Essay Example about Lorraine Code and Epistemic Responsibility

Lorraine Code is a Canadian feminist who changed the view of epistemology, clearly and willingly contrasting with early philosophers, such as Descartes, Pierce, and Socrates. Code proves to have a main focus on the politics of knowledge alongside feminist epistemology. In Code’s eyes, knowledge is understanding an object in its many relationships understood from various standpoints. Consequently, she hopes for people to recognize the consequences of their actions with humility, stay open-minded to other standpoints, and appreciate the connections between understanding and comprehending how things work so knowledge can be applied to different circumstances. While this viewpoint agreeably encompasses most parts of epistemology, it also manages to differentiate greatly from the rest of history’s philosopher's main points and views on epistemology and the issue of the definition of knowledge, leaving very little room for debate on this definition.

Provided that Code’s viewpoint, in contrast to Descartes, Pierce, and Socrates, is very obviously a stance that encompasses much of what these philosophers had studied and concluded in their time. For instance, Descartes found that epistemology and the definition of knowledge is that knowledge is valid inferences drawn from necessarily true foundations. In contrast, Pierce states that knowledge is true belief that stands up to our scientific tests and experiments, and Socrates, the original ideals for knowledge, states that Knowledge is true perception backed with reason. Therefore, viewing all of the different definitions, it is blatantly obvious how the progression of using the previous philosopher’s theories and ideas has shaped the next generation’s definition of knowledge in this case. In any case, this background proves to be important, as Code’s final definition of knowledge and epistemology is created by recognizing the faults in not one but all of Descartes, Pierce, and Socrates' conclusions. Moreover, Code takes Socrates and Descartes's words and changes them to become more in-depth; while neither philosopher is wrong, they lack detail. Additionally, Code recognizes their lacking words and builds upon perception, reasoning, inferences, and foundations to then use Pierce's ideals with the scientific method to relate it to not only an ecological standpoint but apply the definition to any object in the world. Specifically,  the most notable contrast of Code to any of these past philosophers would be her use of the actual practice of knowers to provide a good definition of epistemology, staying similar, on the other hand, to most other feminist epistemologists.

Henceforth, Lorraine Code uses ecology as her biggest talking point throughout her dissertation on epistemology, and it is possible to see how this argument stands strong. Again, like other feminist epistemologists, Code avoids the process previous epistemologists had in which many systematic biases were prevalent throughout their definitions of knowledge. Namely, Ecology being the study of how organisms have developed relationships to one another in a habitat or place was a perfect example of how the cause and effect relationship takes place in not only ecology but in every aspect of life in regards to knowledge. Nonetheless, Code does make it clear she does not support the epistemology of mastery, as she states, “it situates the negotiations a renewing epistemology requires and refuses the unimaginative, dislocated levelings‐off that the epistemologies of mastery have too often performed. Because its effectiveness requires responsible intermappings” (p.36). Now, moving on to her process to find the definition of knowledge, she speaks on the morals of getting rid of invasive species. Provided that, while they are harmful to the environment, she evaluates how government officials will not fully evaluate the situation before using harsh, environment-ruining chemicals to eradicate the invasive species. She moves into the conversation of ‘ecological naturalism’; controlling ‘pests’ with herbicides and pesticides (pg. 39), Code uses Carson’s words in which intellectual moral humility is brought up as the main topic towards the lack of knowledge of those in power. 

Moreover, Code also mentions risk assessment approaches to environmental decision making (pg. 39), and the language of perspectives is thoroughly encouraged to take into consideration when on the topic of knowledge. Expressly, she believes that and so do many others, it is better to face the humility of an action taken, rather than to stay arrogant and stubborn towards the outcomes of one’s decisions (p. 40). For instance, hard ecology versus soft ecology is also a main topic of discussion, as the two relate heavily to the prior topics. Hard ecology’s theories are undeterminable, while soft ecology remains untestable; while the goal here is to not discredit or disqualify the science of ecology and the importance of the study, Code acknowledges how some topics are much more fragile than others, which is a very debatable topic to be mentioned. Correspondingly, the questioning of legitimacy is a heavy subject derived from rhetorical stances, and cannot be simplified as it is in Code’s work. Similarly, another important mention is how Code describes that once the public is involved, the work will become much more difficult for those in higher positions, and the viewpoint is vertical. At the same time she states how her goal isn’t to create an alternative epistemology but to recognize how powerful ecological thinking can be. (p. 47)

Whilst Code’s writing and theories are immensely agreeable, her statements in important passages seem to be easily questioned. She defines knowledge as understanding an object in its many relationships understood from various standpoints, but it seems to be that, while encompassing much of epistemology, the definition does not fully explain the scope of knowledge. Above all, the main principle that seemed to go unmentioned is how knowledge is not only everything mentioned by Code but also replication and repetition over time. To enumerate, Code’s interpretation of knowledge includes how fragile it may be, and how it constantly changes over time. With this in mind, what is not recognized is the involvement of replication of history, and repetition of events. In certainty, human nature is that change is not preferable, and it is seen numerous times in history and today how similar things will happen. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic and the 1918 flu (also known as the Spanish flu, immorally named). Significantly, in 1918, every country had faced this immensely difficult time. 50 to 100 million people died, with ⅓ of Europe making up a majority of that statistic. With attention to everyone wearing masks, businesses, schools, and even churches closed down. Unfairly, the flu was incorrectly labeled the Spanish flu based on Spain being the first to draw attention to the pandemic. Similar to today, with many citizens, especially Americans, referring to the COVID-19 pandemic as the ‘China Virus’ or ‘Wuhan Virus’. Clearly, humans will always make similar mistakes, and as Code says, arrogance will not help. Furthermore, she fails to internalize the repetitive errors and decisions world leaders and citizens continue to make, regardless of the knowledge they may have, regrettably not linking the situation to epistemology. 

In any event, knowledge is blocked by the lack of moral grounds and human nature to deny a situation. Altogether, the disagreement easily seen in regards to Code’s definition is the lack of recognition that knowledge is not to be relative such as opinions, but to be universal. For this reason, while Code’s definition encompasses much of what knowledge is, it lacks the recognition of repetition over time. In essence, knowledge cannot be seen as relative; while it may be fragile in some sorts, it must be concrete for a productive world. Ultimately, knowledge truly should be defined as comprehending a situation in its many relationships understood from various standpoints, standing as concrete to include repetition and replication over time, and involving one’s fallibility and uncertainty.