故意的解释学无知与“批判种族理论”之争

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Barbara Applebaum
{"title":"故意的解释学无知与“批判种族理论”之争","authors":"Barbara Applebaum","doi":"10.1111/edth.12553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, Barbara Applebaum examines “the inability to disagree claim” as it arises in objections made by those who want to ban “critical race theory” from being taught in schools and universities. Employing insights from the recent scholarship around willful hermeneutical ignorance, she discerns the important role that marginalized conceptual resources play in conditions of just and constructive dialogue. When such resources are misinterpreted and denied uptake, the resulting harm impedes the epistemic agency of marginally situated knowers. Applebaum claims that many high-profile anti–“critical race theory” arguments put forth by politicians, scholars, and others are a form of willful hermeneutical ignorance, and she concludes by showing how more just communications, in which disagreement is distinguishable from dismissal, can be achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":47134,"journal":{"name":"EDUCATIONAL THEORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance and the “Critical Race Theory” Controversy\",\"authors\":\"Barbara Applebaum\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/edth.12553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this article, Barbara Applebaum examines “the inability to disagree claim” as it arises in objections made by those who want to ban “critical race theory” from being taught in schools and universities. Employing insights from the recent scholarship around willful hermeneutical ignorance, she discerns the important role that marginalized conceptual resources play in conditions of just and constructive dialogue. When such resources are misinterpreted and denied uptake, the resulting harm impedes the epistemic agency of marginally situated knowers. Applebaum claims that many high-profile anti–“critical race theory” arguments put forth by politicians, scholars, and others are a form of willful hermeneutical ignorance, and she concludes by showing how more just communications, in which disagreement is distinguishable from dismissal, can be achieved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EDUCATIONAL THEORY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EDUCATIONAL THEORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/edth.12553\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EDUCATIONAL THEORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/edth.12553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在这篇文章中,芭芭拉·阿普尔鲍姆(Barbara Applebaum)研究了“不能反对的主张”,因为它出现在那些想要禁止在中小学和大学教授“批判种族理论”的人的反对意见中。利用最近关于故意解释学无知的学术见解,她发现边缘化的概念资源在公正和建设性对话的条件下发挥着重要作用。当这些资源被误解和拒绝吸收时,由此产生的伤害阻碍了处于边缘地位的知识分子的认知代理。阿普尔鲍姆声称,政治家、学者和其他人提出的许多高调的反“批判性种族理论”论点是一种故意的解释学无知,她最后展示了如何实现更公正的沟通,在这种沟通中,分歧与驳回是可以区分的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance and the “Critical Race Theory” Controversy

In this article, Barbara Applebaum examines “the inability to disagree claim” as it arises in objections made by those who want to ban “critical race theory” from being taught in schools and universities. Employing insights from the recent scholarship around willful hermeneutical ignorance, she discerns the important role that marginalized conceptual resources play in conditions of just and constructive dialogue. When such resources are misinterpreted and denied uptake, the resulting harm impedes the epistemic agency of marginally situated knowers. Applebaum claims that many high-profile anti–“critical race theory” arguments put forth by politicians, scholars, and others are a form of willful hermeneutical ignorance, and she concludes by showing how more just communications, in which disagreement is distinguishable from dismissal, can be achieved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
EDUCATIONAL THEORY
EDUCATIONAL THEORY EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The general purposes of Educational Theory are to foster the continuing development of educational theory and to encourage wide and effective discussion of theoretical problems within the educational profession. In order to achieve these purposes, the journal is devoted to publishing scholarly articles and studies in the foundations of education, and in related disciplines outside the field of education, which contribute to the advancement of educational theory. It is the policy of the sponsoring organizations to maintain the journal as an open channel of communication and as an open forum for discussion.
×
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