Testimonial injustice and prescriptive credibility deficits

Abstract

In light of recent social psychological literature, I expand Miranda Fricker’s important notion of testimonial injustice. A fair portion of Fricker’s account rests on an older paradigm of stereotype and prejudice. Given recent empirical work, I argue for what I dub prescriptive credibility deficits in which a backlash effect leads to the assignment of a diminished level of credibility to persons who act in counter-stereotypic manners, thereby flouting prescriptive stereotypes. The notion of a prescriptive credibility deficit is not merely an interesting conceptual addendum that can be appended to Fricker’s theory without need for further emendation. I develop the wider implications of prescriptive credibility deficits and argue that they pose a challenge to Fricker’s conception of (1) the function of credibility assignments in conversational exchange and (2) how a virtuous listener should respond to the potential threat of a prejudicial stereotype affecting her credibility assignments.

The Legitimacy of User Knowledge in Decision-Making Processes in Mental Health Care: An Analysis of Epistemic Injustice

“…In line with previous studies our findings show that providers need to be aware that cumulative actions of silencing or trusting may affect later interactions (e.g., a service user withdraws and avoids communication) [24]. Munroe [27] draws attention to the prescriptive function of testimonial injustice, noting how a speaker can be assigned with what he labels prescriptive credibility deficits. This occurs when there is a risk of a person being punished if behaving in a counter-stereotypic way, as, for example, when a service user is assigned less credibility or likeability as a consequence of acting in an overly assertive manner.…”

Responding to Sanist Microaggressions with Acts of Epistemic Resistance

“…4 As the biological model of mental disorder has become more widely accepted, stereotypes around severe mental illness have tended to converge around the ideas that people with severe mental illness are incompetent, permanently defective, and dangerous, because it is perceived that people do not have control over their condition, a condition that is regarded as terrible and fearsome (Corrigan and Watson 2004;Thachuk 2011). 5 Note that people can be granted less credibility when they adhere to negative stereotypes, but they can also be granted less credibility when they counter negative stereotypes, almost as if they are being "punished" for defying expectations (Munroe 2016). Mentally ill people who do not fit our stereotypes of mental illness can be seen as having diminished first-personal credibility with respect to their illness because they are "not sick enough."…”

“…5Note that people can be granted less credibility when they adhere to negative stereotypes, but they can also be granted less credibility when they counter negative stereotypes, almost as if they are being “punished” for defying expectations (Munroe 2016). Mentally ill people who do not fit our stereotypes of mental illness can be seen as having diminished first-personal credibility with respect to their illness because they are “not sick enough.”…”

Race and evaluation of philosophical skill: A virtue theoretical explanation of why people of color are so absent from philosophy

“…These evaluations are enshrined in the letters of recommendation that tenure-line faculty submit on behalf of applicants to philosophy Ph.D. programs. Some have pointed out that widely held negative stereotypes of Black, Indigenous and Latinx persons can cause non-dominant-racial group members who use styles of expression associated with these racial groups to be taken as not credible or not as knowers (Bayruns García, 2019;Crerar, 2016;Dotson, 2011;Fricker, 2007;Mills, 2007;Munroe, 2016). As a consequence, the level of philosophical skill that a letter of recommendation writer conveys in his letter can depend on the expression style 5 that an applicant uses in classes, seminars and general philosophical discussion.…”