Abstract

Normal 0 21 false false false ES X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} In this text is characterized the “Postmodern. Feminism” and the theoretical positions of two influential contemporary thinkers in Philosophy of Science from a postmodern feminist perspective. Haraway and Harding debate around the History of Science and its andocentric slants, as well as on the concept “identity” from the c yborg paradigm. Within the postmodern paradigm they assume the poststructuralist and deconstructionist inheritance and defend the necessity of a critical and autorreflexive social science like model of all sciences, but they have controversies about the gendered social space. Haraway understands that the social space is not homogenous, and that the three dimensions that Harding detects: generic symbolism, partner-sexual division of the work and processes of gendered individual identity, they are intercepted in multiple dimensions