YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

Haraway: la persistencia de la vista — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

Haraway: la persistencia de la vista

Heterocronías Feminismos y Epistemologías del Sur · 2,233 words · 11 min read · EN

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of Haraway: la persistencia de la vista by Heterocronías Feminismos y Epistemologías del Sur on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

Good evening. This video is about Harway's text, "Science Awards and Women," in the chapter " Situated Knowledge." We've already made a video about this text and this chapter, but this time we want to delve deeper into a section and a theme she develops here: the section on the persistence of sight. We've already seen Le Breton's text,

and how he also highlights that Western culture gives sight a privileged place over the other senses. Well, Harway also takes up that idea, but she doesn't want to stop giving sight that privileged place; rather, she wants to give it new content, a new form, a new use, a new conception of vision. She's

going to critique the conception of vision that has been normally used in science, in Western epistemology in general, and it's a use that will be called false vision. Vision has normally been used metaphorically; the idea has been taken that vision means this: a leap out of the body from nowhere [Music]. And that leap out of the body has had

an intention, a conquering gaze—ah yes, metaphors like, for example, the Vision, the observation related to knowledge that penetrates nature and speaks for itself, speaks alone of this intention of conquest that this conception of the gaze has, the power that it implies, which we have already seen in other texts, and what, and that power is precisely in the fact that it resides

in seeing and not being seen, yes, that was what we represented as being outside the frame and not the subject entering the frame, that is, of representing and not being represented, if the subject is the one who represents but cannot be represented, the idea of distancing the knowing subject from the things that it knows from the

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimited

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

objects, that distance has also been part of this conception of vision, and which we already studied when we studied perspective, there is a whole series of visualization technologies that, as we also saw, the libretto is precisely a large part of all this technology, they serve to enhance the sense of sight, a sight that,

jarocho, and takes on an expression of soul, soul, is that of the cannibal eye, yes, so that cannibal eye that always wants more, wants more than the image, gluttonous eye that always wants more and is never satisfied, always wants to see more, yes, so this use that always It is metaphorized through that voyeuristic eye that

wants to see without being seen. If that is all that is enclosed, what is this false vision? Yes, and what Haraway is going to seek is to give a new meaning to vision and continue, let's say, with vision, not abandoning this meaning, but giving it a new, a new way of conceiving it.

The main thing is to know where we are, and for that we need new, they say new political scanners, that is, we need a new conception of sight to know about vision, to know where we are. She is going to be concerned with objective vision. If we saw that they are the same as

with 6 because she is talking about knowledge in science, and we must not abandon that idea, only that we have to give a new meaning to what we are going to understand by objectivity. [Music] There is something that modern technologies teach us, and that is that the eyes never give us a passive vision, and if we

see in Khan, in Khar, the passive part was precisely the sensation, the data of the senses, after the subject who put their active part, which were the forms of space and time, but it was receptive. Passively, when receiving data from the senses, the sensation was rather passive. So here we're going to drastically separate Haraway. I'm going to say there is no such thing as

passive vision. If he says all eyes are active perceptual systems, yes, that is to say, they don't merely receive and have the data, but rather they construct specific ways of seeing. And that happens not only with our eyes but also with all technologies: a camera, an x-ray, a scanner, a microscope. Yes, they all

construct specific ways of seeing. So yes, there are no

passive perceptual systems. So there is no innocent point of view, not even that of the powerful nor that of the subjugated. No point of view is innocent. So vision—this will lead us to the idea that vision, which precisely constructs specific ways of seeing, is linked to the power of seeing. Yes, and many times that power of

seeing is related to violence in our visual practices. Yes, specifically, Western science has visual practices that are violent. Yes, everything that happens in laboratories always involves violence toward the object that constitutes animal experiments. For example, these are visual practices that often involve torture and destruction. If it's an eye that needs to destroy in order to see, that's why she

asks, "With whose blood were my eyes created?" Thinking about all these visual practices that involve violence, then how is destruction done? Let's say, for vision, she will consider that it has to be multidimensional, meaning that visual instruments are required, and different visual instruments at that. She will consider optics as a politics of positioning; that is,

optics has to do with where we see from, yes, and that "where" is a political place. Therefore, this means that there is never an innocent vision because no one is innocent, because the gaze, because vision, is never innocent because it always occupies a place, yes, and that is the key: to occupy a place, it is

the key that gives basis to knowledge, and she will relate that occupying a place to responsibility. Whereas when we have a subject that presents itself as neutral, as universal, or as the subject of a community but that cannot be represented, then it is a subject that is not responsible, yes. So what she

will maintain is the need for our visual practices to allow us to know perfectly from where we see, yes, what is the place we occupy in order to see. So, that model of rationality we saw with Khan is an optical illusion, yes, because that universal rationality doesn't exist. It's a rationality—remember Khan's?—that is projected from nowhere. That is,

