Deborah Mühlebach

How do we overcome the agency dilemma, that is, account for the fact that power relations heavily affect our agency without neglecting the many ways in which oppressed people act meaningfully? This article offers a solution by paying special attention to socially complex uptake in a framework of communities of practice. In order to explain the role of uptake in agency, I build on the notion of uptake provided by speech act theory. I show that if we are concerned with social agency, we need to depart from speech act theory's narrow focus on individual actions and their uptake in isolated settings. Rather, we should look at patterns of actions and the socially complex uptake they get. The relevant questions then are: Uptake by whom? How is it socially backed up? And how do different communities and practices that make uptake more or less likely relate to each other? Addressing these questions and understanding agency within the proposed framework allows us to address how power relations affect people's agency while building on and empowering the action of disenfranchised people within their existing possibilities. My account of agency thereby also provides tools for antioppressive struggles that aim to foster agency sustaining ecologies.

Discussions of non-ideal theory as philosophical methodology have recently entered the philosophy of language. In this chapter, the authors take stock of the academic movement that has begun to gather under the banner of ‘non-ideal philosophy of language,’ exploring what it means to idealize discursive phenomena, and how such idealizations impede our inquiry into politically significant speech. In doing so, they aim to draw attention to a certain pernicious ideal that distorts the theorist’s own relationship, qua theorist, to the discursive practices they seek to theorize. This is the methodological ideal of normative neutrality, which ties the rigor of the theorist’s conceptual toolkit to its impartiality in the face of a non-ideal world full of non-neutral speech. The authors make the case that non-ideal philosophers of language ought to reject this ideal, lest they deprive themselves of the resources to register the political significance of their target phenomena. To acknowledge our need for normatively non-neutral methods, the authors argue, is to imagine a philosophy of language that might itself take the shape of discursive resistance against our target phenomena. They conclude by considering how philosophers could do such things with their words.

Philosophers of language are increasingly engaging with derogatory terms or slurs. Only few theorists take such language as a starting point for addressing puzzles in philosophy of language with little connection to our real-world problems. This paper aims to show that the political nature of derogatory language use calls for non-ideal theorising as we find it in the work of feminist and critical race scholars. Most contemporary theories of slurs, so I argue, fall short on some desiderata associated with a non-ideal approach. They neglect crucial linguistic or political aspects of morally and politically significant meaning. I argue that a two-stage project is necessary to understand the perniciousness of slurs: accounting for the derogatory content of derogatory terms in general and, additionally, explaining the communicative function of slurs more specifically. I end by showing how inferentialism is well-suited to account for the content of derogatory terms whilst allowing for further explanations of the communicative functions of slurs.

As Helen Longino's overview of Hypatia's engagement with feminist epistemology suggests, the last twenty-five years’ contributions to this field reveal a strong focus on the topic of knowledge. In her short outline, Longino questions this narrow focus on knowledge in epistemological inquiry. The main purpose of this article is to provide a framework for systematically taking up the questions raised by Longino, one that prevents us from running the risk of becoming unreflectively involved in sexist, racist, or otherwise problematic inquiry. I argue that a specific form of the method of Reflective Equilibrium, as it is widely discussed in moral epistemology, logic, and theories of rationality, enables us to cope with the problems of traditional epistemology, which feminist theorizers such as Sally Haslanger have pointed to. With the account of Reflective Equilibrium I am offering—drawing in many respects on the model provided by Catherine Z. Elgin—we have an ameliorative method that allows us to rethink epistemological values, goals, and standards in a systematic way, and that largely avoids implicit and explicit biases in epistemology.

Verbal derogation is not only a linguistic but also, and perhaps more importantly, a political phenomenon. In this paper, I argue that to do justice to the political relevance of derogatory terms, we must not neglect the social practices and structures in which the use of these terms is embedded. I aim to show that inferentialist semantics is especially helpful to account for this social embeddedness and, consequently, the political relevance of derogatory terms. I am concerned with specifying the linguistic and political aspects of terms that are at the core of derogatory language use. I explain them with the help of Brandomian inferentialism which tends to be quickly dismissed or ignored in discussions about the meaning of derogatory terms. My inferentialist account is in line with Lynne Tirrell’s broader inferentialist framework for understanding derogatory communicative practices. I provide the semantic details of her broader inferentialist view and thereby aim to show that inferentialist semantics is a promising theory which cannot be neglected in further discussion of meaning and politics in derogatory language use.

