Where do Black lives matter? Coloniality, police violence, and epistemic injustices during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa and the U.S.

IF 2.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
S. R. Pillay
{"title":"Where do Black lives matter? Coloniality, police violence, and epistemic injustices during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa and the U.S.","authors":"S. R. Pillay","doi":"10.1037/vio0000419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: South Africa and the United States face complex histories of antiblack policing, invigorated by increased state control during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This article explores the murders of Collins Khosa in South Africa and George Floyd in the U.S., to theorize the comparative differences in global attention given to both men. Method: A critical literature review was conducted of media statements by (South) African political organizations;(inter)national psychology organizations;and the emerging academic archive focusing on both murders. Data were analyzed using a qualitative summative content analysis approach. Results: African institutions ignored Collins Khosa's death until only after George Floyd's murder shone a spotlight on police brutality. International organizations ignored Collins Khosa's death altogether. These differences are framed as overlapping but divergent examples of epistemic injustice, that is, practices of exclusion and silencing in knowledge production. Both men were victims of testimonial injustice linked to individual believability, but Collins Khosa's geopolitical location placed him at greater risk of hermeneutical injustices too, linked to social intelligibility. This article argues that these are outcomes of both coloniality and epistemologies of ignorance that give disproportionate moral and political attention to the U.S. Conclusions: Epistemic injustice highlights practices of silencing that marginalize black people's lived experiences. However, during COVID-19, the death of George Floyd inadvertently displaced the global gaze toward black American lives-reinforcing geopolitical power imbalances. The Northern-centric locus of the #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement influenced a transnational social justice agenda in a manner than South African activism cannot. Despite its urgency, BLM's epistemic orientation may not generate hermeneutical resources against police violence in Global South contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)","PeriodicalId":47876,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Violence","volume":"87 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000419","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective: South Africa and the United States face complex histories of antiblack policing, invigorated by increased state control during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This article explores the murders of Collins Khosa in South Africa and George Floyd in the U.S., to theorize the comparative differences in global attention given to both men. Method: A critical literature review was conducted of media statements by (South) African political organizations;(inter)national psychology organizations;and the emerging academic archive focusing on both murders. Data were analyzed using a qualitative summative content analysis approach. Results: African institutions ignored Collins Khosa's death until only after George Floyd's murder shone a spotlight on police brutality. International organizations ignored Collins Khosa's death altogether. These differences are framed as overlapping but divergent examples of epistemic injustice, that is, practices of exclusion and silencing in knowledge production. Both men were victims of testimonial injustice linked to individual believability, but Collins Khosa's geopolitical location placed him at greater risk of hermeneutical injustices too, linked to social intelligibility. This article argues that these are outcomes of both coloniality and epistemologies of ignorance that give disproportionate moral and political attention to the U.S. Conclusions: Epistemic injustice highlights practices of silencing that marginalize black people's lived experiences. However, during COVID-19, the death of George Floyd inadvertently displaced the global gaze toward black American lives-reinforcing geopolitical power imbalances. The Northern-centric locus of the #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement influenced a transnational social justice agenda in a manner than South African activism cannot. Despite its urgency, BLM's epistemic orientation may not generate hermeneutical resources against police violence in Global South contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
黑人的生活在哪里重要?在南非和美国的COVID-19大流行期间,殖民主义、警察暴力和认知不公
目的:南非和美国面临着反黑人警务的复杂历史,在冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间加强了国家控制。本文探讨了南非的柯林斯·科萨(Collins Khosa)和美国的乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)的谋杀案,以理论化全球对这两个人的关注的比较差异。方法:对(南非)政治组织、(国际)国家心理学组织和新兴的学术档案对两起谋杀案的媒体声明进行了批判性文献综述。数据分析采用定性总结内容分析方法。结果:直到乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)被谋杀后,非洲各机构才开始忽视柯林斯·科萨(Collins Khosa)的死,并将警察暴行曝光。国际组织完全忽视了柯林斯·科萨的死亡。这些差异被认为是知识不公正的重叠但不同的例子,即知识生产中的排斥和沉默的做法。两人都是与个人可信度有关的证词不公正的受害者,但柯林斯·科萨的地缘政治位置也使他面临着更大的解释性不公正的风险,这与社会可理解性有关。本文认为,这些都是殖民主义和无知认识论的结果,这些认识论给了美国不成比例的道德和政治关注。结论:认识论的不公正突出了沉默的做法,使黑人的生活经历边缘化。然而,在2019冠状病毒病期间,乔治·弗洛伊德的去世无意中转移了全球对美国黑人生活的关注,加剧了地缘政治力量的不平衡。以北方为中心的“黑人的命也重要”运动对跨国社会正义议程的影响,是南非运动所无法比拟的。尽管其紧迫性,BLM的认识论取向可能不会产生解释学资源,反对全球南方背景下的警察暴力。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2022 APA,版权所有)
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信