The Epistemology of Resistance

What Makes Epistemic Injustice an “Injustice”?

I shall first briefly revisit the broad idea of ‘epistemic injustice’, explaining how it can take either distributive or discriminatory form, in order to put the concepts of ‘testimonial injustice’ and ‘hermeneutical injustice’ in place. In previous work I have explored how the wrong of both kinds of epistemic injustice has both an ethical and an epistemic significance—someone is wronged in their capacity as a knower. But my present aim is to show that this wrong can also have a political significance in relation to non-domination, and so to freedom. While it is only the republican conception of political freedom that presents nondomination as constitutive of freedom, I shall argue that non-domination is best understood as a thoroughly generic liberal ideal of freedom to which even negative libertarians are implicitly committed, for non-domination is negative liberty as of right—secured non-interference. Crucially on this conception, non-domination requires that the citizen can contest interferences. Pettit specifies three conditions of contestation, each of which protects against a salient risk of the would-be contester not getting a ‘proper hearing’. But I shall argue that missing from this list is anything to protect against a fourth salient threat: the threat that either kind of epistemic injustice might disable contestation by way of an unjust deflation of either credibility or intelligibility. Thus we see that both testimonial and hermeneutical injustice can render a would-be contester dominated. Epistemic justice is thereby revealed as a constitutive condition of non-domination, and thus of a central liberal political ideal of freedom.

Epistemic injustice is, broadly speaking, about ways that members of marginalized groups may be wronged in their capacity as knowers, due to prejudicial stereotypes. Members of marginalized groups are also the main subjects of concern in discussions of implicit bias and stereotype threat. A key concern in discussions of both implicit bias and stereotype threat has been the effects of the phenomena on academic endeavours. It may seem clear, then, what the relationship is between epistemic injustice, implicit bias, and stereotype threat: at first glance, it would appear that implicit bias and stereotype threat are simply varieties of epistemic injustice. This chapter focuses on at Miranda Fricker's two main categories - testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice - exploring how each relates to implicit bias and stereotype threat. It considers the ways that implicit bias and stereotype threat may cause hermeneutical injustice.

Many individuals who have mental disorders often report negative experiences of a distinctively epistemic sort, such as not being listened to, not being taken seriously, or not being considered credible because of their psychiatric conditions. In an attempt to articulate and interpret these reports we present Fricker’s concepts of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007, p. 1) and then focus on testimonial injustice and hermeneutic injustice as it applies to individuals with mental disorders. The clinical impact of these concepts on quality of care is discussed. Within the clinical domain, we contrast epistemic injustice with epistemic privilege and authority. We then argue that testimonial and hermeneutic injustices also affect individuals with mental disorders not only when communicating with their caregivers but also in the social context as they attempt to reintegrate into the general society and assume responsibilities as productive citizens. Following the trend of the movement of mental health care to the community, the testimonies of people with mental disorders should not be restricted to issues involving their own personal mental states.

