CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 222Feminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityCritical Theory and Philosophy

Varieties of Hermeneutical Injustice 1

Medina, José·2017·The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice
DOI 10.4324/9781315212043-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hermeneutical injustice is the phenomenon that occurs when the intelligibility of communicators is unfairly constrained or undermined, when their meaning-making capacities encounter unfair obstacles, or when a gap in collective interpretive resources puts someone at an unfair advantage when it comes to making sense of their social experience. This chapter elucidates different versions and dimensions of the concept of hermeneutical injustice and how it relates to issues of epistemic responsibility. It suggests that there are forms of hermeneutical injustices that are so damaging that they can result in hermeneutical death, that is, in phenomena that radically constrain one&s;s hermeneutical capacities and agency such as the following: the loss of one&s;s voice, of one&s;s interpretative capacities, or of one&s;s status as a participant in meaning-making and meaning-sharing practices. The chapter addresses different possible classifications of hermeneutical injustices and how these classifications offer conceptual resources for diagnosing cases of hermeneutical injustices and for identifying ways of resisting hermeneutical marginalization.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9781315212043-4

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Algorithmic profiling can prevent individuals from accessing and meaningfully interpreting important aspects of their experiences.

    “show how algorithmic profiling can prevent individuals from accessing and meaningfully interpreting important aspects of their experiences (Fricker, 2007; Medina, 2017; Pohlhaus, 2017).”

    From Algorithmic profiling as a source of hermeneutical injustice (2025) · cites this paper as Medina, 2017

  • There are points of disagreement about Fricker's proposal, but the general lines along which she distinguished epistemic injustice have solidified into acceptance.

    “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 [28]

  • Epistemic injustice can be distributive as well as discriminatory, and structural as well as incidental.

    “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 [28]

  • Medina distinguishes between semantically and performatively induced hermeneutical injustices.

    “Helpfully, José Medina [28], pp.45-46) distinguishes between semantically and performatively induced hermeneutical injustices.”

    From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

  • Medina introduces a 'radical' variant of hermeneutical injustice that is worthy of a subclass in the taxonomy, because it takes hermeneutical injustice to an extremity qua depth.

    “Medina [28], p. 47) also introduces a 'radical' variant of hermeneutical injustice that is worthy of a subclass in the taxonomy, because it takes hermeneutical injustice to an extremity qua depth.”

    From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Medina, J.
Corresponding author
Medina, José
ORCID
Medina, José
Venue
The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2017-03-31
Pages
41-52
DOI
10.4324/9781315212043-4
OpenAlex
W4229951751
Cited by
222
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
FWCI
31.37
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 › Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Theory and Philosophy
Keywords
hermeneutical injustice, epistemic responsibility, marginalized voices, meaning-making, agency

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