In Search of Epistemic Justice

updated

In Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (2007), Miranda Fricker established a new framework to describe the inequalities that take place in the realm of knowledge. Fricker defines epistemic injustice as a “wrong done to someone in her capacity as a knower” (1). The idea struck a chord with the organizers of the seminar at the center of this Colloquy. When we first met, we were all concerned with the marginalization and delegitimating of ways of knowing that stem from non-dominant cultural locations, identities, and positionalities. We were also aware of the limits of Fricker’s framework.

Working in a variety of humanistic fields (continental philosophy, translation studies, and comparative literature), we knew other vocabularies, some of which were grounded in postcolonial and decolonial theory. We were also sensitive to the differences between the forms of knowledge targeted by Fricker, testimony and self-knowledge, and the more regimented and collectivized varieties of knowledge production one finds in academia. Finally, since knowledge production is itself a social phenomenon, we felt keenly that the question of epistemic injustice could not be considered regardless of knowledge’s various aims and the relationship between practice and theory.

To mention some examples, for Kwasi Wiredu (2002), the task of conceptual decolonization is as much a culturally situated endeavor – discovering and disentangling Africa’s intellectual heritage from Europe’s – as a means to advancing the universal and potentially endless task of rationally refining our concepts. Raewyn Connell (2007) argues that weaning the social sciences from Eurocentric social theory while incorporating “Southern theory” is a necessity of globalization and democratic societies. Revathi Krishnaswamy (2010) observes that the long-due inclusion of non-Western literary theory, aesthetics, and poetics is a sine qua non condition of a genuine transcultural knowledge of literary forms. Finally, for Boaventura De Sousa Santos (2014), cognitive justice is subordinated to social justice. Hence, knowledge as a utopian endeavor – as a quest for a better world – cannot be conceived and prescribed outside specific struggles. From this perspective, it matters less whether our cognitive tools are “northern” or “southern” than whether they succeed in dismantling the master’s house. For the same reason, knowledge’s emancipatory potential can only be realized outside the university. Given the diverse vocabulary available to speak of epistemic harm, the divergences in views regarding the link between theory and practice and the role of the university, and the variety of situations in which epistemic injustice can and must be redressed, we decided to take a dialogical approach. Instead of seeking an impossible and undesirable armchair consensus, we created a space to think about epistemic injustice in collaboration with scholars and interested parties hailing from several disciplines and located all over the world.

This colloquy emerges from a collaborative endeavor initiated at Stanford University in 2020, when Victoria Zurita and Chen Bar-Itzhak organized an ACLA seminar titled "Epistemic Justice in Literary Studies". This seminar sought to explore how epistemic injustice and inequality manifest themselves within the discipline of literary studies in different cultural and theoretical contexts. The seminar subsequently evolved into a two-year international research seminar, co-convened with Angelo Vannini and Micol Bez, bearing the title "In Search of Epistemic Justice: A Tentative Cartography." In this seminar, we examined issues related to epistemic justice and the marginalization of ways of knowing and methods of knowledge production stemming from non-hegemonic cultural positions. Acknowledging the fact that scholars across disciplines and intellectual traditions worldwide have grappled with this phenomenon using diverse terminologies, we aimed to create a discursive space that would bring these varied approaches into a common arena for discussion. Intentionally, we chose to conduct our seminar online, thereby enabling broad participation from a global cohort of scholars, particularly those from countries often marginalized from the centers of academic production – an issue inextricably linked to epistemic injustice. Throughout our seminar, we hosted participants from over 15 countries worldwide to discuss the various manifestations of epistemic injustice in different cultural contexts and within academia itself.

