Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nt87m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-15T16:07:59.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Objectification as the Primary Harm of Testimonial Injustice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2019

Aidan McGlynn Open the ORCID record for Aidan McGlynn [Opens in a new window]
Aidan McGlynn*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: amcglynn@staffmail.ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper criticises Miranda Fricker's account of the primary harm of testimonial injustice as a kind of epistemic objectification, where the latter is understood on the model provided by Martha Nussbaum's influential analysis of sexual objectification and where it is taken to involve the denial of someone's epistemic agency. I examine the existing objections to Fricker's account of the primary harm, criticising some while accepting the force of others, and I argue that one of Fricker's own central examples of testimonial injustice in fact offers the basis of a particularly telling objection. While Fricker's other critics have mostly concluded that we need to look at alternative theoretical resources to offer an account of the primary harm of testimonial injustice, I aim to show that this is premature; both Fricker and her critics have underestimated the resources provided by Nussbaum's analysis of objectification when offering an account of the primary harm, and something very much in the spirit of Fricker's account survives the objections.

Keywords

epistemic injusticetestimonial injusticeobjectification
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 160 - 176
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Congdon, M. (2017). ‘What's Wrong with Epistemic Injustice? Harm, Vice, Objectification, Misrecognition.’ In Kidd, I.J., Medina, J. and Pohlhaus, G. Jr. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice, pp. 243–53. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, E. (1990). Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Curry, T.J. (2017). ‘This Nigger's Broken: Hyper-masculinity, the Buck, and the Role of Physical Disability in White Anxiety Toward the Black Male Body.’ Journal of Social Philosophy 48(3), 321–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, E. (2016). ‘Typecasts, Tokens, and Spokepersons: A Case for Credibility Excess as Testimonial Injustice.’ Hypatia 31, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappel, K. (2010). ‘On Saying that Someone Knows: Themes from Craig.’ In Haddock, A., Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Social Epistemology, pp. 69–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelp, C. (2011). ‘What's the Point of “Knowledge” Anyway?’ Episteme 8(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. (2012). ‘Group Knowledge Attributions.’ In Brown, J. and Gerken, M. (eds), Knowledge Ascriptions, pp. 243–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langton, R. (2005). ‘Autonomy-Denial in Objectification.’ Reprinted in Langton, R., Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification, pp. 223–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, H. (1960). To Kill a Mockingbird. London: Arrow Books.Google Scholar
Luzzi, F. (2016). ‘Testimonial Injustice Without Credibility Deficit (or Excess).’ Thought 5, 203–11.Google Scholar
Manne, K. (2017). Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlynn, A. (2014). Knowledge First? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlynn, A. (Forthcoming). ‘Testimonial Injustice, Pornography, and Silencing.’ Analytic Philosophy.Google Scholar
Medina, J. (2012). ‘Hermeneutical Injustice: Social Silences and Shared Hermeneutical Responsibilities.’ Social Epistemology 26(2), 201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, J. (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (1995). ‘Objectification.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 24(4), 249–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oluo, I. (2018). So You Want to Talk about Race. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.Google Scholar
Pohlhaus, G. Jr. (2012). ‘Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Towards a Theory of Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance.’ Hypatia 27, 715–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohlhaus, G. Jr. (2014). ‘Discerning the Primary Epistemic Harm in Cases of Testimonial Injustice.’ Social Epistemology 28(2), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremain, S. (2017). ‘Knowing Disability, Differently.’ In Kidd, I.J., Medina, J. and Pohlhaus, G. Jr. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice, pp. 175–84. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar