Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-rcs6z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-09T12:35:02.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Standpoint Theory and Foucauldian Genealogical Critique: Two Strategies for Mobilizing Situated Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2025

Tivadar Vervoort Open the ORCID record for Tivadar Vervoort [Opens in a new window]
Tivadar Vervoort*
Affiliation:
Research in Political Philosophy and Ethics (RIPPLE), Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven, Belgium; Arcadie, Espace Philosophique, Université de Namur, Belgium
*
Email: tivadarvervoort@icloud.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the differences and similarities between Foucault’s genealogical method and feminist standpoint theories. Both approaches rely on the marginalized position of subjugated knowledges to challenge dominant regimes of power. However, standpoint theory and Foucauldian genealogical critique engage with the interrelatedness of power, knowledge, and resistance on a different level. Standpoint theories take a situated, first-person perspective to further knowledge claims which are based on situated knowledge claims. Foucauldian genealogy, on the other hand, delves into subjugated knowledge claims from an outsider or third-person perspective, mobilizing subjugated forms of knowledge to genealogically critique dominant regimes of power-knowledge. Despite this difference, this paper suggests that both approaches are invested in problematizing dominant regimes of power-knowledge by looking at subversive and marginalized knowledge practices that contest dominant regimes of power and knowledge.

Information

Type
Article
Information
Hypatia , First View , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hypatia, a Nonprofit Corporation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, Amy. 2011. Foucault and the politics of our selves. History of the Human Sciences 24 (4): 43–59.10.1177/0952695111411623CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, Amy. 2016. The end of progress: Decolonizing the normative foundations of critical theory. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Amy. 2017. Power/knowledge/resistance: Foucault and epistemic injustice. In The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice, ed. James Kidd, Ian. London/New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Allen, Amy. 2020. Critique on the couch: Why critical theory needs psychoanalysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2000. Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward, N. Zalta. https://plato-stanford-edu.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/entries/feminism-epistemology/.Google Scholar
Ashton, Natalie Alana. 2020a. Relativism in feminist epistemologies. In Social epistemology and epistemic relativism, ed. Alana Ashton, Natalie, McKenna, Robin, Anna Sodoma, Katharina, and Kusch, Martin. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429199356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, Natalie Alana. 2020b. Scientific perspectives, feminist standpoints, and non-silly relativism. In Knowledge from a human point of view, ed. Crețu, Ana-Maria and Massimi, Michela. Cham: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-27041-4_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, Natalie Alana. 2020c. Relativising epistemic advantage. In The Routledge handbook of philosophy of relativism, ed. Kusch, Martin. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351052306-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, Natalie Alana. 2023. Evidence, relativism and progress in feminist standpoint theory. In The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of evidence, ed. Lasonen-Aarnio, Maria and Littlejohn, Clayton. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315672687-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1999. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Celikates, Robin. 2009. Kritik als soziale Praxis: Gesellschaftliche Selbstverständigung und kritische Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Celikates, Robin. 2020. Die Macht der Kritik. WestEnd: Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 2 (Nov.): 81–96.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1986. Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems 33 (6): 14–32.10.2307/800672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1997. Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Where’s the power? Signs 22 (2): 375–81.10.1086/495162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Lidal. 2023. Is there an epistemic advantage to being oppressed? Noûs 57 (3): 618–40.10.1111/nous.12424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Max. 2020. Why coronavirus conspiracy theories flourish: And why it matters. New York Times, April 8.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2024 What is critique? And the culture of the self. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1982. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–95.10.1086/448181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1996. An historian of culture. In Foucault live: Interviews, 1961–1984, ed. Lotringer, Sylvère. New York: Semiotexte.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1998. The will to knowledge. The history of sexuality 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2003. “Society must be defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2008a. History of madness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2008b. The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2009. Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2012. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2015. The punitive society: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1972–1973. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2018. The analytic philosophy of politics. Trans. Giovanni Mascaretti. Foucault Studies (June): 188–200.10.22439/fs.v0i24.5532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2020a. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In Aesthetics, method, and epistemology: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 2. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2020b. Truth and power. In Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954–84, vol. 3. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2020c. What is enlightenment? In Ethics, subjectivity, and truth: Essential works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 1. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2020d. I perceive the intolerable. In Intolerable: Writings from Michel Foucault and the Prisons Information Group, 1970–1980, ed. Thompson, Kevin and Zurn, Perry. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, and Groupe d’information sur les prisons. 2020a. GIP manifesto. In Intolerable: writings from Michel Foucault and the Prisons Information Group, 1970–1980, ed. Thompson, Kevin and Zurn, Perry. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, and Groupe d’information sur les prisons. 2020b. On prisons. In Intolerable: Writings from Michel Foucault and the Prisons Information Group, 1970–1980, ed. Thompson, Kevin and Zurn, Perry. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, and Groupe d’information sur les prisons. 2020c. Preface to Intolerable 1. In Intolerable: Writings from Michel Foucault and the Prisons Information Group, 1970–1980, ed. Thompson, Kevin and Zurn, Perry. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, and Deleuze, Gilles. 1996. Intellectuals and power. In Foucault live: Interviews, 1961–1984, ed. Lotringer, Sylvère. New York: Semiotexte.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2024. “What Is Critique?” And “The Culture of the Self.” Edited by Fruchaud, Henri-Paul Lorenzini, Daniele and Arnold, I. Davidson. Translated by O’Farrell, Clare University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226383583.001.0001.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, and Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. 2020. Inquiry into prisons: Let us break down the bars of silence. In Intolerable: Writings from Michel Foucault and the Prisons Information Group, 1970–1980, ed. Thompson, Kevin and Zurn, Perry. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 1999. Epistemic oppression and epistemic privilege. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume 25: 191–210.10.1080/00455091.1999.10716836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 2017. Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice. In The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice, ed. James Kidd, Ian, Medina, José, and Pohlhaus, Gaile. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315212043-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutting, Gary. 1989. Michel Foucault’s archaeology of scientific reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139172141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2007. The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575.10.2307/3178066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1992. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” Centennial Review 36 (3): 437–70.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1995. “Strong objectivity”: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese 104 (3): 331–49.10.1007/BF01064504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra, ed. 2004a. Introduction: Standpoint theory as a site of political philosophic, and scientific debate. In The Feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra, ed. 2004b. The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2004c. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is ‘Strong Objectivity’?” In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, edited by Harding, Sandra Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2009. Standpoint theories: Productively controversial. Hypatia 24 (4): 192–200.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01067.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy C. M. 1983. Money, sex, and power: Toward a feminist historical materialism. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy C. M. 1997. Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Truth or justice? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (2): 367–73.Google Scholar
Hekman, Susan. 1997. Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (2): 341–65.10.1086/495159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
hooks, bell. 1989. Choosing the margin as a space of radical openness. Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media 36: 15–23.Google Scholar
Ilott, Luke. 2022a. Genealogy beyond critique: Foucault’s discipline and punish as coalitional worldmaking. Political Theory (July): 00905917221103296.10.1177/00905917221103296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilott, Luke. 2022b. Generalizing resistance: The coalition politics of Foucault’s governmentality lectures. Review of Politics (Oct.): 1–25.10.1017/S0034670522000882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2010. 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia 25 (4): 778–96.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01138.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2016. Feminist standpoint. In The Oxford handbook of feminist theory, ed. Jane Disch, Lisa and Hawkesworth, M. E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Michael, ed. 1994. Critique and power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, Ian James, ed. 2017. The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice. London/New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.10.4324/9781315212043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Colin. 2013. Genealogy as critique: Foucault and the problems of modernity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.10.2979/6546.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzini, Daniele. 2015. What is a regime of truth. Le Foucaldien 1 (1): 1–5.10.16995/lefou.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzini, Daniele. 2020. On possibilising genealogy. Inquiry (Jan.): 1–22.Google Scholar
Lorenzini, Daniele. 2022. Reason versus power: Genealogy, critique, and epistemic injustice. The Monist 105 (4): 541–57.10.1093/monist/onac016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukács, Georg. 1971. History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, Ladelle, ed. 1999. Bodies and pleasures: Foucault and the politics of sexual normalization. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.10.2979/1265.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, José. 2011. Toward a Foucaultian epistemology of resistance: Counter-memory, epistemic friction, and guerrilla pluralism. Foucault Studies 12 (Oct.): 9–35. https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i12.3335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, José. 2013. The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imaginations. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199929023.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Charles W. 1988. Alternative epistemologies. Social Theory and Practice 14 (3): 237–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Charles W. 2017. Ideology. In The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice, ed. James Kidd, Ian. Routledge.10.4324/9781315212043-10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Gayle S. 2012. The traffic in women: Notes on the ‘political economy’ of sex. In Deviations. Durham, NCL Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, Charles E. 2014. Genealogy. In The Cambridge Foucault lexicon, ed. Lawlor, Leonard and Nale, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1997. Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited.” Signs 22 (2): 392–8.10.1086/495164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonderegger, Ruth. 2019. Vom Leben der Kritik: Kritische Praktiken—und die Notwendigkeit ihrer geopolitischen Situierung. Vienna: Zaglossus.Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 2010. Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea, ed. Rosalind, C. Morris. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, Titus. 2023. Social structure and epistemic privilege: Reconstructing Lukács’s standpoint theory. Análisis: Revista de Investigación Filosófica 10 (2): 319–49.10.26754/ojs_arif/arif.202329937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoetzler, Marcel, and Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2002. Standpoint theory, situated knowledge and the situated imagination. Feminist Theory 3 (3): 315–33.10.1177/146470002762492024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanesini, Alessandra. 2021. Standpoint then and now. In The Routledge handbook of social epistemology, ed. Miranda Fricker, Peter J. Graham, David K. Henderson, and Pedersen, Nikolaj J. L. L.. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Teixeira, Mariana. 2020. The revolutionary subject in Lukács and feminist standpoint theory: Dilaceration and emancipatory interest. In Confronting reification: Revitalizing Georg Lukács’s thought in late capitalism, ed. Gregory, R. Smulewicz-Zucker. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004430082_013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Kevin, and Zurn, Perry 2020. “Introduction: Legacies of Militancy and Theory.” In Intolerable: Writings from Michel Foucault and the Prisons Information Group,1970–1980. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Kevin, and Zurn, Perry, eds. 2020. Intolerable: Writings from Michel Foucault and the Prisons Information Group, 1970–1980. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Toole, Briana. 2024. Standpoint epistemology and epistemic peerhood: A defense of epistemic privilege. Journal of the American Philosophical Association 10 (3): 409–26.10.1017/apa.2023.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vervoort, Tivadar. 2021. Towards a critique of reification as a critique of forms of life. Metodo 9 (2): 291–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vervoort, Tivadar. 2024. Towards a critical identity politics: Butler, Adorno, and the force of non-identity. In Feminism and the early Frankfurt school, ed. Christine, A. Payne and Morelock, Jeremiah 113–132. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vervoort, Tivadar. 2025a. “Nous sommes tous néokantiens”: Foucault, Lukács and the critique of social forms. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 15 (1): 209–241.Google Scholar
Vervoort, Tivadar. 2025b. Foucault’s Politics of Forms of Life: Governing Life Differently. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 87 (1): 149–176.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2003. Why standpoint matters. In Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology, ed. Figueroa, Robert and Sandra, G. Harding. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar