Miranda Fricker And Testimonial Injustice

Miranda Fricker, Philosophy Professor at the University of Sheffield and author of Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, introduces the contrasting ideas of the two Epistemic Injustices. One being that of Testimonial injustice and the other being Hermeneutical injustice. The difference between the two is that they base their credibility from different elements. Fricker states that testimonial injustice is when a speaker is critiqued based off their level of knowledge. This meaning that this type of injustice may also have their credibility be judged depending on the level of prejudice that could be apparent. Fricker then describes hermeneutical injustice in which a speaker’s credibility is dictated on his or her ability to relate
to a social experience. This meaning that when a person is not capable of relating to an experience, it will affect the level of understanding for that person. These two Epistemic Injustices also have intellectual and ethical virtues that go along with them. Testimonial injustice requires intellectual and ethical virtues because of the truth that the hearer desires and so that the hearer is allowed to judge the knowledge rather than the prejudice that may be present. When talking about hermeneutical injustice, its intellectual and ethical virtues are determined when the speaker understands their prejudice and ethical when the speaker can eliminate those prejudices giving blank slates in people’s social experiences. Being aware of these epistemic injustices can allow a person the opportunity to listen from a wider variety of angles. After reading what Fricker had to say, I do mostly agree with her regarding the ideas and perspectives of epistemic injustices.
This made me think about all of the things I have read and seen in the news, for instance, and thought as to how truly credible some of these sources could be. One part that I do not fully agree upon with Fricker is that a person or speaker should not be completely discounted just because that person is not able to truly relate to the social experience. Just because I grew up in the United States does not necessarily mean that I cannot educate myself on someone who grew up in Mexico and can be credible if asked to describe parts of their culture if I found the right sources. Ethically, I do not see that as an issue but I understand where some situations where it would be important to have some first hand experience in order to relate better to the experience. This is especially when everyone has their own personal and different experiences. Epistemic injustice is something that people need to be educated on. It is important to be aware that just because we have people of power, does not mean that they can be a credible source based off of their experiences. When there is constant information free flowing throughout the Internet and television, people need to be aware of and should be able to distinguish between testimonial and hermeneutical injustices. After reading this, I cannot help but think about the term “fake news”. What is real and what is fake? Learning about these injustices allow me to be more careful and concise when reading news articles or watching news channels
now.