-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Ravi ThakralAbstract:
Is it harmful to make generic claims about social groups? Those who say yes cite
the reinforcement of oppressive stereotypes and cognitive bias. Those who say no
cite the potential of generics to do good, rather than harm, by taking advantage of
the same mechanisms that perpetuate the harms. This paper analyzes generic utterances in the context of social justice efforts to weigh in on the debate about whether
and how generic utterances contribute to stereotypes and oppression. We need to
first pay more attention to what it means to utter generics in social justice contexts.
Doing so will allow us to distinguish those generic utterances that are helpful for
social justice projects from those that might impede their progress. I argue that there
is an important pragmatic sense in which generics can be undermined: especially
generics used in service of social justice claims. I then offer an epistemic thesis for
why some generics are more susceptible to being undermined by counter-examples
than others. I conclude that if we are interested in using generics in the service of
social justice, then there is reason to restrict the contexts in which we utter generics. In doing so, I challenge the conventional wisdom that generics are resistant to
counterexamples.Comment: Samia Hesni adds further pressure against skepticism of using generics to talk about social groups. She provides helpful discussion of the role of language in social justice contexts, with good engagement with other authors working on the language of social justice. It is highly suitable alongside these authors in a philosophy of language course highlighting the importance of social categorization and its consequences.
Hesni, Samia. Generics and Social Justice
2024, Philosophical Studies 181(1), pp. 109–132
Can’t find it?
Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!