Defining the Epistemological Toolebox
Toole employs a vast toolbox in her argument on epistemology. These definitions got me (and I know some of you) pretty tangled up, so I wanted to use this blogpost to dive into her set of definitions and how they are utilized by Toole. Toole's argument is on epistemology, a word that some of y'all might have been familiar with before reading, but in case you arent,
epistemic (adj.), "relating to knowledge or the degree of its validation." Following from this definition are its derivational morphemes as well as all the subsequent definitions which this blog post will lay out.
On page 410, Toole establishes two definitions of the epistemological privilege thesis, borne from the ambiguity of its usage in the literature.
1) Inversion Thesis / Epistemic Advantage Thesis: the claim that oppressed social locations confer epistemically superior knowledge as compared to dominant social locations.
2) Standpoint Thesis: the claim that marginalized standpoints confer epistemically privileged knowledge, rather than just an oppressed social location.
First, within the Epistemic Advantage Thesis, there are multiple definitions to recognize.
Evidential: the position or ability to have access to evidence relevant to the question at hand.
Cognitive: the position to develop beneficial epistemic beliefs or habits relevant to the question at hand.
Regarding peerhood, Thomas Kelly writes that an epistemic peer is one who is "equally competent, intelligent, and fair-minded in their assessment of the evidence and arguments that bear on the question." Toole, for her part, denies the piece on equal intelligence and fair-mindedness, rather supposing that it is competence that should center the argument. So, cognitive ability is, in other words, the position to have competence to develop beneficial epistemic beliefs or habits relevant to the question at hand.
Now, returning from that detour to peerhood and advantage within the first thesis.
Epistemic Peerhood: evidential or cognitive equality. For Epistemic Peerhood, there are 2 conditions that both must be met,
1) The peer has equally strong evidence relevant to the question at hand.
2) The peer is equally competent with respect to the evidence relevant at hand.
Epistemic Advantage: evidential or cognitive superiority of one over the other. For Epistemic Advantage, there are 2 conditions--of which one must be met.
1) One person has a greater body of evidence relevant to the question at hand.
2) One person is more competent with respect to the evidence relevant to the question at hand.
Toole explains Epistemic Peerhood, Epistemic Advantage, evidential, and cognitive, using the Mental Math example (414).
Next, the Standpoint Thesis has three subsidiary theses.
Situated Knowledge Thesis: the life experience of marginalized people can yield knowledge of oppression unavailable to those in the dominant group. Toole uses the example of sexism, which is more apparent to those who experience sexism (women) to those who do not (men) (411).
Epistemic Privilege Thesis: when a person achieves a marginalized standpoint (critical consciousness of the experiences brought about by situated knowledge), that persons knowledge is epistemically priveleged to those in the dominant group. Returning to the example of sexism, once one recognizes that sexism informs their "treatment in the workplace, reception of [their] testimony, or [their] approach to a particular research question or design problem" they have achieved an epistemically privileged standpoint on the question at hand of sexism (413). They have a better picture of how sexism functions in society as compared to one who has not achieved this critical consciousness.
Achievement Thesis: people in non-marginalized groups can achieve the epistemically privileged standpoint of those in the marginalized group through consciousness-raising. Consciousness-raising is a process, often conducted in groups, which raises one's awareness of social and political issues of a marginalized group.
This brings us to the end of our definitions, so a quick recap:
The Epistemic Privilege Thesis has two subsidiary theses: the Epistemic Advantage Thesis and the Standpoint Thesis. The Standpoint Thesis has three subsidiary theses of its own: the Situated Knowledge Thesis, the Epistemic Privilege Thesis, and the Achievement Thesis.
In reading the recap, something that stuck out to me may become clear to you, dear reader. Toole uses the same label twice, "Epistemic Privilege Thesis." To me, this double-usage leads to two definitions, same in their form, but doing different jobs for her argument. She starts with the Epistemic Privilege Thesis which is used broadly to describe that somehow, people in marginalized positions have epistemicologically privileged knowledge about oppression. She then breaks down this broad definition into two main theories: Epistemic Advantage and Standpoint. Then, within her standpoint thesis, she has three pillars, the second of which is again named the Epistemic Privilege Thesis. This time, though, her labeling says that, given the Standpoint thesis, this is the piece of it that states that well-formed standpoint--based on critical conscioussness--does confer epistemic privileged knowledge about oppressive structures.
What a doozy! That's my interpretation of Toole's double-usage, but I'm not 100% on its accuracy. What do you all think? Let me know! - Gabe
Hello Gabe, I really like your breakdown of Professor Toole’s argument, and I appreciate your effort in concisely untangling the definitions. The question you raise at the end of your post is interesting; Why does she use "Epistemic Privilege Thesis" twice, and are these two definitions actually different? I agree that “this double-usage leads to two definitions, same in their form, but doing different jobs for her argument” (Gabe, 1). In this response, dear Gabe, I will try to explain in more depth how each serves a distinct role in her framework.
ReplyDeleteThe first use of the Epistemic Privilege Thesis is the broad, overarching claim that marginalized perspectives confer epistemic advantages. This is the more general thesis of standpoint theorists: that those in marginalized positions, because of their experiences of oppression, have access to certain kinds of knowledge that those in dominant positions lack. As Professor Toole puts it, “the standpoint epistemologist treats those with social disadvantages as if they are experts, like doctors or mechanics.” (410) This is the starting point of Professor Toole’s analysis, which she then breaks down into two separate claims: the Epistemic Advantage Thesis and the Standpoint Thesis.
As you rightfully note, the second use of the Epistemic Privilege Thesis appears within the Standpoint Thesis. At this point, Professor Toole is no longer talking about general epistemic advantages that marginalized people might have by virtue of their social position. Instead, she’s making a more specific claim: that people who achieve a marginalized standpoint, which requires critical consciousness, possess epistemically privileged knowledge about oppressive structures. In other words, the second use is not just about being marginalized but about reaching a standpoint that allows one to see how oppression functions at a structural level.
The key distinction I see here is between having an epistemic advantage (which might come from lived experience) and achieving an epistemically privileged standpoint (which comes from critically engaging with that experience through a process like consciousness-raising). Professor Toole argues that not all marginalized individuals automatically have a privileged epistemic position—some may hold false beliefs shaped by oppressive ideologies. However, when individuals critically reflect on their experiences and develop a conscious understanding of oppression, their standpoint becomes epistemically privileged.
So, while it might seem like Professor Toole is using the same term twice in a confusing way, she’s really differentiating between (1) an initial epistemic advantage that marginalized people might have, and (2) the epistemically privileged knowledge that comes from achieving a critically aware standpoint.
Your breakdown of the structure helped clarify this point for me as well. Let me know if you agree with these thoughts. Maybe I simplified the broader Epistemic Privilege Thesis too much, but this was how I viewed the double-usage.
-Eliot