On Public‐identity Disempowerment*

Messiah. Al is a good man. He leads fulfilling life. Those around him appreciate and treat with respect. Shortly before his death, he makes an unsettling discovery. Unbeknownst to him, those in community believe Messiah: someone chosen by God, innate virtue, deserving of unconditional As it happens, really man, worthy But if, counterfactually, behaviour personality were disagreeable, would continue be positively disposed towards him. They all interpret Al’s through the lens ‘Messiah-script’, without seeing for who is. If I Al, troubled start questioning much what had found valuable my Did near dear know me? ever have any influence on their perception partner love me because me, or they thought was ‘the one’? And about friends colleagues? Even if led looks like life, something important missing from it: agency made no difference attitudes interacted with. For them, virtuous default, not virtue conduct. To that extent, lacked power construct outward—that is, ‘public’—identity. His public identity function Messiah script, choices. public-identity disempowered. presented this fictional scenario introduce concept disempowerment. My aim article explain demonstrate its relevance moral evaluation real-world social interactions, just ones.11 There course, literature relationship between (e.g., Fanon [1952] 2008; Fricker 2007; Langton 1993; MacKinnon 1987, ch. 16), including discussions how dominant majorities sometimes impose particular identities disadvantaged minorities Crenshaw 1991, p. 1297; Laborde 2008, 10; Lawrence 2003; 1989, 140; Taylor 1994; cf. Jütten 2016). Instances call disempowerment therefore gone unnoticed. aim, however, develop comprehensive framework capturing phenomenon multifarious forms. show often lies behind prejudice, bullying, cultural exclusion, stereotyping, argue sheds light morally significant features these phenomena. proceed as follows. In first part article—Sections II III—I set out mapping then focus particularly form such disempowerment: ‘transparency-appraisal disempowerment’. This suffered lack themselves kinds people are. second article, explore axiological normative dimensions transparency-appraisal Sections IV V, non-instrumentally bad victims, prevents them enjoying socially effective practical agency. outline considerations bear whether instance only bad, but also wrong. Section VI, consider implications analysis practice statistical discrimination. VII concludes. begin clarifying mean identity. distinguish different perspectives which judgements can made. Finally, discuss one’s thereof. Asking person’s equivalent asking: person? Answering involves attributing certain identity-relevant properties them. Such attributions presuppose categorization framework: system deemed relevant definition. Examples may include: white versus other ethnic background, religious nonreligious, friendly unfriendly, dangerous harmless, tall short, so on. Different frameworks contain sets stipulate satisfaction-conditions same property—that specifications takes exhibit property. example, prior invention computers, property ‘being computer expert’ our frameworks. Or exhibiting polite’ might vary across frameworks, insofar politeness norms differ cultures. Given differences, are always framework-dependent. That offering account classifying terms contained given framework. far concerned, useful appraisal descriptive ones. Appraisal convey evaluations agent’s character actions. building blocks answers question: ‘What kind person they?’. kindness, trustworthiness, violence, dangerousness, hypocrisy, loyalty, conscientiousness, courage, name few. Descriptive properties, contrast, evaluative content. include being Malaysian Italian descent, born Canada New Zealand, dark blonde hair, married unmarried, teacher engineer, forth. The distinction matters former, latter, aptly trigger reactive attitudes, praise, blame, resentment, admiration, indignation, contempt, shame, on.22 Shoemaker 2013; Strawson 1962. properties—unlike purely ones—mark quality persons. we shall see, gives special significance process identity-ascription. Offering identity, suggested, classification exercises carried multiple perspectives. Depending perspective, three types identity: subjective, (inter-subjective), objective identity.33 Weigert 1986. Subjective denotes own conception one is: bundle attributes oneself. Public refers perceived group individuals: public. Objective actually possesses—‘who is’—relative sufficiently rich nuanced framework.44 nuanced—e.g., it—then under correct application will accurately reflect instance, integrity, truly has integrity systematically mischaracterized. So, possible himself very generous (subjective identity), while fact rather stingy (objective family (public relative ‘near dear’). Note notion does immutable self, detached processes. One’s undoubtedly product socialization evolve over time. All implies that, at time, framework, there truth matter within agent possesses. Similarly, drawing objective, am implying self-conception impervious way others think us—which implausible.55 discussion individuals conform ascribed e.g., 2007, pp. 56–7; 1994, 25. contention analytical tool, implicit common-sense talk, when say: ‘He deluded is’ ‘Now she revealing her true colours’, ‘It’s unfortunate, full distant, extremely shy’, With conceptual place, now turn analysing hand, other. intuitive reactions predicament suggest, we—as agents beings—have reason value possessing some control us. Call ‘public-identity power’. cannot need unlimited. unclear should lament lacks deceive sure, prudentially advantageous: suppose criminal, yet succeeds making honest professional. Be may, lacking doesn’t seem raise prima facie concern, least against backdrop reasonably circumstances. shouldn’t worried pathologically delusional succeed constructing matches (delusional) subjective No ‘alarm bells’ go off say, sincerely US president, yet, hard try, academic. Privacy Public-identity Power. keep (or aspects thereof) private. Transparency effectively reveal thereof).66 Compare ‘agential identities’, defined ‘self-identities make available others’, where ‘self-identities’ akin identities; Dembroff Saint-Croix 2019. Combining two categories introduced earlier, obtain two-by-two matrix (Figure 1). It seems plain four matter, corresponding forms cause concern. Much could said each strictures single narrower focus. follows, concentrate type only, namely described bottom-right quadrant matrix. power’ (‘transparency-appraisal power’, short). main reasons narrowing down scope way. First, phenomena occupying left quadrants—top bottom—have already been widely discussed literatures privacy, self-presentation, ‘opacity respect’.77 See, Bruin 2010; Carter 2011; Nagel 1998; Velleman 2001. Since little add sophisticated discussions, privacy side here. Second, us persons: beings capable responding reasons. Possessing power, argue, necessary fulfilment interest Lacking results distinctive harms (and wrongs), pervasive acknowledged, worth discussing right. deny (top-right quadrant) threatens interests. However, interests agency, wish Transparency-appraisal A P, act non-deceptively openly vis-à-vis then, robustly, P accurate picture Let elaborate spoken ‘reveal’ do ‘effectively’? hiding (that openly) trying non-deceptively). turn, extent perceive person, everyone perceives selfish, identity—that things—but exercise sense, ineffective. Others still see am. said, possession require perfect match too ask, complexities involved interaction. others’ accurate: truth. present purposes, settle specific ‘reasonable accuracy’ criterion, since cases criterion isn’t met, plausible specification counts reasonable. happen adequate suffice possess power. After all, ‘getting right’ fluke. explains qualifier ‘robustly’ definition offered above. people’s coincidence fluke, clear sense requires appraisals responsive character. appraisals, therefore, must robustly (non-deceptively) display. So defined, more less comprehensive, depending many public; local global, size possesses power; shallower deeper, central negation affected accurate—positive—image was, happened person—say, petty irascible—and concealed flaws, remained identical. appraisal, recall, guided according which, one’, actions default. Relative ‘P’), deep. real world, comes forms—structural agential—each includes subtypes 2).88 point both structural agential origins well recognized. critical discussion, Dowding 2008. describe disempowerment, lie variety familiar array binary oppositions up society’s fundamental tools thought, various conventions, recipes, scenarios, principles action, habits speech gesture built tools.1010 Ibid. See Sewell’s work Sally Haslanger (2012, 461–5), learnt. Schemas, points out, society-specific ‘common ground’ enabling decode another’s behaviour.1111 2012, 17. Haslanger’s draws Robert Stalnaker’s work. paragraph indebted Haslanger’s. societal code, goes beyond encompassing patterns use norms, model Structural disempowerment—namely, traceable code—comes variants. codes provide background ‘scripts’ predetermining severely constraining) individuals’ thoughts classes people, analogous Messiah-assumption framed opening scenario.1212 (ibid., 462) uses script characterize schemas. first, default combination, obtains assume exclude ‘by default’ co-occurrence properties. Consider black men USA automatically marked dangerous, independently perform.1313 E.g., 1253. harmlessly jogging wealthy, neighbourhood, man