Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

POLİTİK EPİSTEMOLOJİDE EPİSTEMİK ADALETSİZLİK VE HİBRİT KÖTÜLÜK

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 71 - 94, 30.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.54282/inijoss.1071701

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Miranda Fricker’ın epistemik adaletsizlik kavramının kapsamının iki yoldan genişletilebileceğini iddia etmektedir. İlki, Fricker, epistemik adaletsizliğin temel nedenini güvenirliğin eksik olmasına bağlamış olsa da güvenirlik fazlalılığı epistemik adaletsizlik olarak değerlendirilebilir. Özellikle savaş ve tutukluluk süreçlerinde yalan ifadeye zorlama gibi uygulamalar, güvenirlik fazlalığından kaynaklanır ve epistemik adaletsizliğe neden olur. Hiyerarşik olan bazı yapılarda toplumsal aktörlerin dinleyici ve konuşmacı rolleri, konuşmacının bilgiye sahip olduğu iddiasıyla hegemonik bir ilişkiye dönüşebilir. Aynı zamanda bu ilişki, kimlik önyargısı nedeniyle dışlama, marjinalleştirme ve ötekileştirmeyi de motive eder. Bu durumda sadece güvenirlik eksikliğini değil fazlalığını da epistemik adaletsizlik olarak kabul etmek gerekir. Güvenirlik fazlalığı, bu çalışmanın konusu kapsamında “bilgi sahibi olduğu iddiasıyla sorgulanan kişilerin” karşılaştığı durum olarak kabul edilmektedir. İkincisi, epistemik adaletsizlik hibrit bir kötülük olarak tanımlanabilir. Hibrit kötülük, politik kötülük gibi karmaşık motivasyonları içinde barındıran kötülük örneklerine karşılık gelir; çünkü ne sadece karaktere, ne de sadece çevresel şartlara indirgenebilir. Fricker’ın epistemik adaletsizliğin çözümü için önerisi, entelektüel ve refleksif eleştirel-toplumsal farkındalık gibi hibrit erdemlerdir. Bireylerin mevcut durumları ve bağlam, refleksif düşünmeyi sağlarken aynı zamanda normatif yönden eleştirel bir tutumu da destekler. Ancak Fricker, çözüm için hibrit erdemleri sunarken problemi hibrit olarak tanımlamaz. Bu yüzden bu çalışma, güvenirlik fazlalığını epistemik adaletsizlik kavramının kapsamına dahil etmeye ve böyle bir adaletsizliği politik hibrit kötülük olarak tanımlamaya çalışarak iki yoldan Fricker’in kavramının kapsamını genişletmeyi önermektedir. Böyle bir genişleme politik epistemolojinin siyaset, ahlak ve epistemoloji teorilerini yeniden değerlendirme fırsatı verecek ve bu alanda normatif katkıyı artıracaktır.

