Paul-Mikhail Catapang Podosky

Kate Manne claims that her account of gaslighting rectifies regrettable deficiencies in existing theories. However, Manne hasn’t done enough to demonstrate the novelty of her view given that she fails to seriously engage with a significant portion of the gaslighting literature. This is an issue in the politics of methodology. Many theorists working on gaslighting exist within the margins, attempting to centre their perspectives over dominant points of view. We must listen to marginalised folk when aiming to understand a phenomenon that disproportionately affects them. If Manne had listened, she would have come to see difficulties with some of her suggestions, such as the possibility of unintentional gaslighting.

We are invited to picture conceptual improvement as a kind of engineering. Extract the concept, repair what is defective, and return it to use. But the picture requires a background assumption that is rarely examined: that concepts can step outside the practices that give them life. I deny that assumption. Concepts are social phenomena sustained through ongoing labour: created, reproduced, contested, and policed within what I call conceptual economies. Once recognised, the engineering image loses its grip. There is no standpoint external to the economy from which design can occur, and the much-discussed implementation challenge is a misdescription of how conceptual change unfolds. Conceptual improvement is better understood as a mode of participation within a labour system. This offers a more realistic account of what philosophers are doing when revising our concepts.