This Colloquy seeks to keep a record of our seminar’s activities, which came to an end in 2023, and to direct readers to foundational sources that they can repurpose as they wish. Several of the pieces included here were presented or developed on the occasion of the 2021 ACLA convention. Our panel, “Epistemic Justice in Literary Studies” became the seedbed of some pieces (Wiese, Zurita), took inspiration from others (Bar-Itzhak), and put us in touch with authors addressing similar issues in other disciplines (Levitt and Rutherford, Forthcoming). We recorded our seminar’s inaugural roundtable which put into conversation different disciplinary perspectives: philosophy (Davis), sociology (De Sousa Santos), literary studies (Krishnaswamy), and indigenous studies (Librandi). While we were not able to include work from all the speakers due to permission restrictions, Librandi’s piece is a particularly powerful portrayal of the dialogues between theory and practice as it explores the implications of canonizing the sorrow and indignation of the Guarani-Kaoiwá. We hope to continue including records of other sessions and invite new contributions.

As we pen this introduction in the spring of 2024, we sense a compelling need to further the discussion. While other, more tangible forms of injustice currently unfolding may demand more immediate action, we perceive issues of epistemic injustice as relevant to making sense of the violent events occurring around us today, and to the disparate narratives woven around them. We would therefore like to conclude this introduction with an invitation – we urge fellow scholars and artists to contribute to this colloquy pieces that engage with current events in their relation to epistemic justice.

Works Cited

Bar-Itzhak, C. (2020). Intellectual Captivity: Literary Theory, World Literature, and the Ethics of Interpretation. Journal of World Literature 5(1): 79-110.

Connell, Raewyn. 2007. Southern Theory: Social Science And The Global Dynamics Of Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity.

Krishnaswamy, Revathi. 2010. “Toward World Literary Knowledges: Theory in the Age of Globalization.” Comparative Literature 62(4): 399-419.

Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. London: Paradigm Publishers.

Wiredu, Kwasi. 2002. “Conceptual Decolonization as an Imperative in Contemporary African Philosophy: Some Personal Reflections.” Rue Descartes 36(2): 53-64.

Curators

Victoria Zurita

Chen Bar-Itzhak

Can't You Hear My Call? The Guarani Kaiowá Letter and the Right to Land and Literature in Brazil

Book Chapter

This chapter recalls the main events concerning the Guarani Kaiowá Letter signed by the Pyelito Kue/Mbarakay community and suggests we take one additional step by including it in the range of contemporary literary production in Brazil.

Epistemic Counter-Conquests and Historical Justice: Reading Momaday and Welskopf-Henrich Side-by-Side

Essay

This essay is part of a larger research project called Side by Side: Reading Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Literature. In this research, I ask how Euro-Western scholars like me can establish a respectful and informed relationship with Indigenous intellectual traditions and inventions if they come from a culture in which stereotypical ideas about Indigenous peoples have been pervasive.

Toward World Literary Knowledges: Theory in the Age of Globalization

Journal Article

This essay argues for the need to globalize the field of literary theory beyond inducting a few non-Western greats into theory's hall of fame toward radically redefining theory itself in ways that include not only dominant, formal, explicit high textual traditions of poetics, but also subaltern and popular epistemologies that may be “emergent” or “latent” in praxis. Toward this end, the essay proposes an alternative in the form of “world literary knowledges” and presents three examples of “literary knowledge” from the (pre- and post-colonial) Indian context.

Remedios in Valinor: Magical Realism, Transnationalisms, and the Historicity of Literary Value

Journal Article

In Transnational Literature: The Basics (2021), Paul Jay offers an introduction to the transnational turn in literary studies [...] In line with the commitment to difference that Jay posits as a defining feature of the transnational, I contrast in this article two types of transnationalism — regionalism and cosmopolitanism — as they feature in David Damrosch’s Comparing the Literatures: Literary Studies in a Global Age.

In Search of Epistemic Justice: Round Table

Video

New

This round table gathers scholars from across disciplines to discuss issues related to epistemic inequality and injustice. From their distinct disciplinary locations, participants address these issues as epistemic justice in the Anglo-American philosophy, as the geopolitics of knowledge and epistemicide in the social sciences, as decolonizing knowledge in Southern Theory, and as perspectivism and cognitive justice in World Literary Knowledges.