Well in simplest terms, it essentially is trying to describe a certain event/idea from an "outsiders" perspective. It might be trying to make an argument through citing other peoples experiences. In this sense, it is exactly what we do when we write any research paper. So why then not evaluate it on these terms, as a teacher would grade a paper for accuracy, representation, and breadth of content. Why can't we look at speaking for others through such a lens, and assess its "legitimacy" or "authenticity" based on the degree and depth of its references. It is a very practical approach and generally in line with how we commonly assess speeches or arguments made. Does this person know what he is talking about? Hm, well he did spend x amount of time with the group he is talking about and has talked to x amount of people in depth about the issue. So yes he does have a degree of reliability. Instead of attacking the "morality" or even the epistemic ability for speaking for others, why can't we instead look at it as we would view a paper or a website. Whatever sparks our intuition of why a source is reliable, should be a good ground to base our judgement on authenticity in terms of those speaking for others.
President Obama walks fine line on race, justice
11 years ago
i think that it would be a good i dea to evaluate what poeple say as we would a paper, but i am just thinking of how the majority of people do not like to be evaluated for fear of criticism
ReplyDeleteand as Alcoff mentioned this is a hinderance to the contribution of thoughts to these social problems and therefore not a good option
but what about speaking to or with, i like with, dialogue as she discusses really does seem more appealing, but then of course there will be problems with that too
problems that will need to be addressed
i dont know what people think about motive and manner in which one can speak for others, would that be where the problem is, as opposed to who is speaking and what they are saying? or all of the above?