Mary Antoinette Weigel

[Master's Thesis] In our daily lives, self-understanding seems deeply influenced by how others see us, but the ways this shows up are diverse and unpredictable. This raises a natural question: should we understand ourselves the way others understand us, or is there some more primitive self-concept to which we are accountable? In this paper, I argue that self-conception arises from a distinct process characterized by three core features: epistemic deference, interpretation, and reflexivity. In §I I introduce the problem and in §II I give an account of epistemic deference by describing how it facilitates the formation of self-knowledge which pertains to one’s self-concept. Next, I discuss the context-dependent scope and authority of epistemic deference, and explain why maintaining a minimal sense of epistemic authority is favorable. In tandem, I show how epistemic deference can help extend a transparency account of self-knowledge by externalizing self-knowledge which is more social and value-laden. In §III I articulate the role of interpretation in constraining self-knowledge formation, and show how these constraints rule out a few cases problematic for epistemic deference taken on its own. I outline how the problem of epistemic injustice and epistemic oppression complicate self-concept formation and discuss how epistemic deference and interpretation can work together to mitigate some of their harms. In §IV I introduce reflexivity as a mechanism for maintaining one's self-concept over time, and flag some metaphysical complications these three features raise for future investigation in §V. Ultimately, I argue that these three features are necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, for self-concept forming taken on their own.