Description

Feminist philosophy is a field of philosophy where critical analysis is performed of, for example, political or scientific theories with gender and sexuality as the categories of analysis. There is a focus on how hidden assumptions and biases in accepted ideas on a certain topic can create certain outcomes or conclusions which are simply false or les nuanced than they should be. It can uncover that certain ways of thinking are only true for certain social groups and not for others, e.g. for men and not for women. Feminist philosophy can also provide ways in which this one-sided thinking can be overcome, often pointing to a lack of diversity in a (scientific/philosophical) community, which makes that these hidden assumptions in the form of biases are not discovered.

Having a non-diverse social group which speaks about a particular issue can make that there are potential counterarguments that lie beyond the scope of these individuals and could lead to invalid theories being accepted. An example of a feminist theory that delves into this problem is standpoint philosophy. It tells us that we all have situated knowledge, which means that the beliefs we hold to be true are actually situated within our own personal (subconscious) biases, which are dependent on our qualifications and situation. Every person has a different situation and therefore different social biases, but when people have similar backgrounds and qualities, they might share their situated knowledge because they could have similar undiscovered biases based upon their situation. When a non-diverse group, with shared undiscovered biases, comes to a consensus, then this consensus might only work when those biases are accepted.

A famous example of hidden assumptions on gender and sexuality influencing a scientific consensus is found in 20th century theories about the interrelations of primates. The male dominated field of biology in the mid 1900s wrote about the interrelationships of primates with large focus on dominance and hierarchy. There were assumptions taken as facts which were not uncovered by the non-diverse group of experts that were leading this field, mainly white men.

When more females became active in this field, suddenly, these assumptions were shown to be biases without proper grounds. The female scientists could offer a different situated knowledge and brought forward new theories which described a different interrelation between primates, with, for example, theories about motherhood. These new theories did not fit into the hierarchical system. The dominance-focused theories were largely debased and refuted when the different perspectives of the scientists were introduced. The old theories based on dominance were uncovered to be very male-centric, which the group of men that came up with the theories could not uncover. These hidden assumptions are precisely what feminist philosophy can uncover, but it does not stop there.

Feminist philosophy is also about considering how certain circumstances are different for certain social groups. It may focus on how women might have different consequences or unfair treatment in their lives, but it can shift towards many other social groups as well. In history, feminist philosophy was often the stepping stone for other social injustices to be uncovered. It is a powerful field of research which has uncovered many biases and resulted in more fair and equal treatment for many people.

In the first place, the field of feminist philosophy is about gender and sexuality, but often the topics discussed shift towards dominant versus minority groups and power differences in certain fields. They brought forward theories about situated knowledge and give a new viewpoint for analyzing theories. More diversity is almost always the way to battle biases and create more nuanced and ‘objective’ theories. It allows hidden assumptions made in theories that are problematic but e.g. (subconsciously) broadly accepted by a dominant group e.g. middle-aged white men, to be uncovered and criticized. It can help uncover disrupting institutional and social power that certain groups had before, making a fairer scientific and philosophical field.

Application

The tool of feminist philosophy is something we can use to create more fair policies in the topic of migration, with it being such an important topic in our current geopolitical ‘climate’ – with the literal climate attributing to more forced migration every year. I will now put forth two manners in which feminist philosophy can help us be prepared and fair in our policies.

It can help us (1) create fairer policies by having them based on more ‘objective’ grounds and (2) by giving a more realistic view on how policies affect different individuals in different ways. It being ‘feminist philosophy’, it deals with the topic of sex, but in both these manners, it creates a fairer policymaking method for other social groups as well. I will show that the consideration of feminist standpoint philosophy can help us to have less biased theories on how we should consider migration and the policies that we make for it. I will also will give arguments for how certain social groups, like women, have different experiences in migration, which makes it so that policies made for all immigrants do not have the same effect for all immigrants. It shows that it is important to not consider all immigrants in the same manner when making policies, as a person is more than just the qualification of being an immigrant.

Feminist standpoint philosophy is the idea that we all have situated knowledge, beliefs we hold to be true based on our biases and qualifications, making it so that all knowledge an individual has is biased. From scientists to politicians, everybody has situated knowledge. It is something we cannot solve and is something we have to accept. It is the idea that individuals always have background biases, that they often are not aware of, but that do influence what beliefs they hold and accept. The before described primate interrelation example is a product of this, but it is found in all individual knowledge we have according to standpoint philosophy. Therefore, it is the case for our views on migration as well, which means that every individual has biases on the topic of migration.

Certain social groups with similar qualifications and characteristics can subconsciously share these biases, which can lead to a wrongly accepted belief as true belief. As situated knowledge holds that biases might come up from the situation someone finds themselves in, a similar situated person might share this bias. If these people are policymakers or are considered specialists in their field, then these biased beliefs can swing others to accepting these beliefs as true as well. In the case of the before mentioned primates, the scientific consensus can in such cases be completely wrong. If migration policies were based on such a problematic scientific consensus, this could have bad consequences for the whole of a society or at least give us wrong grounds for our conclusions and policies. It can result in very unfair and wrong policies that could have effects which would oppose the desired results for the policies.

Having policymakers with largely the same qualifications, e.g. rich, white, male, highly educated or all of the above, is therefore not the best way forward if the goal is to have policies and conclusions which have grounds and are based on a unbiased truth. The more homogenous the group of policymakers, the more chance for them to share unconscious biases. Here lies the first problem-solving ability found in feminist philosophy. There are multiple ways standpoint philosophers tackle this problem, but one of the most intuitive and famous solutions was brought forward by Helen Longino.