A Cautionary Tale:On Limiting Epistemic Oppression Kristie Dotson (bio) I cannot recall the words of my first poembut I remember a promiseI made my pennever to leave itlyingin somebody else's blood. Audre Lorde, "To the Poet Who Happens to Be Black and the Black Poet Who Happens to Be a Woman"1 Introduction In this paper, first and foremost, I aim to issue a caution. Specifically, I caution that when addressing and identifying forms of epistemic oppression one needs to endeavor not to perpetuate epistemic oppression. Epistemic oppression, here, refers to epistemic exclusions afforded positions and communities that produce deficiencies in social knowledge. An epistemic exclusion, in this analysis, is an infringement on the epistemic agency of knowers that reduces her or his ability to participate in a given epistemic community.2 Epistemic agency will concern the ability to utilize persuasively shared epistemic resources within a given epistemic community in order to participate in knowledge production and, if required, the revision of those same resources.3 A compromise to epistemic agency, when unwarranted, damages not only individual knowers but also the state of social knowledge and shared epistemic resources. Unfortunately, avoiding unwarranted epistemic exclusions is an exceedingly difficult task. It may well be impossible. For example, we simply do not have the capacity to track all the implications of our positions on any given [End Page 24] issue, which would, arguably, be necessary to avoid epistemic oppression entirely. This realization relegates efforts to be conscious of and minimize epistemic oppression to a kind of naïveté characteristic of utopian dreamers who advocate pie-in-the-sky goals achievable only in theory. Like many forms of pessimism, pessimism about epistemic fairness assumes an all-or-nothing stance. Either we can eliminate epistemic oppression entirely, or we can do nothing about epistemic oppression at all. This position is an obvious over-simplification of the many options available. One can advocate for better, more responsible epistemic conduct capable of reducing epistemic oppression, without also harboring unrealistic expectations for superior epistemic conduct and abilities necessary for eliminating epistemic oppression entirely. In this vein here I issue a caution and a proposal for minimizing epistemic oppression. To issue this caution, I take Miranda Fricker's book Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing as a paradigmatic case of the challenges that arise when attempting to avoid epistemic oppression, even while drawing attention to epistemic forms of oppression.4 By bringing attention to specifically epistemic forms of injustice, Fricker's work offers a strong and valuable contribution to a tradition of feminist thought that aims to highlight the observation that "when it comes to knowledge, women get hurt."5 However, her framing of epistemic bad luck as an antithesis to epistemic injustice conceptually forecloses the possibility of other forms of epistemic injustice and hence can be used to demonstrate the pervasiveness of epistemic oppression. Fricker, I claim, inadvertently perpetrates epistemic oppression by utilizing a closed conceptual structure to identify epistemic injustice. This limitation of Fricker's view illustrates the difficulty of avoiding epistemic oppression and demonstrates an avenue for reducing it in one's own analyses. This paper will proceed in two parts. First, I introduce Fricker's two forms of epistemic injustice, testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice, and a third form of epistemic injustice, contributory injustice. I will also briefly gesture to the pervasive nature of epistemic oppression. Second, I use Fricker's concept of epistemic bad luck as a contemporary example of how easy it is to perpetrate epistemic oppression, even while working to address epistemic oppression. Specifically, I show how Fricker's account deploys a closed conceptual structure that prematurely forecloses the possibility of alternative forms of epistemic injustice, like contributory injustice, and thereby perpetuates epistemic oppression. Ultimately, the strengths and limitations of Fricker's efforts to outline epistemic injustice highlight a need to move toward open conceptual structures that signify without absolute foreclosure so as to reduce the continued propagation of epistemic oppression. [End Page 25] Three Forms of Epistemic Injustice In this section I introduce three forms of epistemic injustice. They are: (1) testimonial injustice, (2) hermeneutical injustice, and (3) contributory injustice. For...

ABSTRACTThis article critiques the broad interpretation of inadequate medical responses to chronic pain reports as instances of testimonial or hermeneutical injustice. While Miranda Fricker's concepts help highlight the neglect of chronic pain sufferers – such as healthcare professionals' failure to take reports seriously (testimonial injustice) or the lack of adequate language to communicate pain experiences (hermeneutical injustice) – we argue that applying these frameworks overlooks important nuances. Specifically, we contend that there is an additional, distinct epistemic failure in how healthcare providers engage with chronic pain complaints: a failure to respond to these reports in adequate ways, beyond merely understanding or believing them. We hypothesize that it has to do with inquisitive inertia (a decision not to investigate further, in the absence of good medical reasons to ground such a decision), and we conceptualize this failure in terms of distributive epistemic injustice, that may persist even in the absence of testimonial or hermeneutical injustices as they are traditionally understood.

