IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/femeco/v9y2003i1p103-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emancipatory for Whom? A Comment on Critical Realism

Author

Listed:
  • Drucilla Barker

Abstract

Tony Lawson (1999) argues that critical realism will facilitate revelatory and emancipatory projects in feminist economics. The strength of Lawson's argument lies in its rejection of social atomism and methodological individualism. Societies are best understood as structurally connected systems rather than as atomistic aggregates. Its weakness lies in its reliance on a humanist conception of human agency, a conception that is increasingly questioned by some feminists.

Suggested Citation

  • Drucilla Barker, 2003. "Emancipatory for Whom? A Comment on Critical Realism," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 103-108.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:9:y:2003:i:1:p:103-108
    DOI: 10.1080/13545700110059270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13545700110059270
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13545700110059270?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Edwards, 2015. "Industrial relations, critical social science and reform: I, principles of engagement," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 173-186, May.
    2. Giandomenica Becchio, 2018. "Gender, Feminist and Heterodox Economics: Interconnections and Differences in a Historical Perspective," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 1, pages 5-24, March.
    3. Therese Jefferson & Siobhan Austen & Rhonda Sharp & Rachel Ong & Gill Lewin & Valerie Adams, 2014. "Mixed-methods research: What’s in it for economists?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 25(2), pages 290-305, June.
    4. Siobhan Austen & Therese Jefferson, 2006. "Comparing responses to critical realism," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 257-282.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:9:y:2003:i:1:p:103-108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.