Language can be used as an instrument to exert power over people, as in issuing an order or a ban, or when it exercises an intrinsic power by virtue of its semantic or pragmatic content. The Politics of Meaning focuses on this latter aspect and answers the following question: what does it mean for linguistic meaning to be embedded in social structures and practices if we have good reasons to assume that these practices rest on asymmetrical power relations and are often unjust? My comprehensive study of meaning in morally and politically problematic language use accomplishes four major goals. Firstly, I defend a theory of meaning which is able to account for a broad range of politically significant aspects of language use. Secondly, I relate these aspects to non-linguistic aspects of social practices which are structured by asymmetrical power relations. Thirdly, my work responds to topical questions of public debates concerning language criticism, political disagreement, and political correctness. Fourthly and finally, my approach involves reflecting on the methodological problems that arise when we engage in politically relevant philosophical questions. It is both a plea for and an instance of non-ideal philosophy of language.

Recently, there has been growing interest in methodological issues of non-ideal theoretical philosophy. While some explicitly commit to non-ideal theorising, others doubt that there is anything useful about the ideal/non-ideal distinction in theoretical philosophy. The aim of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, I propose a way of doing non-ideal theoretical philosophy, once we realise how limited certain idealised projects are. Since there is a big overlap between projects that are called non-ideal and applied, the second aim is to distinguish between these categories in order to show that applied theoretical philosophy is only worth pursuing if it operates in a non-ideal framework. I argue that we should be pluralistic about possible non-ideal theories and view the ideal/non-ideal differences as a matter of degree, rather than kind. As an example, I show how my version of non-ideal theory is useful to a concrete debate in philosophy of language. My proposal allows us to identify already existing non-ideal approaches to linguistic meaning and encourages us to further engage in the debate on non-ideal theoretical philosophy.

Inferentialism seems to be an unpopular theory where derogatory terms are concerned. Contrary to most theorists in the debate on the meaning of derogatory terms, I think that inferentialism constitutes a promising theory to account for a broad range of aspects of derogatory language use. In order to make good on that promise, however, inferentialism must overcome four main objections that are usually raised against Michael Dummett's and Robert Brandom's inferentialist explanations of derogatory terms. This paper aims at debunking these objections and thereby further developing the inferentialist interpretation of derogatory terms. I shall first discuss and reject three of the objections by pointing to the core assumptions of Brandomian inferentialism. Overcoming the fourth objection requires adjusting Dummett's and Brandom's explanation of the meaning of derogatory terms. In order to do so, I shall elaborate on the role that the explication of implicit material inferences plays with regard to different kinds of derogatory terms. The inferentialist account I am proposing fares better in terms of its explanatory power and broadness of application than Dummett's and Brandom's sketchy and oft-criticised views.

In recent discussions on the meaning of derogatory terms, most theorists base their investigations on the assumption that slurring terms could in principle have some neutral, i.e. purely descriptive, counterpart. Lauren Ashwell has recently shown that this assumption does not generalize to gendered slurs. This paper aims to challenge the point and benefit of approaching the meaning of derogatory terms in contrast to their allegedly purely descriptive counterparts. I argue that different discursive practices among different communities of practice sometimes change the semantics of a term. By the example of the term ‘black,’ I show in what ways these different practices may amount to semantic contestations which complicate the assessment of whether a specific politically significant term is purely descriptive. My discussion of politically significant terms provides insights into further phenomena such as the appropriation of derogatory terms by the target group or meaning change more generally. Moreover, it not only accounts for the political aspects of a linguistic phenomenon, but equally highlights and explains the oft-neglected but crucial role that language plays in social and political struggles. It thus contributes to ongoing discussions both in philosophy of language and in social and political philosophy.

Our everyday practices are meaningful in several ways. In addition to the linguistic meanings of our terms and sentences, we attach social meanings to actions and statuses. Philosophy of language and public debates often focus on contesting morally and politically pernicious linguistic practices. My aim is to show that this is too little: even if we are only interested in morally and politically problematic terms, we must counteract a pernicious linguistic practice on many levels, especially on the level of its underlying social meanings. Otherwise, the critique of specific words as the most salient fruits of this practice will be futile. I trace out two paths through which pernicious social meanings feed into linguistic meanings and make the case for constructive contestations of social meanings as an alternative to criticising the use of a few highly pernicious terms in which these social meanings are manifest. My investigation into how social structures shape both social and linguistic meanings sheds further light on the ways in which social meanings enter linguistic exchanges. Moreover, it reveals that what is said in specific situations is more closely connected to our non-verbal actions than the current literature on semantics and the social sciences allows.