Can there be epistemic justice without a common place? (Towards a reconceptualizacion of the public space and social relations)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.348998Keywords:
public space, epistemic injustice, consensus, exclusion, oppressionAbstract
In this manuscript, I claim that the search for justice implies a complete reconfiguration of public space and a (radical) transformation of our social relations. I will argue through a negative path, i.e. starting from the comprehension of the experience of injustice. I will focus on the case of epistemic injustice since it illustrates how the unjustified harm it produces is originated in the structure of social relations. To reach my goal, I will attempt to bring into dialogue two different philosophical debates —that which deals with the notion of the public space and that which discusses epistemic injustice—. This will help me show that epistemology has a fundamental and profound political dimension which needs to be addressed to find better avenues to search for and reach (epistemic and otherwise) justice. My main contention is that the possibility of constructing a functional public space depends on recognizing the confrontational character of politics and on not trying to erase the differences that make up society, nor trying to undo them under the idea of a (rational) consensus.
Downloads
References
Acosta, M. del R. (2020). Gramaticas de la escucha como gramáticas descoloniales. Apuntes para una descolonización de la memoria. Eidos, 34, 14-40. https://doi.org/10.14482/eidos.34.415
Alcoff, L. M. (2010). Epistemic Identities. Episteme, 7(2), 128-137. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2010.0003
Arendt, H. (1997). ¿Qué es la política? (R. Sala Carbo, trad.). Paidós.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. The University of Chicago Press.
Bergin, L. (2002). Testimony, epistemic difference, and privilege. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 197– 213. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269172022000025589
De Requena Farré, J. A. (2015). La injusticia epistémica y la justicia del testimonio. Discusiones Filosóficas, 16(26), 49-67. https://doi.org/10.17151/difil.2015.16.26.4
Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x
Dotson, K. (2012). A cautionary tale: on limiting epistemic oppression. A Journal of Women Studies, 33(1), 24-47. https://doi.org/10.5250/fronjwomestud.33.1.0024
Dotson, K. (2014). Conceptualizing epistemic oppression. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 115-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.782585
Eraña, Á. (2021). De un mundo que hila personas (o de la falsedad de la paradoja individuo/ sociedad). IIFs, UNAM y UAM-C.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
Fricker, M. (2017). Injusticia epistémica (R. García Pérez, trad.). Herder.
García Álvarez, A. (2019). Emancipación epistémica. Una lectura kantiana acerca de la “Injusticia
Epistémica”. Eikasia. Revista de Filosofía, 87, 157-179.
Guerrero McManus, S. (2021). Identidad y diversidad sexogenérica en México. Historias, narrativas y políticas. En L. Loeza Reyes (Coord.), Políticas de identidad en el contexto de la crisis de la democracia (pp. 109-140). Ceiich, UNAM.
Habermas, J. (1991). Derecho y moral (dos lecciones). En D. Sobrevilla (Comp.), El derecho, la política y la ética (pp. 10-30R) Siglo XXI/Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM.
Habermas, J. (1981). Historia y crítica de la opinión pública (M. Jiménez Redondo, trad.). Tecnos.
Habermas, J. (1988). Ensayos políticos (R. García Cotarelo, trad.). Península.
Lackey, J. (2021). False confessions and subverted agency. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 89, 11-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246121000072
Marion Young, I. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
Medina, J. (2013). The epistemology of resistance. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199929023.001.0001
Medina, J. (2019). Racial violence, emotional friction, and epistemic activism. Angelaki, 24(4), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2019.1635821
Pohlhaus, G. (2017). Varieties of epistemic injustice. En I. James Kidd, J. Medina & G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (pp. 13-27). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212043-2
Quintana, L. (2020). Política de los cuerpos. Herder. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11qdwc8 Rabotnikof, N. (2011). En busca de un lugar común. El espacio público en la teoría política contemporánea. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM.
Rancière, J. (1996). El desacuerdo (H. Pons, trad.). Nueva Visión.
Sandel, M. J. (2020). La tiranía del mérito (A. Santos Mosquera, trad.). Debate.
Spivak, G. Ch. (1996). The spivak reader: selected works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Psychology Press.
Subcomandante Marcos (2013). Ellos y Nosotros VI. Las miradas. https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2013/02/06/ellos-y-nosotros-vi-las-miradas/
Subcomandante Marcos (2008). La historia de las miradas. En Red de Solidaridad con Chiapas (Comp.), Los otros cuentos, vol. 2 (pp. 37-40). Red de Solidaridad con Chiapas.
Villoro, L. (2009). Tres retos de la sociedad por venir. Siglo XXI.
Yébenes, Z. (2021). Indicios Visionarios. Para una prehistoria de la alucinación. Tierra Firme.
Yébenes, Z. (2020). Visionarios y fanáticos. Imaginación y política a partir de Kant. Enclaves del pensamiento, XIV(27), 112-135. https://doi.org/10.46530/ecdp.v0i27.381
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Ángeles Eraña
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.