Scholars usually distinguish between testimonial and hermeneutical epistemic injustice in healthcare. The former arises from negative stereotyping and stigmatization, while the latter occurs when the hermeneutical resources of the dominant community are inadequate for articulating the experience of one's illness. However, the heuristics provided by these two types of epistemic predicaments tend to overlook salient forms of epistemic injustice. In this paper, we prove this argument on the example of the temporality of patients with drug dependence. We identify three temporal dimensions of epistemic injustice affecting drug-dependent patients: the temporal features of their cognitive processes, their individual temporal experience, and the mismatch of social temporality. Notably, the last aspect, which highlights the disparity between the availability of care and its accessibility, does not fit neatly into the categories of testimonial or hermeneutical injustice. (We should note that the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD) and The Asian Network of People who use Drugs (ANPUD) consider the term "drug addiction" to be associated with disempowerment and negative stereotyping. Instead, they suggest the expression "drug dependence" (INPUD 2020). However, the concept of "drug addiction" is still being used in the current public health, philosophy, and sociology debates that concern the specific field of addiction studies. Replacing the notion of drug addiction with "drug dependence" would not eliminate existing epistemic injustices or allow us to avoid creating new ones, such as those related to ignoring pain claims (O'Brien 2011). Still, for the sake of clarity we will use the notion "drug dependence" when speaking of people while retaining the term "drug addiction" for labelling healthcare practices and the topic for philosophy of healthcare.).

In this article, we consider a recent philosophical attempt to narrate transgender experiences in response to what Miranda Fricker has termed ‘epistemic injustice’, against the background of highly polarized debates concerning trans identities in both academic philosophy and popular culture. We bring out some of the difficulties and challenges involved in doing epistemic justice to trans testimonies via an analysis and critique of Daniele Moyal-Sharrock and Constantine Sandis’ philosophical paper ‘Bedrock Gender’. We consider how the paper raises distinct issues related to testimonial and hermeneutical injustice in its emphasis on trans testimonies of gender certainty. In response, we consider what is at stake in understanding and using the testimony of gendered experiences for furthering a philosophical account of gender. In scrutinizing the epistemology of trans in the paper, we argue that combatting epistemic injustices related to gender requires self-reflexivity and an understanding of the complexity of gendered realities as well as the moral-existential aspects of testimonies of gender. We suggest that rather than speaking of gender in terms of ‘bedrock’ and ‘certainty’, thinking philosophically about gender must involve a critical investigation and ongoing conversation of how gender identification can both confirm and contest our sense of who we are.

In her groundbreaking text Epistemic Injustice, Miranda Fricker evaluates types of harms incurred by individuals undergoing unrecognized and inarticulable oppression. At issue in epistemic and hermeneutic injustice are prejudicial comportments to and evaluations of reality. In the following, I focus on hermeneutic and epistemic injustice in relation to the formation of intellectual and ethical virtues. When reading Fricker and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutics together, there is a clear pathway to improve ethical development. In particular, ethical development ought to cultivate the proper virtues that promote understanding. Gadamer’s emphasis on the qualities of a researcher and the epistemic virtues that Fricker highlights reveal an educative path for addressing injustice. In other words, cultivating these virtues counteracts injustice wherein recognition and articulation of reality is challenged or at issue.

This chapter examines the ways in which disabled people are subject to epistemic injustice. It starts by introducing how social epistemology models the creation of shared knowledge and then uses feminist epistemology to highlight the role of social and political power in producing epistemic privilege, exclusion, and oppression. The well-known concepts of testimonial and hermeneutic epistemic injustice are discussed in relation to disability, showing how these forms of injustice are frequently experienced within the lives of disabled people. In particular, disabled experience has features that distinguish it from the experiences of sexism and racism most commonly used as illustrations of epistemic injustice. The chapter ends by arguing that the potential for epistemic injustice poses unprecedented risks for disabled people in the current context, which could be minimized by recognizing that ignorance about disabled lives is not inevitable, but something that can and should be challenged.

