Abstract
AbstractIn this paper, we identify and examine an overlooked strategy to counter bigoted speech on the spot. Such a strategy we call ‘bending’. To ‘bend’, in our sense, is to deliberately give a distorted response to a speaker’s harmful move – precisely, an ameliorative response, which may turn that move into a different, less harmful, contribution. To substantiate our proposal, we distinguish two ideas of uptake – interpretation and response – and argue for the general claim that a distorted response on the hearer’s part may end up transforming a speaker’s contribution. Patterns of distortion have been analyzed in the literature as unjustly undermining speakers’ agency and exacerbating oppression. Our analysis shows that, under certain circumstances, distortion can be employed to derail bigoted speech and thus serve the purposes of social justice. We close by discussing the virtues and limits of bending vis-à-vis a different, much-discussed, counterspeech strategy, i.e. ‘blocking’ (Langton 2018).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Social Sciences (miscellaneous),Philosophy
Reference54 articles.
1. Alston WP (2000) Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (NY)
2. Austin JL (1962) How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed. by J.O. Urmson & M. Sbisà, Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1975
3. Berenstain N (2016) Epistemic Exploitation. Ergo 3(22):569–590
4. Bianchi C (2021) Discursive Injustice: The Role of Uptake. Topoi 40:181–190
5. Bianchi C (forthcoming), Varieties of Uptake. In: Caponetto L, Labinaz P (eds) Sbisà on Speech as Action, London: Palgrave Macmillan
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献