A great ox stands in your mind: decolonial caution about epistemic reparations and the right to be known
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Jennifer Lackey has recently argued that victims of gross injustices and epistemic harms not only have a right to know, but also a right to be known, i.e., to share and have their experiences heard. This right is associated with a duty to provide epistemic reparations, notably in bearing witness to victims. The epistemic harms with which Lackey is concerned are features of settler colonialism that call for such epistemic reparations. I seek to raise caution about the pursuit of epistemic reparations, however, especially through bearing witness and testimony, in settler colonial contexts. I argue that settler colonial epistemic environments constitute morasses of unknowing , where settlers are subjectified in ways that severely burden their capacity to properly understand and know victims of epistemic harms. In settler colonial contexts, I argue, epistemic reparations through bearing witness and testimonies risk being both unproductive and pernicious. They risk being unproductive precisely because victims are at risk of not being properly understood without transforming the material and subjective features of the settler colonial epistemic environment. They further risk being pernicious given settler colonial dynamics that tend to defuse the critical potential of testimonies. To ensure a more thorough pursuit of the right to be known, we must therefore also consider the required decolonial transformation of the structures and subjectivities that make epistemic harm possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".