Socially disruptive technologies and epistemic injustice

J. K.G. Hopster*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number14
Pages (from-to)1-8
Number of pages8
JournalEthics and Information Technology
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Feb 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.

Funding

The author acknowledges support from the research programme Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies, which is funded through the Gravitation programme of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research under Grant number 024.004.031.

FundersFunder number
Research programme Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies through the Gravitation programme of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research024.004.031

    Keywords

    • Conceptual gap
    • Conceptual misalignment
    • Conceptual overlap
    • Epistemic injustice
    • Hermeneutical marginalization
    • Socially disruptive technologies

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Socially disruptive technologies and epistemic injustice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this