Ratio, Volume 34, Issue 4, Page 334-344, December 2021.

Various philosophers discuss perlocutionary silencing, but none defend an account of perlocutionary silencing. This gap may exist because perlocutionary success depends on extralinguistic effects, whereas silencing interrupts speech, leaving theorists to rely on extemporary accounts when they discuss perlocutionary silencing. Consequently, scholars assume perlocutionary silencing occurs but neglect to explain how perlocutionary silencing harms speakers as speakers. In relation to that shortcoming, I defend a novel account of perlocutionary silencing. I argue that speakers experience perlocutionary silencing when they are illegitimately (...) deprived of perlocutionary influence on a conversation in which they are active participants, where perlocutionary influence on the conversation relates to speech-related perlocutionary goals meant to influence the conversation or conversational direction. Thus, this account grounds perlocutionary silencing in linguistic phenomena and characterizes perlocutionary silencing in a way that explains why those who experience perlocutionary silencing are harmed as speakers. Moreover, this account explains how perlocutionary silencing harms speakers as conversational participants in a way that cannot be captured by illocutionary or locutionary silencing, for a speaker may be perlocutionarily silenced despite illocutionary success. Consequently, the account explains why “All Lives Matter” silences Black Lives Matter and “Not All Men” silences women sharing experiences of sexual harassment. (shrink)

Testimonial injustice occurs when hearers attribute speakers a credibility deficit because of an identity prejudice and consequently dismiss speakers’ testimonial assertions. Various philosophers explain testimonial injustice by appealing to interpersonal norms arising within testimonial exchanges. When conversational participants violate these interpersonal norms, they generate second-personal epistemic harms, harming speakers as epistemic agents. This focus on testimony, however, neglects how systematically misevaluating speakers’ knowledge affects conversational participants more generally. When hearers systematically misevaluate speakers’ conversational competence because of entrenched assumptions about what (...) speakers know, I call these conversational epistemic injustices. I argue the same epistemic harm in testimonial injustice arises for non-assertoric speech acts, generating conversational epistemic injustices. For across speech acts, deflated knowledge attributions create second-personal harms that prevent speakers from using their knowledge in linguistic exchanges, limiting their epistemic agency. These harms however are not reducible to linguistic harms, (e.g.,) silencing or discursive injustice. This article applies insight from how second-personal epistemic harm arises in testimonial exchanges to conversational exchanges more generally, demonstrating that epistemic injustices arise beyond testimonial exchanges and contexts of inquiry because deflated knowledge attributions undermine general conversational norms requiring participants assume each other’s conversational competence, generating conversational epistemic injustices. (shrink)

Allan Heaton Anderson is one of the few white South Africans who succeeded in getting out of the entrapment of racial prejudices when it came to the written history of African-initiated churches. He became aware of the fact that an authentic theology can only be examined within context, and thus his theological analysis of African independent churches (AICs) reflects his status in the margins. Anderson not only conducted research among the poor and the downtrodden, where he challenged assumptions made by (...) his white contemporaries, but he also identified with the ‘othering’, those who were powerless and marginalised – contributing immensely to African theology of inclusivity. This article comprised three sections: firstly, it traced Anderson’s journey within and his contribution to the theology of African Pentecostalism; secondly, it explored the notion of typology of AICs using the lens of ‘othering’; and thirdly, it concluded with recent trends in neo-Pentecostalism. Following the philosophical axiom of critical theory, the article was involved in dialogue with Anderson, interrogated European missionary typologies of African-initiated churches and, finally, critiqued the convergence of ‘progressive Pentecostals’ and ‘globalisation’ in shaping a new mission paradigm. Contribution: This article paid closer attention to intersectionality of historiography and hybrid theological subjects such as practical theology and African theology. The contribution of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research by white African scholars on African theology was appraised. The article further appreciated the contribution by a white theologian who had mastered African epistemology of being and living by critiquing the theory of paternalistic ‘othering’. (shrink)