Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter January 28, 2021

Varieties of Hermeneutical Injustice: A Blueprint

Christine Bratu and Hilkje Haenel

Abstract

In this paper, we have two goals. First, we argue for a blueprint for hermeneutical injustice that allows us to schematize existing and discover new varieties of hermeneutical injustices. The underlying insight is that Fricker provides both a general concept of hermeneutical injustice and a specific conception thereof. By distinguishing between the general concept and its specific conceptions, we gain a fruitful tool to detect such injustices in our everyday lives. Second, we use this blueprint to provide a further example of hermeneutical injustice that draws our attention to yet another distinction: Some hermeneutical injustices result from a lack or distortion in the collective conceptual resource and some are due to problems in the application of existing concepts. We argue that to combat hermeneutical injustices, we have to make sure not only that individuals have accurate concepts at their disposal but that they have the capabilities to use these concepts adequately.


Corresponding author: Hilkje Haenel, Universität Potsdam, Politische Theorie, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät, August-Bebel-Str. 89, 14482 Potsdam, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the opportunity to present this paper at the Workshop Feminist Theories in Political Philosophy in Bern organized by Anna Goppel and Christian Budnik, at the Munich Colloquium for Ethics organized by Jan-Christoph Heilinger and at the XXVI. DKPhil in Berlin and we thank the participants of these events for their helpful feedback. The paper benefitted enormously from the critical remarks and suggestions by Matt Congdon, Deborah Mühlebach and Tamara Jugov and the anonymous reviewers. Special thanks to Justus-Lou Witte for help with the final manuscript.

References

Anderson, L. 2017. “Hermeneutical Impasses.” Philosophical Topics 45 (2): 1–19, https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics201745211.Search in Google Scholar

Antony, L. 2012. “Different Voices or Perfect Storm: Why are there so Few Women in Philosophy?” Journal of Social Philosophy 43 (3): 227–55, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2012.01567.x.Search in Google Scholar

Beebee, H., and J. Saul. 2011. Women in Philosophy in the UK. Report by the British Philosophical Association and SWIP UK. www.bpa.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/BPA_Report_Women_In_Philosophy.pdf (accessed January 17, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Crerar, C. 2016. “Taboo, Hermeneutical Injustice, and Expressively Free Environments.” Episteme 13 (2): 195–207, https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2015.35.Search in Google Scholar

Di Bella, L., E. Miles, and J. Saul. 2016. “Philosophers Explicitly Associate Philosophy with Maleness: An Examination of Implicit and Explicit Gender Stereotypes in Philosophy.” In Implicit Bias and Philosophy, Vol. 1, edited by M. Brownstein, and J. Saul, 283–308. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dotson, K. 2012. “A Cautionary Tale: On Limiting Epistemic Oppression.” Frontiers 33 (1): 24–47.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, W. E. B. 2007/1903. The Souls of Black Folks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

El Kassar, N. 2020. “The Place of Intellectual Self-Trust in Theories of Epistemic Advantages.” Journal of Social Philosophy 51 (1): 7–26, https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12300.Search in Google Scholar

Fricker, M. 2016. “Epistemic Injustice and the Preservation of Ignorance.” In The Epistemic Dimensions of Ignorance, edited by R. Peels, and M. Blaauw, 160–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goetze, T. 2018. “Hermeneutical Dissent and the Species of Hermeneutical Injustice.” Hypatia 33 (1): 73–90, https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12384.Search in Google Scholar

Haenel, H. 2018. What is Rape? Social Theory and Conceptual Analysis. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Haslanger, S. 2012. Resisting Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hookway, C. 2010. “Some Varieties of Epistemic Injustice: Reflections on Fricker.” Episteme 7: 151–63, https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2010.0005.Search in Google Scholar

Jenkins, K. 2016a. “Rape Myths and Domestic Abuse Myths as Hermeneutical Injustices.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 33: 394–421, https://doi.org/10.1086/683535.Search in Google Scholar

Jenkins, K. 2016b. “Amelioration and Inclusion: Gender Identity and the Concept of Woman.” Ethics 126 (2): 394–421, https://doi.org/10.1086/683535.Search in Google Scholar

Jones, K. 2012. “The Politics of Intellectual Self-Trust.” Social Epistemology 26: 237–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2011.652215.Search in Google Scholar

Kristjánsson, K. 1992. “For a Concept of Negative Liberty – but Which Conception?” Journal of Applied Philosophy 9 (2): 221–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1992.tb00311.x.Search in Google Scholar

Mason, R. 2011. “Two Kinds of Unknowing.” Hypatia 26: 294–307, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01175.x.Search in Google Scholar

Medina, J. 2017. “Varieties of Hermeneutical Injustice.” In The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice, edited by I. Kidd, J. Medina, and G. Pohlhaus, 41–52. London/New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Medina, J. 2013. The Epistemology of Resistance. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mills, C. 2013. “White Ignorance and Hermeneutical Injustice. A Comment on Medina and Fricker.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3: 38–43.Search in Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Paxton, M., C. Figdor, and V. Tiberius. 2012. “Quantifying the Gender Gap: An Empirical Study of the Under representation of Women in Philosophy.” Hypatia 4: 949–57, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01306.x.Search in Google Scholar

Peacocke, C. 1998a. “Implicit Conceptions, the A Priori, and the Identity of Concepts.” Philosophical Issues 9: 121–48, https://doi.org/10.2307/1522964.Search in Google Scholar

Peacocke, C. 1998b. “Implicit Conceptions, Understandings, and Rationality.” Philosophical Issues 9: 43–89, https://doi.org/10.2307/1522959.Search in Google Scholar

Pohlhaus, G. 2012. “Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Toward a Theory of Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance.” Hypatia 22 (4): 716–35.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Saul, J. 2013. “Implicit Bias, Stereotype Threat, and Women in Philosophy.” In Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change?, edited by K. Hutchison, and F. Jenkins, 39–60. Oxford et al: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.Search in Google Scholar

Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.Search in Google Scholar

Sessions, W. 1981. “Rawls’s Concept and Conception of Primary Good.” Social Theory and Practice 7 (3): 303–24, https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract19817315.Search in Google Scholar

Simion, M. 2019. “Hermeneutical Injustice as Basing Failure.” In Well-Founded Belief: New Essays on the Epistemic Basing Relation, edited by P. Bondy, and A. Carter, 177–89. London et al: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-01-28
Published in Print: 2021-10-26

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston