1

Is there a term for being for and against the view that (only) someone from some group (ethnic, religious, disability, etc.) can automatically talk for others from it?

It's kind of a political and sociological question, so apologies in advance (though philosophers do talk about tolerance and, of course, socio-ethical questions like recuperation).

It seems fundamentally wrong to say that I, e.g. as a woman, can talk for other women merely because I really am a woman. In deed, many women may want someone that isn't a woman to talk for them. By 'talk for' I mean assume a role whereby I am privileged in understanding what it means to be e.g. a woman.

But then again, there probably are commonalities of experience. What is the word for this impasse?

  • i'm actually not a woman, but i'm illustrating the question in the most universal and understandable way i can –  Oct 13 '19 at 13:11
  • 2
    Maybe [Standpoint epistemology](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/#standpoint) is what you’re looking for? – E... Oct 13 '19 at 14:01
  • maybe, but if so they don't seem to recognize that it's an issue, at all @Eliran –  Oct 13 '19 at 18:20
  • Ingroup / outgroup. – Joseph Lutz Oct 13 '19 at 21:42
  • I can not understand if you are asking what can empower an individual to speak for a group, in which case the answer is any of the usual mechanisms of [delegating authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegation), or when an individual is generic enough for us to take their reporting as representative of the group, in which case the answer is proper [statistical sampling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)). – Conifold Oct 14 '19 at 10:03

0 Answers0