Helen Longino argues that we all indeed have situated knowledge, being a feminist standpoint philosopher, and that there is no way for an individual to have objective beliefs on their own. Us, by definition, not being aware of our subconscious biases, makes it an impossibility to solve this problem as an individual. However, in creating a system where different individuals interact, discuss, listen to each other and accept each other as valid critique givers, there is possibility for these individual biases to be diluted. Helen Longino specifically argues this for a system in the sciences, but this idea would work just as well for policymaking in migration. The more this process of individuals diluting their biases happens, the more ‘objective’ their knowledge becomes according to Longino. However, these individuals ought to be diverse in their qualifications, to avoid their shared subconscious biases to still remain undiscovered. I argue that for an important topic as migration, a high level of objectivity should be strived for when talking about the grounds on which policies are based. These should not just be, as often is the case, based on the opinions and situated knowledge of a non-diverse group of individuals, like white males, because they lack the awareness of their shared biases and would miss out on important arguments for or against the grounds of their policies. When decisions are made that affect the lives of many thousands of people, these decisions need to be well thought out and as objectively valid as possible. Again, Helen Longino gives us a manner to achieve this, with her argument for different degrees of objectivity. She claims that the more diverse the biases of the group of individuals, the more objective (=non-biased) their conclusions will become. This only holds when they are all equally listened to and their valid critiques are used to change the consensus, not just put aside.

For high objectivity to be realized in the grounds for policymaking in migration, this obviously means that there should be men and women in these policymaking groups. However, it does not end there. There should be a variety of characteristics found in the policymakers, and their ideas should be listened to when discussing the grounds for policies, as they will have different biases and dilute the one-sided biases of the initial grounds: the more different biases, the better. Accepting this feminist theory would mean that we should institutionalize diversity more than we are currently doing and could lead to laws that have more well-thought-out grounds. The outcomes of many policies which come to reality in the lives of people will hopefully be more in line with what they ought to achieve and the grounds for the policies will be more objectively valid. The topic of migration is especially a great topic to integrate the value that Longino sees in diversity, as migration can bring more diversity in a country. By having immigrants that bring different backgrounds and different situated knowledge and by including them in systems of policymaking, migration itself can make the policies for migration better.

The second manner in which feminist philosophy can contribute to better policies on migration will now be tackled. Feminist philosophy has already given us a view of how current policies have failed in regards to how it treats different social groups unfairly by having them affect different social groups in different ways. In our policies, when considering immigrants, there are often three parties considered: (1) the immigrants, (2) the country where there is immigration and (3) the country from which there is emigration.

Feminist philosophy can help us to show problems in this way of thinking, because when policies are based on these kinds of simplified considerations, there can be very unfair consequences. It shows that considering immigrants as one group, in which a policy is made for immigrants in general, is just not realistic as different groups of immigrants have different ways in which policies affect them. This is true for the different sexes, but again is more broadly applicable for different qualifications. It is known that for the sexes, about half of migration workers are women (213 million!), but their end-situation in the country they have migrated too is very different from their male counterparts. For example, on average, they end up more often in domestic workplaces or sex work, both of which are places where they are more vulnerable to mistreatment as there are no national labor laws that protect them in these professions.

Having policies on immigrants in general (equalizing the sexes with one cookie cutter policy), would have unfair consequences as men and women will be affected by the policies differently because of their characteristics. Obviously, the intention of the policymakers was not to create an unfair sexist system, but by not realising the factors which make different social groups different, the effects will be an unfair system. When considering the topic of migration, it is important to realize that in all facets of migration, women are more likely to undergo human right violations. Making a one-size-fits-all policy does not do justice to the facts that are already known to be true. It does not stop with the male-female social group differences; as a black female will have different consequence of policies than a white female. Same goes for many qualifications, like sexuality or nationality. Immigrants are individual people with individual social groups and should be considered as such, not as one big uniform group. In such a way, feminist philosophy can bring new perspectives into policymaking and prove a useful tool.

Conclusion

I hope to have shown that feminist philosophy can help in immigration policymaking, as it can give us insight not only into how we can come to more objective grounds and arguments for our policies, but also into how these policies can affect different social groups in different ways. Migration seems to become more and more of an important topic as climate change will force people from all over the world to have to leave their homes and home countries. Policymakers have the responsibility to create policies that are as fair as possible, and which do justice to the individuality of immigrants and their social groups.

Philosophical Exercises

Feminist philosophy is the tool that can help them achieve this, but it can help you, the reader, too. Think about your own social group and whether or not it can come towards objective beliefs. Is it diverse, or is it quite homogenous? Would it be able to filter your biases, or do you have to admit to the possibility of you sharing unconscious biases with most of your social group? Perhaps write down some of the biases that you might have and reflect on them. But do not forget that according to Longino, one cannot solve one’s biases on their own.

Finally, think about a topic in which diversity has broadened your perspective. As an example, I have included a collage of pictures that portray a way in which diversity has visibly broadened the literal and figurative pallet of the city of Groningen, The Netherlands. I walked around the city and photographed the different cuisines that caught my eye and which have given me a grander understanding of food and how it can taste. These cuisines were all introduced to the Netherlands through migration. With this, I mean to show just one way in which diversity has given us better grounds for understanding something, as it has given us more flavors to experience, both in food and in thought.