Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Identity as social construct
Identity as social construct
Identity as social construct
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Identity as social construct
The topic I wish to pursue for my thesis is to refute the Local Reductionist Claim made by Elizabeth Fricker when evaluating how social identity, specifically how being a member of a minority group, affects credibility of testimony. In doing so, I will expand upon Linda Alcoff’s focus on why an epistemic assessment of what constitutes testimonial knowledge in forming beliefs is important to look at in a social context. I will argue against Fricker’s claim that the hearer should hold all the power to decide whether the testimony from the speaker is a source of knowledge as the local reductionist claim states because it allows for bias to influence the judgement of the hearer and does not allow for true transmission of knowledge via testimony. Fricker, in …show more content…
Alcoff discusses whether social identity is relevant to epistemic assessment, but does not evaluate under what conditions social identity is relevant in. I wish to assess Alcoff’s issue regarding social identity in terms of testimony specifically as a source of knowledge, as well as lay out some criteria that are necessary for epistemic credibility. I will do this while discussing why the reductionist view is faulty because it allows for bias from the hearer when in reality, reliability of knowledge from a person who is in a minority group should not be diminished due to their social identity. Instead, I want to research the balance of power that is granted towards both hearer and speaker when the speaker is testifying.When testimony as a source of knowledge is applied to the daily life, I believe the credibility of the speaker is reduced when the speaker is in a marginalized group. What conditions must be met by both parties for justified belief to be imparted in a social context? My aim is that the final product answers all of these
After reading Alsultany’s “Los Intersticios: Recasting Moving Selves,” I realized that there are many misconceptions among those who have single or mixed racial background. For individuals who have more than one races, it may seem that they are at an advantage since they have luxury to take side with which ever race they choose. However, it actually results in a constant aggravation when one is constantly questioned about their race. Alsultany was asked by her classmate about her racial background. It was apparent that her classmate confirmed in her mind that Alsultany was different from her since she didn’t supposedly fit the description of a typical American, despite mentioning that she was born and raised in the U.S. This further strengthened
Ehrenreich points out that she has seen “one group after another… stand up and proudly reclaim their roots” but for those who come from a mixed background, it is nearly impossible to discover their roots (477). Unfortunately, many people’s family trees are twisted and inaccurate, containing many flaws known only by those who are wronged, but believed by the children who read it. For example, some female immigrants, upon moving to America and marrying a white man, changed their names and accepted the white cultural as their own. With no birth records on hand, it was assumed, when recorded, that the said female was White. The same happened frequently to the Native American people, who accepted English culture as their own. There is a whole line of cultural background completely wiped from one’s tree. These cases, which are quite common, can only be disputed either by the person who is recorded, who is presumably now dead, or hearsay by family members who claim it to be another way. Regardless, it is nearly impossible to prove. Therefore, claiming to know one’s heritage is likely false, due to the frequent inaccuracies in records, and gives no assurance to anyone on their true
“Two dangers arise when in-group members have little exposure to out-groups members or knowledge of out-group history” (Ramirez-Berg pg. 18). One is that history can be replaced by other group’s experience. Two is the stereotypical image can be taken as normal or even natural. The five functions of stereotyping that are developed and passed on to others. The first two are focused on a personal level. One is cognitive function of the environment. Two is motivational function protecting values. “The remaining three are at group level, where stereotypes contribute to the creation and maintenance of group beliefs which are then used…” (Ramirez-Berg pg. 28). Three is explaining in a large-scale social event. Four is to justify action. Five is to differentiate in and out
Though it is agreed that epistemologists need to account for the role social factors play in inquiry, developing a viable social epistemology has proved to be a difficult task. According to Longino, it is the processes that make inquiry possible that are social, requiring a number of people to sustain them. These processes, she claims, not only facilitate inquiry, but also ensure that the results of inquiry are more than mere subjective opinions, and thus deserve to be called "knowledge." Here, I want to both explain and defend Longino's epistemology.
Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 554-561. doi: 10.1002/acp.1768
Louise Derman-Sparks and Julie Olsen Edwards, authors of Anti-Bias Education: for Young Children and Ourselves, provide a great example of an internal bias that results in unfair judgments. “One example is if you were raised to believe that being prompt is a sign of responsibility, and your family always had a car, then it might be hard for you to comprehend the experience of low-income families who chronically drop their children off late due to unreliable buses (pg. 21).” It is little anecdotes like those that make you evaluate your pure un-bias tendencies against certain social identities.
