Weaponized testimonial injustice

Manuel Almagro,Javier Osorio,Neftalí Villanueva

doi:10.5209/ltdl.76461

Abstract

Theoretical tools aimed at making explicit the injustices suffered by certain socially disadvantaged groups might end up serving purposes which were not foreseen when the tools were first introduced. Nothing is inherently wrong with a shift in the scope of a theoretical tool: the popularization of a concept opens up the possibility of its use for several strategic purposes. The thesis that we defend in this paper is that some public figures cultivate a public persona for whom the conditions of the notion of testimonial injustice might be taken to apply, and this situation is exploited to their advantage, as a means to advance their political agendas. More specifically, they take advantage of this to generate situations of crossed disagreements, which in turn foster polarization.

Highlights

Theoretical tools aimed at making explicit the injustices suffered by certain socially disadvantaged groups might end up serving purposes which were not foreseen when the tools were first introduced
In section A, we introduce the notion of testimonial injustice, and the phenomenon of crossed disagreement
Our goal is to show that the status of certain agents can be interpreted as the result of testimonial injustice while, at the same time, providing an opportunity to surreptitiously advance a particular political agenda

Summary

Testimonial injustice and crossed disagreements

Testimonial injustices “Testimonial injustice” is the well-known label introduced by Miranda Fricker to refer to a very specific unjust situation, the injustice of receiving, in a systematic and persistent way, less credibility than one deserves (Fricker, 2007). Not just any kind of lack of credibility, but the kind of testimonial deficit that might arguably happen to an individual because they belong to a certain disenfranchised group, for the kind of reasons that might be felt to chase them in other spheres of life, as members of that group When this lack of credibility is perceived as an instance of how a group is systematically mistreated, can these individuals use it to their advantage, transforming potentially harming communicative situations into crossed disagreements that advance their political goals. When the interlocutors in a dispute exhibit signs of conceiving differently the nature of the disagreement they are involved in, as a result they do not take into account the arguments offered by the other part, which on its own might make it more difficult to reach a decision on a common course of action. To the extent that decisions that affect our common interest must be adopted by public deliberation, in an institutional setting that provides checks and balances, the interventions designed to ensure the proper development of public deliberation in a democracy must take into account the effects produced by crossed disagreements, which frequently go unnoticed in our public discussions

When personality gets in the way

Crossed disagreements in key public debates

Findings

Conclusion