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

2219

References

  • Anderson, E. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3 (1-2), 8-22.
  • Baudrillard, J. (2006). Sessiz yığınların gölgesinde (Çev: O. Adanır). Doğu Batı Yayınları.
  • Baxter, K. (2020). The enlightenment’s post-9/11 legacy. İçinde A. Asfari (Eds), Civility, Nonviolent Resistance, and the New Struggle for Social Justice (141-162). Brill Rodopi.
  • Begg, M. (2017). Full address and Q&A [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOaoJg7mGHY&ab_channel=OxfordUnion
  • Bohman, J. (2012). Domination, epistemic injustice and republican epistemology. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 26 (2), 175-187.
  • Cassam, Q. (2019). Vices of the mind from the intellectual to the political. Oxford University Press.
  • Chiesa, L. E. (2009). Beyond torture: the nemo tenetur principle in borderline cases. Pace Law Faculty Publications. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/642.
  • Cockburn, A. (2007). Rumsfeld: an American disaster. Verso.
  • Coleman, S. (2009). The problems of duty and loyalty. Journal of Military Ethics, 8 (2), 105-115.
  • Congdon, M. (2017). What’s wrong with epistemic injustice? Harm, vice, objectification, misrecognition. İçinde I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (ss. 243-253). Routledge.
  • Congdon, M. (2018). ‘Knower’ as an ethical concept: from epistemic agency to mutual recognition, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 4 (4). https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2018.4.6228.
  • Croom, A. (2014). Vindicating virtue: a critical analysis of the situationist challenge against Aristotelian moral psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48 (1) 18–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9249-8.
  • Danner, M. (2004). Torture and truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the war on terrorism. New York Review of Books.
  • Davis, E. (2016). Typecasts, tokens, and spokespersons: a case for credibility excess as testimonial injustice. Hypatia, 31(3), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12251.
  • Doris, J. M. & Murphy, D. (2007). From my lai to Abu Ghraib: the moral psychology of atrocity. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 31 (1) 34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00149.x
  • Dübgen, F. (2016). Epistemic injustice in practice. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies Special Issue 15. 1-10.
  • Fair, E. (2016). A torturer’s confession: former Abu Ghraib interrogator speaks out [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oGh93UnxQg.
  • Fricker, M. (2003). Epistemic injustice and a role for virtue in the politics of knowing. Metaphilosophy, 34 (1-2). 154-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00266.
  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: power & ethics of knowledge. Oxford University Press.
  • Fricker, M. (2008). Précis, Theoria, An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 23 (1) 61. 69-71.
  • Fricker, M. (2013). Epistemic justice as a condition of political freedom? Synthese 190, 1317–1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0227-3.
  • Gülener, E. M. (2017). Epistemik adaletsizlik üzerine bir tartışma. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Sakarya Üniversitesi.
  • Kızıl Haç Raporu (2004). Report of the international committee of the red cross (icrc) on the treatment by the coalition forces of prisoners of war and other protected persons by the Geneva conventions in Iraq during arrest, internment and interrogation. http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb 2004.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 07. 01. 2022.
  • Lackey, J. (2020). False confessions and testimonial injustice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110, 43-68.
  • McDermott, T. & Hart, S. (2017). Armouring against atrocity: developing ethical strength in small military units. İçinde P. Olsthoorn (ed.), Military ethics and leadership (16-55). Koninklijke Brill.
  • Medina, J. (2013). The epistemology of resistance gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imaginations. Oxford University Press.
  • Mill, J. S. (2009). Hürriyet üstüne (Çev: M. O. Dostel). Liberte Yayınları.
  • Norland, R. (2005). Good intentions gone bad. Newsweek. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2005-06-21/pdf/CREC-2005-06-21-pt1-PgH4829.pdf#page=9. Erişim tarihi: 05.01.2022.
  • Olsthoorn, P. (2015). Honor in political and moral philosophy. State University of New York Press.
  • Olsthoorn, P. (2017). Leadership, ethics, and the centrality of character. İçinde P. Olsthoorn (ed), Military Ethics and Leadership (1-15). Koninklijke Brill.
  • Pohlhaus, G. Jr. (2017). Varieties of epistemic injustice. İçinde I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (13-26). Routledge.
  • Riggs, W. (2012). Culpability for epistemic injustice: deontic or aretetic? Social Epistemology, 26 (2), 149–162.
  • Saar, E. & Novak, V. (2005a) . Inside the wire: a military intelligence soldier's eyewitness account of life at Guantanamo. Penguin Press.
  • Saar, E. (2005b). Inside the wire: life at Guantanamo [Video]. https://www.c-span.org/video/?186618-1/inside-wire-life-guantanamo.
  • Saar, E. (2005c). Inside the wire: a military intelligence soldier’s eyewitness account of life at Guantanamo [Video]. https://www.democracynow.org/2005/5/4/inside_the_wire_a_military_intelligence
  • Slahi, M. O. (2015). Guantanamo günlüğü (Çev. A. Çakıroğlu). Belge Yayınları.
  • Wanderer, J. (2017). Varieties of testimonial injustice. İçinde I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (27-40). Routledge.
  • Zimbardo, P. (2007). Şeytan etkisi (Çev. C. Coşkan). Say Yayınları.

EPISTEMIC INJUSTICE AND HYBRID EVIL IN POLITICAL EPISTEMOLOGY

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 71 - 94, 30.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.54282/inijoss.1071701

Abstract

This study claims that Miranda Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice can be extended in two ways. First, the excess of credibility can be evaluated as an epistemic injustice. Fricker suggests that a deflated level of credibility causes epistemic injustice. However, practices such as forcing false statements result from excess credibility and cause epistemic injustices especially during war and detention processes. In some hierarchical situations, social actors’ hearer and speaker roles may turn into a hegemonic relationship by suggesting that the speaker has knowledge. This kind of relationship motivates exclusion, marginalization and alienation due to identity bias. Then, it can be argued that not only the lack of credibility but also its excess is an epistemic injustice. In this study, the excess of credibility is accepted as the situation faced by “people who are interrogated with the claim of having knowledge.” Second, epistemic injustice can be defined as a hybrid evil. It refers to instances of evil that contain complex motivations such as political evil, since it can neither be reduced only to the character nor to the environmental conditions. Fricker’s proposal for resolving epistemic injustice is hybrid virtues such as intellectual and reflexive critical-social sensitivity. Therefore, while individuals’ situations and context provide reflexive thinking, they also support a normative critical attitude. Fricker offers hybrid virtues for the solution while she does not define the problem as hybrid. Thus this paper proposes to extend Fricker’s concept in two ways: first, including excess of credibility within the scope of the epistemic injustice, and second, defining such injustices as political hybrid evils. Then this expansion will give political epistemology an opportunity to reevaluate given theories of politics, ethics and epistemology and increase its normative contribution to them.