This paper explores Indigenous knowledge suppression as a form of epistemic violence and injustice. Through examination of the residential schooling system, I demonstrate how forced assimilation practices, such as language suppression and erasure, severed important epistemic ties for Indigenous children. Drawing on Gayatri Spivak’s account of epistemic violence and Miranda Fricker’s literature on epistemic injustice, I argue that colonial boarding schools incited epistemic violence which gave rise to testimonial and hermeneutical injustices. Furthermore, I critically analyze modern forms of reconciliation, declaring that such efforts fail to adequately address ongoing harms faced by Indigenous peoples. Instead, they perpetuate systemic oppression and epistemic injustice, thereby diminishing Indigenous testimonies in the modern era. Finally, I engage with José Medina’s recognition philosophy to assert the need for a radical shift in the process of recognition as a step towards sufficiently managing epistemic harms.

This paper explores how University as social entity has great potential to confront epistemic injustices by expanding epistemic capabilities. To do this, we primarily follow the contributions of scholars such as Miranda Fricker and José Medina. The epistemic capabilities and epistemic injustice nexus will be explored via two empirical cases: the first one is an experience developed in Lagos (Nigeria) using participatory video; the second is a service learning pedagogical strategy for final year undergraduate students conducted at Universidad de Ibagué (in Colombia). The Lagos experience shows how participatory action-research methodologies could promote epistemic capabilities and functioning, making it possible for the participants to generate interpretive materials to speak of their own realities. However, this experience is too limited to address testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. The Colombian experience is a remarkable experience that is building epistemic capabilities among students and other local participants. However, there is a hermeneutical and structural injustice that tends to give more value to disciplinary and codified knowledge at the expense of experiential and tacit knowledge.

Connecting epistemic injustice and justified belief in health-related conspiracies

Objective To investigate the present situation of social practice of medical students and to analyze its influencing factors, to provide scientific basis for improving students' participation and quality of participation. Methods The survey of 374 medical students of Peking University was conducted in July 2015, using a self-made questionnaire including the cognition of social practice, social practice experience, etc. The sample of students was selected by cluster sampling from 2007 to 2014 grades. There were 370 valid questionnaires; the effective response rate was 98.8%. IBM SPSS statistics 20.0 was used to make statistical analysis and data were processed by description analysis and ordinal regression analysis. Results 328 persons (88.6%) affirmed the importance of social practice. However, 120 students (32.4%) did not take part in social practice in last school year. There were 357 students participating in social practice during the university. 341 students (95.5%) achieved and even exceeded the practice expectations. Secondly, it depicted the influence factors of students' participation in social practice, including family economic factor, former social practice experience before entering university, and the personal factors which included grade, overall rating scores points, and position. Moreover, factors influencing the quality of their participation included the preparation time of social practice, the output, the awards and the guide teacher. Conclusions It showed that the situation of medical students' participation in social practice was not satisfactory. It suggested schools set social practice credit requirements, and strengthen the freshmen education, to establish students' inertia effect of social practice. Key words: Medical students; Social practice; Questionnaire survey; Influential factors

This paper characterizes a phenomenon I call ‘binarism grammatical lacuna’ (BGL). BGL occurs when non-binary sex and gender identities are forced to choose between being he or she by the grammar of a language owing to the sex/gender binary. Although hermeneutical injustice (HI) lies at its core, given that non-binary communities come up with hermeneutical devices to overcome unintelligibility and these tools are discredited, a variety of epistemic injustices, besides HI, intertwine in BGL. I address contributory injustice, pragmatic competence injustice, testimonial injustice, and testimonial smothering. Section 1 introduces the phenomenon by portraying it as an ensemble of epistemic injustices. Section 2 elucidates the variety of HI at the core of BGL by examining the case of mainstream Spanish, and section 3 reveals it as producing the primary harm of HI. Section 4 studies the relationship between grammar, ideology, and language use, calling attention to the fact that grammatical lacunae are performatively reenacted in daily speech acts. Section 5 explores the agential dimension of BGL, examining responsibilities. In addition to addressing some of the forms of epistemic injustice that might intertwine in BGL besides HI, I portray non-marginalized users of binary grammar when addressing non-binary people as hermeneutical misfirers.