Philosophical Argumentation, Epistemic Injustice, and Recognition

Philosophical argumentation appears to be minimally adversarial. The assessment of philosophical evidence and reasons appealed to in arguments is carried out by critical, reflective scrutiny via objections, challenges, and counterexamples. This critical feature of philosophy has been criticized by feminist and standpoint epistemologists as being structurally conducive to epistemic injustice. To remedy this situation, a stance of default trust toward the arguments of marginalized philosophers should be adopted. This paper objects to the proposal and offers an alternative account of how epistemic injustice arises in philosophical argumentation. First, we argue that default trust is inapplicable the arguments of marginalized philosophers, given the essentially dialogical and adversarial nature of the assessment of philosophical reasons. Second, rejecting adversariality altogether itself risks generating epistemic injustice. Default trust precludes earnest engagement with the reasons and arguments of marginalized individuals, preventing them from attaining full credibility within the philosophical community. It is then argued that epistemic injustice in philosophical argumentation primarily arises when subjects are denied recognition as legitimate participants in philosophical assessment, rather than from minimal adversariality. Furthermore, adversariality itself can function as a weapon of resistance when marginalized subjects confront unfair audiences by denying them recognition as philosophically authoritative.