because that subject, precisely because it is universal, doesn't occupy a place. If in reality it does occupy one, it doesn't take responsibility for the place it occupies. Yes, and so what is she going to argue? That moral and political discourse must be discourses that permeate the technologies of vision. That is to say, we

cannot conceive of a vision that is not permeated by moral and political discourses, and these must be present. And precisely so that if we want to reconsider that violence that is in the practices of visualization and the struggles over what would be considered rational visions of the world, they are struggles over how to see. That is to

say, when different versions of rationality clash, when different nationalities clash, what are actually clashing are different ways of seeing. And so these fights— because that is what is considered rational—and that is not a fight over how to see, what way of seeing will predominate. We had seen that Haraway seeks a multiple subject, which is the

multiple subject of feminism, and this subject is characterized by a double vision, a double vision at the very least. If we're predicting this double vision, well, we can see this with the myth of knowledge that she uses, and the "sabor" has the capacity to see from two perspectives at the same time, two

perspectives that are opposite, precisely because it is a being of the border. And if we think about all the "discos," all of mine, that the subject proposed, let's say, that universal subject, man-woman, natural, that culture, if the "sabor" is a being of the border, it occupies, is on the border, for example, between nature and

culture, and that's why it can have perspectives from nature and from culture. So this double vision is a requirement, let's say, in that, in that perspective of the double vision of love of the multiple subject of feminism. So, the double vision implies precisely seeing from two perspectives and that neither of those two perspectives is valid, that is,

that predominates over the other. So, there are two perspectives that we have that are placed in a situation of solidarity with each other, that is, it's not that one is correct and the other is not. A "sabor," let's remember, is a Being from borders, as we had defined it, doesn't fear contradictions but rather

inhabits them. So, that being can see from two perspectives at once. So, that's the minimum requirement, at least that double perspective. So, we had seen with Kun that knowledge is related to the community; the subject was that collective, yes. But here Harway introduces a new element that wasn't in Cuna because, for Kun, there is still an object of

homogeneity. The subject is no longer multiple; there is a multiplicity of subjects, but it is not a multiple subject. So, that Kun subject is no longer homogeneous in the community, and that is why dialogue between communities is hindered, or rather, made difficult. On the other hand, Harway says very well that just as

knowledge implies community, knowledge is also related to power. That is to say, here, power is introduced as a new element that will imply seeing from what place to be responsible, from that place, knowing that one is not innocent from the place where one sees, and it is necessary that this place also be accompanied

by an ethical perspective, by a political perspective, and that is precisely what is different from Kun. So, in this multiple subject, this confusion of voices and visions is required. I was talking about how knowledge arises when one has clear and distinct ideas, and then here Haraway says, no, what is really needed is a

plurality of voices and visions that are together, this conjunction of visions and this conjunction of ways of seeing that are together, that are rightly placed, and visions that will always be partial because they are partial, because one always sees from a place. If I look from here, I have one perspective, but if I don't, I have another

perspective. So, one always sees, and I don't see the same thing from here as from there. So, knowing that I am always seeing from a place, and these partial visions that occur in a collective subject—she does recognize that it is a collective subject—but that collective subject is multiple, yes, it is multiple, and the visions, like it,

are always partial visions, they are always from some place, and that is a multiple subject because it is an open subject, because it is constituted by that conjunction of visions, which is precisely what she is going to criticize and consider as a myth, as an optical illusion, the idea of a vision universal like the one

in Khan, but we only ask Khan, all human beings see the same thing, if we see the same thing, if before the same stimuli we have the same sensations, we only receive, and the forms, the active part of the subject, are also universal, the forms of space-time, therefore we see the same thing because there is

a single phenomenal world, and that is the basis of the objects that constitute science because those objects have that phenomenal basis, if that is objectivity, well, all this for hardware is an optical illusion, it is a myth. [Music] It coincides, yes, with Khan, that no device is going to tell us what the

world is like as it is, that is, we do n't access the world as it is, yes, but what there is n't is a universal mode, a universal human mode precisely because there isn't a human that is universal, yes, but we are always somewhere, so to close, what we have to get out

of this myth is this double vision, this double vision, let's say that she puts in the flavor, not of being able precisely in that collective to have more than one partial perspective, yes, to have more than one partial vision and that they are together, remember that unlike Kun for Halloween It's not necessary to become a native;

rather, taste can enable contradictions, and taste isn't afraid of contradictions because it's a border creature. Being a border creature, it can be on two sides at once; it doesn't have that problem that [ __ ] had, precisely because there was homogeneity. There's always a cure and a plurality of visions, but within communities, not every community is

homogeneous. Those within the community are characterized by seeing the same thing. So when they have to go to another community, that's when they have to become natives to see how others see. But for Haraway, it's not about avoiding contradiction; it's about avoiding contradiction. Well, these were the main notions we took from Jarabe's text regarding

sight and sensation in general. Well, thank you very much. See you in future videos.