Offending White Men: Racial Vilification, Misrecognition, and Epistemic Injustice

Louise Richardson‑Self
{"title":"Offending White Men: Racial Vilification, Misrecognition, and Epistemic Injustice","authors":"Louise Richardson‑Self","doi":"10.5206/FPQ/2018.4.6234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article I analyse two complaints of white vilification, which are increasingly occurring in Australia. I argue that, though the complainants (and white people generally) are not harmed by such racialized speech, the complainants in fact harm Australians of colour through these utterances. These complaints can both cause and constitute at least two forms of epistemic injustice (willful hermeneutical ignorance and comparative credibility excess). Further, I argue that the complaints are grounded in a dual misrecognition: the complainants misrecognize themselves in their own privileged racial specificity, and they misrecognize others in their own marginal racial specificity. Such misrecognition preserves the cultural imperialism of Australia’s dominant social imaginary—a means of oppression that perpetuates epistemic insensitivity. Bringing this dual misrecognition to light best captures the indignity that is suffered by the victims of the aforementioned epistemic injustices. I argue that it is only when we truly recognize difference in its own terms, shifting the dominant social imaginary, that “mainstream Australians” can do their part in bringing about a just society.","PeriodicalId":387473,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Philosophy Quarterly","volume":"91 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Philosophy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/FPQ/2018.4.6234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In this article I analyse two complaints of white vilification, which are increasingly occurring in Australia. I argue that, though the complainants (and white people generally) are not harmed by such racialized speech, the complainants in fact harm Australians of colour through these utterances. These complaints can both cause and constitute at least two forms of epistemic injustice (willful hermeneutical ignorance and comparative credibility excess). Further, I argue that the complaints are grounded in a dual misrecognition: the complainants misrecognize themselves in their own privileged racial specificity, and they misrecognize others in their own marginal racial specificity. Such misrecognition preserves the cultural imperialism of Australia’s dominant social imaginary—a means of oppression that perpetuates epistemic insensitivity. Bringing this dual misrecognition to light best captures the indignity that is suffered by the victims of the aforementioned epistemic injustices. I argue that it is only when we truly recognize difference in its own terms, shifting the dominant social imaginary, that “mainstream Australians” can do their part in bringing about a just society.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
冒犯白人男性:种族诋毁、误认和认知不公
在这篇文章中,我分析了两种对白人诽谤的抱怨,这在澳大利亚越来越多地发生。我认为,尽管投诉人(以及一般白人)并没有受到这种种族化言论的伤害,但投诉人实际上通过这些言论伤害了澳大利亚的有色人种。这些抱怨可能导致并构成至少两种形式的认知不公正(故意的解释学无知和相对可信度过剩)。此外,我认为这些抱怨是基于双重误解:投诉人在自己享有特权的种族特殊性方面错误地认识了自己,他们在自己的边缘种族特殊性方面错误地认识了他人。这种误解保留了澳大利亚占主导地位的社会想象的文化帝国主义——一种压迫手段,使认知上的麻木不仁永久化。揭露这种双重误解,最能反映出上述认知不公正的受害者所遭受的侮辱。我认为,只有当我们真正认识到差异本身,改变占主导地位的社会想象时,“主流澳大利亚人”才能为建立一个公正的社会尽自己的一份力量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mary Daly’s Philosophy: Some Bergsonian Themes Hope, Solidarity, and Justice If “Ifs” and “Buts” Were Candy and Nuts Mansplaining as Epistemic Injustice How Not to Watch Feminist Pornography
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1