Resisting Epistemic Injustices: Beyond Anderson’s “Imperative of Integration”

IF 0.4 N/A PHILOSOPHY
L. Schlüter
{"title":"Resisting Epistemic Injustices: Beyond Anderson’s “Imperative of Integration”","authors":"L. Schlüter","doi":"10.5209/ltdl.76463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I take up the question of how epistemic injustices can be resisted. Miranda Fricker (2007), who introduced the term to describe situations in which subjects are wronged as knowers, has initially advocated an individualist, virtue-based account to counteract epistemic injustices. Epistemic injustices, however, do not merely operate at an individual level but are rooted in social practices and structures. Arguably therefore, individually virtuous epistemic conduct is not enough to uproot patterns of epistemic injustice. Institutional change and collective actions are needed. Recently, Elizabeth Anderson (2012) has proposed such a structural remedy. Diagnosing patterns of social segregation that track existing inequalities to be the principal structural cause of epistemic injustices, Anderson suggests that integration is required to achieve epistemic justice. Pace Anderson, I argue that certain segregated spaces —namely spaces provided by subaltern counter-publics— can function and, in fact, have historically functioned as important sites of epistemic resistance. In particular, I argue that even if integration is sharply distinguished from assimilation, Anderson’s proposal insufficiently acknowledges the subversive potential of those spaces, in which shielded from the gaze of the oppressors, marginally situated subjects can assemble and question hegemonic epistemic practices","PeriodicalId":40567,"journal":{"name":"Torres de Lucca-Revista Internacional de Filosofia Politica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Torres de Lucca-Revista Internacional de Filosofia Politica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5209/ltdl.76463","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this paper, I take up the question of how epistemic injustices can be resisted. Miranda Fricker (2007), who introduced the term to describe situations in which subjects are wronged as knowers, has initially advocated an individualist, virtue-based account to counteract epistemic injustices. Epistemic injustices, however, do not merely operate at an individual level but are rooted in social practices and structures. Arguably therefore, individually virtuous epistemic conduct is not enough to uproot patterns of epistemic injustice. Institutional change and collective actions are needed. Recently, Elizabeth Anderson (2012) has proposed such a structural remedy. Diagnosing patterns of social segregation that track existing inequalities to be the principal structural cause of epistemic injustices, Anderson suggests that integration is required to achieve epistemic justice. Pace Anderson, I argue that certain segregated spaces —namely spaces provided by subaltern counter-publics— can function and, in fact, have historically functioned as important sites of epistemic resistance. In particular, I argue that even if integration is sharply distinguished from assimilation, Anderson’s proposal insufficiently acknowledges the subversive potential of those spaces, in which shielded from the gaze of the oppressors, marginally situated subjects can assemble and question hegemonic epistemic practices
抵制认知不公:超越安德森的“整合的必要性”
在本文中,我提出了如何抵制认知不公正的问题。米兰达·弗里克(2007)引入了这个术语来描述作为知者的主体被冤枉的情况,他最初主张用个人主义的、基于美德的解释来抵消认知上的不公正。然而,认知上的不公正不仅在个人层面上运作,而且植根于社会实践和结构。因此,可以说,个人的道德认知行为不足以根除认知不公正的模式。制度变革和集体行动是必要的。最近,Elizabeth Anderson(2012)提出了这样一种结构性补救措施。安德森对社会隔离模式进行了诊断,认为现有的不平等是认知不公正的主要结构性原因,他认为实现认知公正需要整合。我认为,某些被隔离的空间——即由下层反公众提供的空间——可以发挥作用,事实上,历史上一直发挥着重要的认知抵抗场所的作用。特别是,我认为,即使整合与同化有明显的区别,安德森的建议也没有充分承认这些空间的颠覆潜力,在这些空间中,处于边缘地位的主体可以避开压迫者的目光,聚集起来并质疑霸权的认知实践
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
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The scientific scope of Las Torres de Lucca (International Journal of Political Philosophy) will be to comprehend the characteristics of political philosophy, in line with the interdisciplinary character that has operated in this field during the last several years. We welcome contributions from the areas traditionally linked directly to political philosophy (moral philosophy, philosophy of law, political theory), as well as from those that have been incorporated up to the present day (political economy, philosophy of history, psychology, neurophysiology and, to a lesser extent, other sciences) as long as their scope is focused on the treatment of public affairs and sheds light on contemporary political reflections. In the same way, the reference to classic problems should be brought to bear on contemporary questions. The journal does not commit itself to any school of thought, style or ideology. However, we do commit ourselves to argumentative rigor and expositive clarity. Thus, the new publication is directed towards the academic environment and designed for the specialized reader; but the publication also aspires to awake interest in the reader who is not technically formed in these disciplines, but is interested by the public questions that inevitably affect him or her. We expect that the scope of the journal will be international. Thus, articles will be published in Spanish and English, and original articles in French, Portuguese, Italian, or German will be accepted as exceptions (depending on their quality and relevance), translated into Spanish and published in a bilingual format. We are particularly interested in covering the Spanish/Latin American realm, particularly lacking in specialized publications of this type. With this in mind, we count on experts from the distinct countries included in this geographic area.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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