The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Varieties of Testimonial Injustice
Abstract
This chapter investigates the possibility of there being a categorical connection between the social practice of testimony and certain instances of injustice. It then identifies three potential varieties of testimonial injustice: transactional testimonial injustice; structural testimonial injustice; and testimonial betrayal. The transactional testimonial injustice emerges when one focuses on the character of the self-conscious, interpersonal transactions that take place within the practice, most centrally the act of telling someone something. The injustice here involves a breach of the order of justice established between the parties by the transactions that fall within the social practice of testimony. The structural testimonial injustice emerges when one focuses on the social institutions within which the practice of testimony operates. The injustice here stems from structural inequalities within such institutions that lead to diminished possibilities of participation in the social practice of testimony. The testimonial betrayal emerges when one focuses on the thick trust relations between acquaintances within the practice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“As is noted in the work of Pohlhaus [42], Wanderer [50] and Medina [28], there are points of disagreement about Fricker's proposal, but the general lines along which she distinguished epistemic injustice have solidified into acceptance.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Not only can this 'being wronged in its capacity as a knower' be distributive as well as discriminatory [28], and structural as well as incidental [50], its empirical manifestations are also fundamentally diverse.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“As varieties of testimonial injustice, Jeremy Wanderer [50] distinguishes between transactional testimonial injustice and structural testimonial injustice.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Wanderer's case for testimonial betrayal is that it captures a distinct experience of the speaker in the interpersonal exchange of information.Not only is there a breach in the order of justice of the testimony, the speaker is also harmed by the distrust, rejection, disrespect, etc., by the hearer because of the interpersonal relationship between them, via which the speaker feels betrayed.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Anderson, Elizabeth . 2012. ‘Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions’. Social Epistemology 26 (2): 163–173. · DOI
Cited by
Mollema, W. J. T. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00801-w · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Wanderer, J.
- Corresponding author
- Wanderer, Jeremy
- Venue
- The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-03-31
- Pages
- 27-40
- OpenAlex
- W4252405695
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Memory, Trauma, and Testimony
- Keywords
- testimonial injustice, structural injustice, trust relationships, interpersonal transactions, social institutions, structural inequality, self-consciousness
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Varieties of Testimonial Injustice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781315212043-3
- The paper
- Wanderer, J. (2017). Varieties of Testimonial Injustice. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212043-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