exposed risk stopped police interrogated.1414 Atlantic 2015. assumed ‘not wealthy’ engaging typically middle-class activity wealthy area town. disempowered: shows is—say, law-abiding, professionally successful, habits—and altogether different.1515 Eidelson 2013, 221–2; Krause 2013. several tend woman’, leader’, mother’. When so, unlikely, times impossible, woman establish herself leader mother, even skills traits. Here too, public’s negative professional private self rules combinations. She thus These examples combination ordinarily stereotypes, generalizations, prejudices.1616 Cf. sec. 2.1. defective categorization, occurs framework—itself code—is insufficiently nuanced. Defective depend absence/presence properties’ specified framework.1717 On ‘hermeneutical injustice' (2007), 7. code ours, property—in fact, slur—‘being slut’. derogatory term applied women liberal sexual mores, dirty, untrustworthy, generally subpar. things say ills associated slur (beginning misogyny), vague slippery knows slut you … circulated around, though, worry attached them.1919 Reported Khazan 2014. slipperiness disempowers construction, vulnerable property, position order avoid it. ambiguous property’s disempowering effect. Alternatively, ‘transgender’. Under whose gender aligned biological sex showed persons are, likely fail: routinely misinterpreted. today—that world category recognition—transgender susceptible Just mention West Virginia, transgender recently denied renewal drivers’ licences ground misrepresenting gender.2020 NYT Editorial Board negatively appraised dishonest, were. best explained reference agents. again action-based actively impair someone’s construction. Consider, employee bullied boss. boss spread false rumours employee’s character, publicly emphasize performance. circumstances, determinants workplace. Objectively, conscientious colleague, boss’s deliberate misconstrual creates image second-rate, untrustworthy worker. omission-based ability create faithful representation due failure means doing so. accompany, exclusion. refugees who, knowing language integrate host societies. experience context 2015 European refugee crisis, young male advice approach societies.2121 Economist 2016. Actions count appropriate qualify rude threatening another. access knowledge know-how integration available, culturally unaware unable successfully typology meant shed manifestations better detect once context, immediately conclude bad—if wrong—has occurred? Manifestly, render victims—such racial minorities, women, employees, refugees—unfairly subordinated. instrumentally them: rise consequences. Moreover, consequences wrong: impermissible lights principles. While considerations, follows want examine problematic contingent An affirmative answer question allow vindicate such, ‘vicariously’, harmful effects. One natural suggestion troublesome violates ‘individuality principle’: idea individuals.2222 thank anonymous referee inviting principle. According explanation, publics wrong victims failing attend individuality. Instead based choices, respond broad generalizations apply qua members groups: blacks, immigrants, forth.2323 Blum 2004, 272–3; Lippert-Rasmussen 2011. reasonable weight evidence ways Y exercised autonomy [—that choices made—], determination hand.2525 216; 2016, 144–5. states individually jointly sufficient conditions treating individuals. Here, condition, most discussion. condition reads: ‘if X’s judgments concern Y’s disparages capacity autonomous agent’; 216. Lippert-Rasmussen’s (2011, 54) interpretation principle independent appeal able capture uneasy prominent instances blacks violent poor leaders fail look skin colour gender, ignoring personal qualities. individuality correctly captures problematic, ill-suited such. Several accompanied violations categorization. take into account, deficiencies employ. seen, appropriately ‘transgender’, behaviours presents vice versa) misjudged. This, individualized account. else, following combination.2626 Matilda suggesting example along lines. Sam gay living conservative society. come ascribe series him.This demoralizing conceals acts straight guy. People’s positive indeed rely evidence. treated individual. disempowered intuitively lamentable. Were non-deceptively—the longer accurate. employee. bully judge victim evidence—he find colleague—but, whatever reason, wants life hell. By token, misjudge her, neglect account; it’s distorted bully’s rumours. offers limited explanation right track. Its core insight—that status individual key explanation—is correct. alternative insight. Adult humans ‘reflect have’.2727 104. why suitable objects attitudes.2828 Ibid.; Praise, disdain, forth directed entities reason-sensitive choice considered responsible