Resisting Structural Epistemic Injustice

Michael D. Doan
{"title":"Resisting Structural Epistemic Injustice","authors":"Michael D. Doan","doi":"10.5206/FPQ/2018.4.6230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What form must a theory of epistemic injustice take in order to successfully illuminate the epistemic dimensions of struggles that are primarily political? How can such struggles be understood as involving collective struggles for epistemic recognition and self-determination that seek to improve practices of knowledge production and make lives more liveable? In this paper, I argue that currently dominant, Fricker-inspired approaches to theorizing epistemic wrongs and remedies make it difficult, if not impossible, to understand the epistemic dimensions of historic and ongoing political struggles. Recent work in the theory of recognition—particularly the work of critical, feminist, and decolonial theorists—can help to identify and correct the shortcomings of these approaches. I offer a critical appraisal of recent conversation concerning epistemic injustice, focusing on three characteristics of Frickerian frameworks that obscure the epistemic dimensions of political struggles. I propose that a theory of epistemic injustice can better illuminate the epistemic dimensions of such struggles by acknowledging and centering the agency of victims in abusive epistemic relations, by conceptualizing the harms and wrongs of epistemic injustice relationally, and by explaining epistemic injustice as rooted in the oppressive and dysfunctional epistemic norms undergirding actual communities and institutions.","PeriodicalId":387473,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Philosophy Quarterly","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Philosophy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/FPQ/2018.4.6230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

What form must a theory of epistemic injustice take in order to successfully illuminate the epistemic dimensions of struggles that are primarily political? How can such struggles be understood as involving collective struggles for epistemic recognition and self-determination that seek to improve practices of knowledge production and make lives more liveable? In this paper, I argue that currently dominant, Fricker-inspired approaches to theorizing epistemic wrongs and remedies make it difficult, if not impossible, to understand the epistemic dimensions of historic and ongoing political struggles. Recent work in the theory of recognition—particularly the work of critical, feminist, and decolonial theorists—can help to identify and correct the shortcomings of these approaches. I offer a critical appraisal of recent conversation concerning epistemic injustice, focusing on three characteristics of Frickerian frameworks that obscure the epistemic dimensions of political struggles. I propose that a theory of epistemic injustice can better illuminate the epistemic dimensions of such struggles by acknowledging and centering the agency of victims in abusive epistemic relations, by conceptualizing the harms and wrongs of epistemic injustice relationally, and by explaining epistemic injustice as rooted in the oppressive and dysfunctional epistemic norms undergirding actual communities and institutions.
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
抵制结构性认知不公
为了成功地阐明主要是政治性的斗争的认识维度,一个认识不公正的理论必须采取什么形式?这样的斗争如何被理解为涉及到寻求知识生产实践改进和使生活更宜居的认识认识和自决的集体斗争?在本文中,我认为,目前占主导地位的、受弗里克启发的对认识论错误和补救进行理论化的方法,即使不是不可能,也很难理解历史上和正在进行的政治斗争的认识论维度。最近在承认理论方面的工作——特别是批判、女权主义和非殖民理论家的工作——可以帮助识别和纠正这些方法的缺点。我对最近关于认识不公正的对话进行了批判性评价,重点关注了模糊政治斗争的认识维度的弗里德里克框架的三个特征。我认为,认识论不公正的理论可以更好地阐明这种斗争的认识论维度,通过承认受害者在滥用认识论关系中的作用,通过概念化认识论不公正的危害和错误的关系,通过将认识论不公正解释为植根于压制性和功能失调的认识论规范,从而巩固实际社区和机构。
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