Mulwa, Beatrice Jannie2025-08-172025-08-172025-05https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/31241A Thesis Submitted to the School of Law, Arts and Social Sciences in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Award of the Degree of Masters of Arts in Philosophy of Kenyatta University, May 2025. Supervisor 1. Jacob Magero 2. Josphat OyigoThis thesis critically examines and evaluates the epistemology proposed by Sandra Harding, focusing on its vulnerabilities and providing potential solutions to address these weaknesses. Harding's epistemology, situated within the framework of feminist standpoint theory, has offered substantial contributions to challenge traditional knowledge production and highlight marginalized perspectives. However, this study reveals inherent limitations and inconsistencies within Harding's framework. It uncovers several weaknesses through a comprehensive analysis of Harding's epistemology, including her emphasis on objectivity, standpoint, and social context. Firstly, Harding's reliance on standpoint as the sole criterion for truth introduces subjectivity, potentially undermining the pursuit of objective knowledge. Secondly, her emphasis on social context can lead to essentialism, reinforcing stereotypes and restricting the diversity of experiences. Lastly, Harding's work often overlooks power dynamics embedded within knowledge production, obscuring critical insights into how dominance and oppression can impact epistemology. To address these vulnerabilities, this thesis proposes several possible solutions. Firstly, by adopting a more holistic approach, incorporating multiple standpoints and perspectives, a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of knowledge can be achieved while avoiding essentialism. Secondly, acknowledging the influence of power dynamics and engaging in reflexive practices can help uncover hidden biases and ensure a more inclusive knowledge production process. To achieve this goal, this study employs the laws of thought (three guiding principles: the non-contradiction rule, the excluded middle, and the identity principle) in evaluating and interrogating Harding’s epistemology. The study also presumes that diverse epistemological perspectives are important for a comprehensive understanding of knowledge. Sandra Harding's epistemological framework has shortcomings that need to be critically examined, and identifying and critically evaluating the limitations of epistemological frameworks is crucial for advancing knowledge and promoting inclusivity. It recognizes the importance of acknowledging potential flaws and gaps within existing theories to propose more robust and equitable alternatives. The study is primarily a conceptual analysis that proceeded by library study, employing the typical philosophical argumentation approach of evaluation, analysis, synthesis, reflection, and philosophical speculation. It involves textbooks, journals, credible internet sources, and other scholars' commentaries that address Harding’s epistemology. The study involves relevant literature related to Harding’s conception of how gender situates a knower. By highlighting the weaknesses of Harding's epistemology and suggesting possible remedies, this thesis contributes to a broader debate on the potential limitations of epistemology. It offers insights into developing more robust epistemological frameworks that promote social justice and inclusivity.enThesis