Telling a story in a deliberation: addressing epistemic injustice and the exclusion of indigenous groups in public decision-making

Q2 Arts and Humanities Journal of Global Ethics Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.1080/17449626.2022.2117232
Katarina Pitasse Fragoso
{"title":"Telling a story in a deliberation: addressing epistemic injustice and the exclusion of indigenous groups in public decision-making","authors":"Katarina Pitasse Fragoso","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2117232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Deliberative scholars have suggested that citizens should be able to exchange arguments in public forums. A key element in this exchange is the rational mode of communication, which means speaking through objective argumentation. However, some feminists argue that this mode of communication may create or intensify epistemic injustices. Furthermore, we should not assume that everyone is equally equipped to take part in deliberation. Certain groups, such as Indigenous peoples, for instance, who may not be versed in rational forms of argumentation, may not be listened to or involved sufficiently in the deliberative process. Therefore, it seems we need an alternative mode of communication, such as storytelling, which is a first-person or collective narrative. Given this, how should we pursue this goal? This article aims to answer this question by analysing a local conflict involving an Indigenous tribe and a neighbouring community in Brazil and exploring the underlying testimonial and hermeneutical injustices. I argue that storytelling has an important normative and institutional role in public deliberation and show that its applied version could overcome epistemic injustices and lead to better public policies.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":"18 1","pages":"368 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2117232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Deliberative scholars have suggested that citizens should be able to exchange arguments in public forums. A key element in this exchange is the rational mode of communication, which means speaking through objective argumentation. However, some feminists argue that this mode of communication may create or intensify epistemic injustices. Furthermore, we should not assume that everyone is equally equipped to take part in deliberation. Certain groups, such as Indigenous peoples, for instance, who may not be versed in rational forms of argumentation, may not be listened to or involved sufficiently in the deliberative process. Therefore, it seems we need an alternative mode of communication, such as storytelling, which is a first-person or collective narrative. Given this, how should we pursue this goal? This article aims to answer this question by analysing a local conflict involving an Indigenous tribe and a neighbouring community in Brazil and exploring the underlying testimonial and hermeneutical injustices. I argue that storytelling has an important normative and institutional role in public deliberation and show that its applied version could overcome epistemic injustices and lead to better public policies.
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
在审议中讲述一个故事:解决认识上的不公正和公共决策中对土著群体的排斥
深思熟虑的学者建议,公民应该能够在公共论坛上进行辩论。这种交流的一个关键因素是理性的沟通方式,即通过客观的论证说话。然而,一些女权主义者认为,这种交流模式可能会造成或加剧认识上的不公正。此外,我们不应认为每个人都有同等的能力参与审议。例如,某些群体,如土著人民,可能不精通理性的辩论形式,可能没有被倾听或充分参与审议过程。因此,我们似乎需要一种替代的交流模式,比如讲故事,这是第一人称或集体叙事。有鉴于此,我们应该如何实现这一目标?本文旨在通过分析巴西一个土著部落和邻近社区的地方冲突来回答这个问题,并探讨潜在的证明和解释不公正。我认为,讲故事在公共审议中具有重要的规范和制度作用,并表明其应用版本可以克服认识上的不公正,并导致更好的公共政策。
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
Journal of Global Ethics
Journal of Global Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
The Journal of Global Ethics after Twenty Years A human rights method of ethics – marrying intuitionism, reasoning, and communication Assessing the capability approach as a justice basis of climate resilience strategies Global ethics: sentimental education or ideological construction? Twenty-five years on: to move forward, we should return to Rawls’ The Law of Peoples
×
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