For many years, the study of prejudice has been the central focus of social psychology (Augoustinos et al 2014). There is a strong understanding that social relations are more often than not marked by conflict as a result of social groups maintaining conflicting interests and a desire to change the out groups beliefs, inevitably leading to conflict between the two (Batalha 2008). Whilst it is important to study prejudice as it is a persistent social problem, often which every individual will associate with (Augoustinos et al 2014) it is ultimately impossible to expect social psychologists to explain every prejudicial encounter, such as the event of The Holocaust (Augoustinos et al 2014). Nevertheless, social psychology has attempted to examine
The variables that put forth that expression genuine is on account of the article "How a Self-Fulfilling Stereotype can Drag Performance" states, "African Americans scored bring down on vocabulary test than caucasians." According to Min-Hsing Huang's examination and discoveries she states, "Amid tests helping distinctive races their measures to remember natural knowledge as per their race, it is demonstrated this hurts their performance." Her discoveries disclose to us that, on the off chance that you enlighten somebody concerning their race's inborn insight levels they will soon contrast their own intrinsic levels with their race's inborn insight influencing them to think adversely. As indicated by Claude Steele he states, "When individuals are undermined by a negative generalization they can be unobtrusively one-sided to experience that generalization." After expressing "experience that generalization" they may incorporate a symptom from negative generalizations. Thus, these negative impacts may arrive in a greater bundle with more impacts that could be setting off their performance levels and
Eyewitness testimony is especially vulnerable to error when the question is misleading or when there’s a difference in ethnicity. However, using an eyewitness as a source of evidence can be risky and is rarely 100% accurate. This can be proven by the theory of the possibility of false memory formation and the question of whether or not a memory can lie. For instance, a group of students saw the face of a young man with straight hair, then heard a description of the face supposedly written by another witness, one that wrongly mentioned light, curly hair. When they reconstructed the face using a kit of facial features, a third of their reconstructions contained the misleading detail, whereas only 5 percent contained it when curly hair was not mentioned (Page 359). This situation shows how misleading information from other sources can be profoundly altered.
In this paper, I am writing about my own personal experiences and perceptions of biases and prejudices. Although I have some experiences with biases and prejudices, the idea of hidden biases is a new concept for me. I will be merging what I already know with the new concepts that I have learned from the website.
In a more recent definition in (Burke, 2006) book on contemporary social theories (Hogg, 2006) defined Social Identity Theory as a psychological analysis of the role self-conception has within group membership, group processes, and intergroup relations. Social Representations Theory (Moscovici, 1984) is defined as the values, ideas, beliefs, and practices that are shared between groups and communities. According to (Liu & Hilton, 2005) socially shared representations of history have been vital in creating, maintain and changing an individual’s identity, how an individual manages and negotiates this is essential to their interethnic and international relations. Social Identity Theory and Social Representation Theory both represent two very different ideologies, whilst one focuses on self and individual needs and relies heavily on inter personal needs and intergroup dynamics (SIT). The other (SRT) focuses on the processes of interpersonal communication as the main factor in the structure and content of the belief systems which are called social representations (Breakwell, 1993). However, linking these two theories together could be useful as it could be used to better understand certain area in social
Hinkle, Steve, and Rupert Brown. (1990). “Intergroup Comparisons and Social Identity: Some Links and Lacunae.” Social Identity Theory; Constructive and Critical Advances, ed.
Now lets take a look at another facet that takes part of our lives as well which is social identity
Like all other things, evidence – physical, testimonial, documentary – can sometimes be manipulated or misconstrued. To be able to fully realize the situation, one must consider how evidence is presented. It is significant to bear in mind people’s partiality, non-sequiturs, and usage of logical fallacies: proof is delineated to fit another person’s agenda. Hence, one must read between the lines of evidence to find unbiased information. Beyond the tangible data, one needs to recognize one’s own proclivities. People ought to consider what they are predisposed to think and what prejudices they may hold: these influences may elicit negative inclinations. One should not fear the repercussions of being different or of thinking critically. Diverging from norms is what fuels epiphanies, but it requires audacity and courage against society’s precepts. For the world to propel itself forward, its fundamental structure must be built by avant
In the socio-cognitive model suggested by van Dijk (1998) an attempt is made to explain the connection between ideologies, which sometimes manifest in ‘language of hate’, such as racist language, stereotypes and prejudices. van Dijk, in his explanation of racism draws on the theory of mental models of (Johnson-Laird 1980) and this allows him to link cognition, language (discourse) and social behavior (social practices). His work focuses on mental schemas, which convey ideologies through stereotypes, opinions and attitudes. Although his theory is grounded in the neo-Marxist conception of domination, van Dijk does not agree with the idea that social classes are the dominating or oppressed political actors; he instead concentrates on the ideologies as “the basis of the social representations shared by members of a group” (van Dijk 1998:8). He opines in his framework, that ideologies organise attitudes, i.e. complex structures of opinions. Eventually, these opinions and attitudes form a basis of knowledge: “Knowledge according to van Dijk[…] is a specific sociocultural form of beliefs, viz. those that are held to be true by a speaker or a community, because they can be justified by sociocultural criteria of truth”. van Dijk tries to distinguishing between positive and negative ideologies, and