Project Number

2219

References

  • Anderson, E. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3 (1-2), 8-22.
  • Baudrillard, J. (2006). Sessiz yığınların gölgesinde (Çev: O. Adanır). Doğu Batı Yayınları.
  • Baxter, K. (2020). The enlightenment’s post-9/11 legacy. İçinde A. Asfari (Eds), Civility, Nonviolent Resistance, and the New Struggle for Social Justice (141-162). Brill Rodopi.
  • Begg, M. (2017). Full address and Q&A [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOaoJg7mGHY&ab_channel=OxfordUnion
  • Bohman, J. (2012). Domination, epistemic injustice and republican epistemology. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 26 (2), 175-187.
  • Cassam, Q. (2019). Vices of the mind from the intellectual to the political. Oxford University Press.
  • Chiesa, L. E. (2009). Beyond torture: the nemo tenetur principle in borderline cases. Pace Law Faculty Publications. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/642.
  • Cockburn, A. (2007). Rumsfeld: an American disaster. Verso.
  • Coleman, S. (2009). The problems of duty and loyalty. Journal of Military Ethics, 8 (2), 105-115.
  • Congdon, M. (2017). What’s wrong with epistemic injustice? Harm, vice, objectification, misrecognition. İçinde I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (ss. 243-253). Routledge.
  • Congdon, M. (2018). ‘Knower’ as an ethical concept: from epistemic agency to mutual recognition, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 4 (4). https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2018.4.6228.
  • Croom, A. (2014). Vindicating virtue: a critical analysis of the situationist challenge against Aristotelian moral psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48 (1) 18–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9249-8.
  • Danner, M. (2004). Torture and truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the war on terrorism. New York Review of Books.
  • Davis, E. (2016). Typecasts, tokens, and spokespersons: a case for credibility excess as testimonial injustice. Hypatia, 31(3), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12251.
  • Doris, J. M. & Murphy, D. (2007). From my lai to Abu Ghraib: the moral psychology of atrocity. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 31 (1) 34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00149.x
  • Dübgen, F. (2016). Epistemic injustice in practice. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies Special Issue 15. 1-10.
  • Fair, E. (2016). A torturer’s confession: former Abu Ghraib interrogator speaks out [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oGh93UnxQg.
  • Fricker, M. (2003). Epistemic injustice and a role for virtue in the politics of knowing. Metaphilosophy, 34 (1-2). 154-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00266.
  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: power & ethics of knowledge. Oxford University Press.
  • Fricker, M. (2008). Précis, Theoria, An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 23 (1) 61. 69-71.
  • Fricker, M. (2013). Epistemic justice as a condition of political freedom? Synthese 190, 1317–1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0227-3.
  • Gülener, E. M. (2017). Epistemik adaletsizlik üzerine bir tartışma. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Sakarya Üniversitesi.
  • Kızıl Haç Raporu (2004). Report of the international committee of the red cross (icrc) on the treatment by the coalition forces of prisoners of war and other protected persons by the Geneva conventions in Iraq during arrest, internment and interrogation. http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb 2004.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 07. 01. 2022.
  • Lackey, J. (2020). False confessions and testimonial injustice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110, 43-68.
  • McDermott, T. & Hart, S. (2017). Armouring against atrocity: developing ethical strength in small military units. İçinde P. Olsthoorn (ed.), Military ethics and leadership (16-55). Koninklijke Brill.
  • Medina, J. (2013). The epistemology of resistance gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imaginations. Oxford University Press.
  • Mill, J. S. (2009). Hürriyet üstüne (Çev: M. O. Dostel). Liberte Yayınları.
  • Norland, R. (2005). Good intentions gone bad. Newsweek. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2005-06-21/pdf/CREC-2005-06-21-pt1-PgH4829.pdf#page=9. Erişim tarihi: 05.01.2022.
  • Olsthoorn, P. (2015). Honor in political and moral philosophy. State University of New York Press.
  • Olsthoorn, P. (2017). Leadership, ethics, and the centrality of character. İçinde P. Olsthoorn (ed), Military Ethics and Leadership (1-15). Koninklijke Brill.
  • Pohlhaus, G. Jr. (2017). Varieties of epistemic injustice. İçinde I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (13-26). Routledge.
  • Riggs, W. (2012). Culpability for epistemic injustice: deontic or aretetic? Social Epistemology, 26 (2), 149–162.
  • Saar, E. & Novak, V. (2005a) . Inside the wire: a military intelligence soldier's eyewitness account of life at Guantanamo. Penguin Press.
  • Saar, E. (2005b). Inside the wire: life at Guantanamo [Video]. https://www.c-span.org/video/?186618-1/inside-wire-life-guantanamo.
  • Saar, E. (2005c). Inside the wire: a military intelligence soldier’s eyewitness account of life at Guantanamo [Video]. https://www.democracynow.org/2005/5/4/inside_the_wire_a_military_intelligence
  • Slahi, M. O. (2015). Guantanamo günlüğü (Çev. A. Çakıroğlu). Belge Yayınları.
  • Wanderer, J. (2017). Varieties of testimonial injustice. İçinde I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (27-40). Routledge.
  • Zimbardo, P. (2007). Şeytan etkisi (Çev. C. Coşkan). Say Yayınları.
There are 38 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Philosophy, Political Science
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Yurdagül Kılınç 0000-0002-1597-062X

Project Number 2219
Publication Date June 30, 2022
Submission Date February 11, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 11 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Kılınç, Y. (2022). POLİTİK EPİSTEMOLOJİDE EPİSTEMİK ADALETSİZLİK VE HİBRİT KÖTÜLÜK. İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.54282/inijoss.1071701

İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.