Defining Wokeness

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2023-01-23 DOI:10.1080/02691728.2022.2145857
J. Atkins
{"title":"Defining Wokeness","authors":"J. Atkins","doi":"10.1080/02691728.2022.2145857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Rima Basu and I have offered separate accounts of wokeness as an anti-racist ethical concept. Our accounts endorse controversial doctrines in epistemology: doxastic wronging, doxastic voluntarism, and moral encroachment. Many philosophers deny these three views, favoring instead some ordinary standards for epistemic justification. I call this denial the standard view. In this paper, I offer an account of wokeness that is consistent with the standard view. I argue that wokeness is best understood as ‘group epistemic partiality’. The woke person does extra epistemic work before forming a negative belief about a member of an oppressed social group. Just as we do extra epistemic work when forming belief about our friends, so the woke person does for members of oppressed social groups. I first outline the account. I then raise questions about the scope of wokeness and belief formation. After this, I demonstrate that the group partiality view is consistent with the standard view in epistemology. The partiality view, therefore, should appeal to epistemologists who have adopted the standard view because it is consistent with ordinary standards of justification. I conclude that wokeness as a concept in epistemology should not be controversial for those who endorse the standard view.","PeriodicalId":51614,"journal":{"name":"Social Epistemology","volume":"37 1","pages":"321 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Epistemology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2145857","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Rima Basu and I have offered separate accounts of wokeness as an anti-racist ethical concept. Our accounts endorse controversial doctrines in epistemology: doxastic wronging, doxastic voluntarism, and moral encroachment. Many philosophers deny these three views, favoring instead some ordinary standards for epistemic justification. I call this denial the standard view. In this paper, I offer an account of wokeness that is consistent with the standard view. I argue that wokeness is best understood as ‘group epistemic partiality’. The woke person does extra epistemic work before forming a negative belief about a member of an oppressed social group. Just as we do extra epistemic work when forming belief about our friends, so the woke person does for members of oppressed social groups. I first outline the account. I then raise questions about the scope of wokeness and belief formation. After this, I demonstrate that the group partiality view is consistent with the standard view in epistemology. The partiality view, therefore, should appeal to epistemologists who have adopted the standard view because it is consistent with ordinary standards of justification. I conclude that wokeness as a concept in epistemology should not be controversial for those who endorse the standard view.
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
定义Wokeness
摘要里玛·巴苏和我分别介绍了wokeness作为一种反种族主义的伦理概念。我们的叙述支持认识论中有争议的学说:多嘴多舌的错误、多嘴多嘴多嘴的自愿主义和道德侵犯。许多哲学家否认这三种观点,转而支持一些普通的认识论正当性标准。我称这种否认为标准观点。在这篇论文中,我提供了一个与标准观点一致的wokeness的描述。我认为wokeness最好被理解为“群体认识偏好”。清醒的人在对受压迫的社会群体的成员形成负面信念之前,会做额外的认识工作。正如我们在对朋友形成信念时做额外的认识工作一样,觉醒的人也为受压迫的社会群体成员做同样的工作。我首先概述一下这个账户。然后,我提出了关于wokeness和信念形成的范围的问题。在此基础上,论证了群体偏倚观与认识论中的标准观是一致的。因此,片面性观点应该吸引那些采用标准观点的认识论者,因为它与普通的正当性标准一致。我的结论是,wokeness作为认识论中的一个概念,对于那些支持标准观点的人来说不应该有争议。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Social Epistemology provides a forum for philosophical and social scientific enquiry that incorporates the work of scholars from a variety of disciplines who share a concern with the production, assessment and validation of knowledge. The journal covers both empirical research into the origination and transmission of knowledge and normative considerations which arise as such research is implemented, serving as a guide for directing contemporary knowledge enterprises. Social Epistemology publishes "exchanges" which are the collective product of several contributors and take the form of critical syntheses, open peer commentaries interviews, applications, provocations, reviews and responses
期刊最新文献
Scientism and the Problem of Self-Referential Incoherence Testimonial Injustice from Countervailing Prejudices ‘Blackness’, the Body and Epistemological and Epistemic Traps: A Phenomenological Analysis The Contribution of Logic to Epistemic Injustice Friend or Foe? Rethinking Epistemic Trespassing
×
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