choice the authors made. Belenky and her colleagues wished to get to know each woman personally, and to conduct a full, comprehensive interview with each one so that they could provide examples to accompany their theories, rather than simply quizzing an overwhelmingly large study group and giving their supporting evidence only in the form of numbers and statistics.

The authors have identified five different "ways of knowing" that women utilize. The first one addressed is give the name of silence. By "silence" the authors do not mean an absence of speech, but rather a state of being intellectually voiceless. They do not see themselves as beings capable of receiving or retaining knowledge, and are therefore subject to the control of those around them.

The second way of knowing discussed is termed "received knowledge." Received knowers believe themselves able to learn from others, and even to pass on what they have learned, but they do not see themselves as capable of independent, original thought. The authors identify both silent women and received knowers as dualists. They see things in terms of black and white, right and wrong, and one of the two is always seen as superior to the other.

"Subjective knowers" do realize that they have the ability to formulate knowledge for themselves, and rely on a strong inner voice with which they develop their thoughts. They believe all knowledge to be subjective, and every person's opinion to be equally valid, though applicable only to that person. In this sense, subjective knowers are multiplists rather than dualists. They recognize that there are shades of grey and that one answer to a problem may not be better than another.

"Procedural knowers," which might also be called objective knowers, base their development of knowledge solely on objective, scientific procedures. They distrust as fallible any sort of "gut instinct" that the subjective knowers realy so heavily on. Procedural knowers are also multiplists, however, in that they recognize that there may be more than one "right" answer in a particular situation. This way of knowing is identified as more masculine, and that which tends to be advocated in traditional educational institutions.

The last way of knowing is referred to as "constructed knowing." These women see all knowledge as contextual, and rely on both subjective and objective methods to arrive at "truth."

I would like to point out that, while one can get the impression from the text that these five ways of knowing are a sequence that one progresses through in the order they are discussed, this is not always the case. Any given woman may shift between any particular ways of knowing in any order, and over any period of time, and they may not ever experience every single one of them. In fact, I would venture to say that most women do not experience each one. A woman may also fall between two different ways of knowing, or may, at any given point in her life, utilize one way of knowing in one aspect of her life, and a different one in another. For example, a woman may be silent in her home environment, but act procedurally in her workplace.

Belenky and her co-authors go on to look at how these ways of knowing appear within family structures, and what the consequences of each on both parents and children are. They conclude by evaluating modern academic institutions and proposing a method of education that would be more suited to women.

The authors do not compare and contrast male and female ways of knowing in this study - male ways of knowing really aren't looked at at all, except to point out the influence traditional male thought has had on women. Neither do the authors hold one or the other up as being superior. They simply recognize that men and women tend to approach knowledge differently, and that ways of knowing that work for men may not work for women. This is certainly not any sort of final word in female psychology, any even the authors make note of the fact that others may interpret the results of their study differently, but it is a very worthwhile and thought-provoking read and I would highly recommend it.