Socially disruptive technologies and epistemic injustice

Ethics and Information Technology 26 (1):1-8 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recent scholarship on technology-induced ‘conceptual disruption’ has spotlighted the notion of a conceptual gap. Conceptual gaps have also been discussed in scholarship on epistemic injustice, yet up until now these bodies of work have remained disconnected. This article shows that ‘gaps’ of interest to both bodies of literature are closely related, and argues that a joint examination of conceptual disruption and epistemic injustice is fruitful for both fields. I argue that hermeneutical marginalization—a skewed division of hermeneutical resources, which serves to diminish the experiences of marginalized folk—does not only transpire because of conceptual gaps, but also because of two other kinds of conceptual disruption: conceptual overlaps and conceptual misalignments. Hence, there are multiple kinds of conceptual disruption that can be usefully studied through the normative lens of epistemic injustice. Technology can play different roles vis-a-vis epistemic injustices, both as a causal trigger of conceptual disruption, but also as a mediator of hermeneutical resources. Its role is normatively significant, in particular because socially disruptive technologies can have different epistemic implications for different groups: they may amplify the epistemic resources of some groups, while diminishing those of others.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,503

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 2001 - Ethics and Information Technology 3 (4):303-306.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 2001 - Ethics and Information Technology 3 (2):151-154.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 2003 - Ethics and Information Technology 5 (4):239-242.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 1999 - Ethics and Information Technology 1 (1):87-90.
Instructions for authors.[author unknown] - 2002 - Ethics and Information Technology 4 (1):93-96.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 2000 - Ethics and Information Technology 2 (4):257-260.
Editorial.[author unknown] - 2005 - Ethics and Information Technology 7 (2):49-49.
Governing (ir)responsibilities for future military AI systems.Liselotte Polderman - 2023 - Ethics and Information Technology 25 (1):1-4.
The ethics of hacking. Ross W. Bellaby.Cécile Fabre - 2023 - Ethics and Information Technology 25 (3):1-4.
The Ethics of AI in Human Resources.Evgeni Aizenberg & Matthew J. Dennis - 2022 - Ethics and Information Technology 24 (3):1-3.
Correction to: the Ethics of AI in Human Resources.Evgeni Aizenberg & Matthew J. Dennis - 2023 - Ethics and Information Technology 25 (1):1-1.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-02-29

Downloads
23 (#676,220)

6 months
23 (#118,179)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jeroen Hopster
Utrecht University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations