In this paper, I argue that often in attempts at inclusivity and justice, the additional responsibility of explaining and bringing forth the knowledge of relevant marginalized experiences falls on the shoulders of the already marginalized groups. How? I illustrate my argument by using the paradigmatic example of hermeneutical injustice (Fricker 2007) where women who were sexually harassed had to come up with the term ‘sexual harassment’ for it to be recognized and reported as a crime in the 1970s. Through this (and other examples of marginalized experiences like disability, queerness, social status, etc.), I want to bring attention to the fact that on top of being hermeneutically marginalized and harassed, these women were additionally pushed into the asymmetrical role of translating their experiences in a way that can be understood by dominant frameworks of knowledge (e.g. legal authorities in this case). Here, by 'asymmetrical role', I mean, that they were responsible for sharing their vulnerable experiences stemming from their marginalized identity or coming up with an appropriate concept for their experience to be considered ‘legitimate’.
Objective: How is this relevant to the field of anthropology? In my presentation, I will tackle questions such as: Who should bear the burden of bringing forth inclusivity? Should we, the researchers of social sciences, expect that the marginalized share their experiences in order for us to implement inclusive policies? Especially when there is a huge gap in experiences, relevant vocabulary, and power dynamics between the relevant marginalized group and the researchers who may not share the same experiences. In doing so, are we not putting an extra responsibility/burden on the marginalized? How else can we even implement inclusivity? Hence, I want to show how we need to be extra careful while designing inclusive policies and research frameworks using better anthropological methods.
