afloweroutofstone:

I’m happy to see discussion around this, because I’m increasingly convinced that standpoint epistemology (the positions of people with experience regarding X must be prioritized when discussing X) is useful as an entry-level learning device, but extremely dangerous when taken 100% seriously.

Every demographic group has heterogenous preferences- different individuals want different things. When you simply give someone the criteria to listen to people within a demographic group, you are telling them to listen to these disagreements without providing them any criteria to distinguish between competing claims. In a debate on black issues between Cornel West and Candace Owens, standpoint epistemology makes no distinction between the validity of their positions, leaving non-black audiences to determine on their own which of these mutually-exclusive positions to recognize as representative of black thought.

That’s a very bad thing! Extending this example, non-black audiences uneducated on these issues (and those uneducated on a topic are exactly who the “listen to X people” advice is given to) will have their own biases regarding what they decide is the consensus position among black people. This allows non-black people to encode their pre-existing positions as being pro-black; after all, they found a black person who will reinforce their views for them! Worse, these dynamics can reinforce inequality within groups. Not all segments of a given demographic community have the same ability to make their voices heard, and it is often the more powerful factions who are better able to have their positions represented; this can lead people to embrace a relatively conservative position among X group, thinking they’re representing the consensus position among X group.

Telling people to “listen to X people on X issues” is a good first step for those looking to get involved and learn. But sooner or later, there’s no avoiding the fact that they will face disagreements within X group, and they will have to make a value judgement as to which claim in the disagreement is a better representation of X group. There is no polling firm or oracle that can do it for them. We should spend more time giving people tools to help evaluate value judgements once they’re already listening.