What question did this study set out to answer?

This response critiques Raamy Majeed's work on humiliation narratives in international politics, focusing on epistemic injustice.

May 9, 2026

Response to ‘The Epistemic Harms of National Humiliation’ by Raamy Majeed

Key Points

This response critiques Raamy Majeed's work on humiliation narratives in international politics, focusing on epistemic injustice.
Analyzed Majeed's arguments regarding humiliation narratives and their implications for epistemic injustice.
Identified gaps in Majeed's examination of cases related to national humiliation.
Discussed strategies for addressing narratives of national humiliation beyond mere analysis.
Majeed's cases do not convincingly demonstrate epistemic injustice as claimed.
Recommendations include a need to evaluate the truth of narratives surrounding national humiliation.
Highlighting the importance of refining methodologies to tackle the narratives effectively.

Abstract

Abstract Raamy Majeed (2025) wants to draw our attention away from humiliation as an emotion in international politics, to look at the narratives around humiliation. Such narratives, he argues, generate previously unexamined forms of epistemic injustice, which apply both to out-groups and in-groups. Exploring the role that epistemic injustice might play in national humiliation narratives is an important contribution to our understanding of the harms of these narratives, but I argue that Majeed has not shown that there is epistemic injustice in several of the cases he examines. I also suggest that more could be done to explain how to address narratives of national humiliation, but this will require revising his commitment to only analysing narratives and not the truth of those narratives.

KI fragen

Bookmark