Biased Evaluative Descriptions

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Journal of the American Philosophical Association Pub Date : 2023-04-13 DOI:10.1017/apa.2023.5
S. Bernstein
{"title":"Biased Evaluative Descriptions","authors":"S. Bernstein","doi":"10.1017/apa.2023.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this essay I identify a type of linguistic phenomenon new to feminist philosophy of language: biased evaluative descriptions. Biased evaluative descriptions are descriptions whose well-intended positive surface meanings are inflected with implicitly biased content. Biased evaluative descriptions are characterized by three main features: (1) they have roots in implicit bias or benevolent sexism, (2) their application is counterfactually unstable across dominant and subordinate social groups, and (3) they encode stereotypes. After giving several different kinds of examples of biased evaluative descriptions, I distinguish them from similar linguistic concepts, including backhanded compliments, slurs, insults, epithets, pejoratives, and dog whistles. I suggest that the traditional framework of Gricean implicature cannot account for biased evaluative descriptions. I discuss some challenges to the distinctiveness and evaluability of biased evaluative descriptions, including intersectional social identities. I conclude by discussing their social significance and moral status. Identifying biased evaluative descriptions is important for a variety of social contexts, from the very general and broad (political speeches) to the very particular and small (bias in academic hiring).","PeriodicalId":44879,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Philosophical Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Philosophical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2023.5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this essay I identify a type of linguistic phenomenon new to feminist philosophy of language: biased evaluative descriptions. Biased evaluative descriptions are descriptions whose well-intended positive surface meanings are inflected with implicitly biased content. Biased evaluative descriptions are characterized by three main features: (1) they have roots in implicit bias or benevolent sexism, (2) their application is counterfactually unstable across dominant and subordinate social groups, and (3) they encode stereotypes. After giving several different kinds of examples of biased evaluative descriptions, I distinguish them from similar linguistic concepts, including backhanded compliments, slurs, insults, epithets, pejoratives, and dog whistles. I suggest that the traditional framework of Gricean implicature cannot account for biased evaluative descriptions. I discuss some challenges to the distinctiveness and evaluability of biased evaluative descriptions, including intersectional social identities. I conclude by discussing their social significance and moral status. Identifying biased evaluative descriptions is important for a variety of social contexts, from the very general and broad (political speeches) to the very particular and small (bias in academic hiring).
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
有偏见的评价性描述
在这篇文章中,我确定了一种女性主义语言哲学的新语言现象:有偏见的评价描述。有偏见的评价性描述是指那些意图良好的表面意义被隐含的有偏见的内容所扭曲的描述。有偏见的评价描述具有三个主要特征:(1)其根源于内隐偏见或善意的性别歧视;(2)其应用在主导和从属社会群体中具有反事实不稳定性;(3)它们编码刻板印象。在给出了几种不同类型的有偏见的评价性描述的例子之后,我将它们与类似的语言概念区分开来,包括反讽的赞美、诽谤、侮辱、绰号、贬义和狗哨。我认为,传统的格里塞含意框架不能解释有偏见的评价描述。我讨论了对有偏见的评估描述的独特性和可评估性的一些挑战,包括交叉社会身份。最后,我讨论了它们的社会意义和道德地位。识别有偏见的评价描述对于各种社会背景都很重要,从非常普遍和广泛的(政治演讲)到非常特殊和微小的(学术招聘中的偏见)。
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
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Appearing quarterly in print and online, the Journal of the American Philosophical Association provides a platform for original work in all areas of philosophy. The Journal aims to publish compelling papers written in a way that can be appreciated by philosophers of every persuasion and to review papers quickly (typically within 30 days of submission) and fairly (using a triple anonymous review system), encouraging succinct, constructive reports. Papers are published online early via FirstView (typically within 8 weeks of acceptance).
期刊最新文献
What Do Beginning Students Think about Philosophy before Their First College Course? Standpoint Epistemology and Epistemic Peerhood: A Defense of Epistemic Privilege Doing Moral Philosophy Without ‘Normativity’ Explanation and the Right to Explanation How to Disrupt a Social Script
×
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