More Movement of Epistemic Classes

Marxism is a dynamic theory, in which classes are in constant interaction until the lower classes reach a level of exploitation that entices them to revolt against the upper class. Is a revolution necessary? I don’t think so, because it’s not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which a society engages constructively in the dialectical struggles and seeks to reestablish a more equitable distribution of power. There are pockets of historical change in which a ruling population lifts their oppressed counterparts and provides them genuine means to rehabilitate their interaction.

In Quebec, the government followed the population’s will to regain autonomy and self-determination in what is called a “quiet revolution,” one that didn’t operate with violence and the eradication of the richer classes, but rather one that realigned power so that everyone could have a fairer chance. Yet, unless the upper side of an oppressive relationship between classes genuinely acts to redress inequalities, the lower side must shake things up enough to force a change or risk the collapse of the system.

Yesterday, I talked about epistemic classes and the need for a richer classification of society that recognizes inequalities in power beyond material goods, namely the ability to contribute to the knowledge, beliefs, and values of a society, as well as the freedom to fulfill one’s life while contributing to society in alternative ways. But like with material goods, some portions of society have a greater grip on the epistemic structures; they choose what is to be published and taught, what is to be emphasized or forgotten, and the narrative of a society that secures and justifies their disproportionate epistemological influence. Unless marginalized people who do not fit in the upper side's epistemological patterns and beliefs have room to manifest their experience and seek a fair place in society, the upper side ends up reinforcing a structural system that silences narratives and erases identities.

What does it take to rehabilitate this epistemic oppression short of a revolution that shakes structures enough to give room for their stories?

The Movement of Epistemic Classes

In traditional Marxist theory, society is divided into socio-economic classes based on the possession and production of goods. It’s a material division of society based on economic status. Those who are not owners come to be exploited, and an unequal distribution of power yields an unequal and inequitable society. Marx claimed that the movement of social classes happens by revolution and predicted that the proletariat would revolt against the bourgeoisie and rehabilitate the distribution of power in a more equitable way.

This analysis of the movement of classes is rather thin, ultimately reducible to an economic analysis of equity in society. This approach works well in a population that is otherwise homogeneous. If people perform social roles that are predictable, uniform, and stable, within a society where culture and race are relatively homogeneous, then it makes sense to separate them in a material way because the other factors are "kept equal" by default.

In a modern context, researchers in critical theory have come to endorse a richer notion of power, including not only material power but also epistemic power—encompassing cultural, moral, ethical, religious, and spiritual dimensions, and what I suggest as logical power. Because our populations are mixed and complex, and because we have created room for the emergence of alternative identities and realities, the carving of societies into material classes hides axes of oppression that are pervasive. There is inequity that happens in the public sphere where people’s identities, lived experiences, and worldviews are silenced, forcing marginalized groups to conform to the norm or be radically excluded.

A new type of social movement is now observable, whereby the oppressed are seeking epistemic rehabilitation. I’ll leave you with this question: if powers are not only material but also epistemic, is the movement of epistemic classes one of revolution?

Neutrality vs Equality vs Equity

In Logic in the Wild, I present logic as the guardian of coherence and compliment it for providing a “neutral space of dialectical enquiry.” Guarding coherence requires attention to structure and reasoning rather than belief and content. Engaging in a neutral space of dialectical enquiry is to focus on coherence rather than content when contemplating various perspectives on the same issue, alone or with others. Focus on how they reason, not what they believe. Being neutral means, in particular, that no one’s opinion or belief is imposed on the space, that no one is forced to accept as true what they don’t believe in.

Engaging neutrally requires the suspension of strong opinions and beliefs for the sake of the enquiry. If, when engaging with fiction, the audience is sometimes required to suspend disbelief, which means accepting things they wouldn’t accept in real life, such as superheroes, monsters, or interstellar space travel (do you believe in it?), suspending belief in a dialectical space is not similarly being more gullible, but rather suppressing one’s beliefs unless they can be justified and shared. If you want others to adopt a belief in a neutral space, you need to motivate and argue for it. How does it benefit others in the same space? How is it better for the group? And if others have views they want to support, hear them out with a charitable ear, seeking coherence and conciliation.

That’s the positive side of neutrality, that it allows us to play on an equal field, one in which everyone is treated equally. Equality, however, doesn’t guarantee equity. That’s true in real life, that even though we pretend that everyone has equal opportunity in society, only some achieve fair outcomes, sometimes because of luck and hard work, but most often because of their situation in society, which allows them to ignore or overcome barriers that stop others not similarly situated.

I believe the same can happen in a dialectical enquiry, that imposing neutrality without concern for fairness leads to an equal but non-equitable space. Some need to give up a lot more than others to enter that space, their voices get silenced because they can’t find a neutral way to express them, and their identity gets erased and so do the richness and wisdom of what they have to contribute. This can indeed happen deep in accepted standards of reasoning, which favor orthodoxy over difference by seeking equality, thus failing to achieve equity and fairness.