VII — Genealogy, Epistemology and Worldmaking
Abstract
We suffer from genealogical anxiety when we worry that the contingent origins of our representations, once revealed, will somehow undermine or cast doubt on those representations. Is such anxiety ever rational? Many have apparently thought so, from pre-Socratic critics of Greek theology to contemporary evolutionary debunkers of morality. One strategy for vindicating critical genealogies is to see them as undermining the epistemic standing of our representations—the justification of our beliefs, the aptness of our concepts, and so on. I argue that this strategy is not as promising as it might first seem. Instead, I suggest that critical genealogies can wield a sort of meta-epistemic power; in so far as we wish to resist the genealogical critic, we are under pressure to see ourselves as the beneficiaries of a certain kind of good luck: what I call genealogical luck. But there is also a resolutely non-epistemic way of understanding the power of critical genealogies, one that is essential, I argue, for understanding the genealogical projects of various theorists, including Nietzsche and Catharine MacKinnon. For critical genealogies can reveal what it is that our representations do—and what we, in turn, might do with them.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Our interpretations of the social world rest heavily on the context we find ourselves in.
“As Srinivasan so sharply articulates, our interpretations of the social world--that is, the sense we make of our social experiences; their nature, salience, and relation to the wider social world--rest heavily on the context we find ourselves in.”
From Agency and authority: A differentiated model of hermeneutical power (2025) · cites this paper as Srinivasan 2019
Cites
A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value
Street, S. (2006) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-005-1726-6 · Cited by 1,247 · see citing works
Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence
MacKinnon, C. A. (1983) · Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society · doi:10.1086/494000 · Cited by 830 · see citing works
Kitcher, P. (2011) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674063075 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
How Must Knowledge Be Modally Related to What Is Known?
Sosa, E., & University of Arkansas Press (1999) · Philosophical Topics · doi:10.5840/philtopics1999261/229 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Agency and authority: A differentiated model of hermeneutical power
Herissone-Kelly, R. (2025) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.1093/pq/pqaf044 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Srinivasan, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Srinivasan, Amia
- ORCID
- Srinivasan, Amia
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-07-01
- Volume
- 119
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 127-156
- ISSN
- 0066-7374 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9264
- OpenAlex
- W2955567140
- Cited by
- 157
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 62.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Keywords
- critical genealogy, epistemic justification, meta-epistemology, Friedrich Nietzsche, Catharine MacKinnon, world-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review