Beyond Prison Walls: Curtailed Liberty, Custodial Responsibility, and Institutional Health Care
A. Silvers
Abstract:Hermeneutical injustice occurs when a collective gap in knowledge unfairly deprives an individual of an ability to make sense of her/his own experiences. Cases of hermeneutical injustice often involve forms of implicit bias and meta-ignorance that support the shared gaps of a social group’s interpretive resources. To elucidate the harms caused by such forms of bias and meta-ignorance, I suggest that we turn to a concrete example, in this case, the context of correctional health care. In this paper, I argue that prisoners may face hermeneutical injustices with respect to their medical care. One of the primary reasons for this is that the current legal evidentiary requirements needed to prove civil rights violations with respect to medical care in prisons set unobtainable standards for many prisoners. The inaccessibility of those standards, I propose, is due to a series of hermeneutical gaps among the epistemic resources available to prisoners. INTRODUCTION In recent decades, feminist and critical race scholars have been breaking ground by examining characteristically epistemic forms of injustice. This area of inquiry within social epistemology takes as its primary focus the idea that a wrong can be committed on an individual in terms of her/his capacity as a knower. One category of epistemic injustice is what Miranda Fricker calls hermeneutical injustice.1 Hermeneutical injustice occurs when a collective gap in knowledge unfairly deprives an individual of an ability to make sense of her/his own experiences.2 Cases of this form of injustice, I and others propose, often involve states of implicit bias and secondorder forms of ignorance—i.e., meta-ignorances—that support the shared gaps of a social group’s interpretive resources. To elucidate the harms caused by such forms of bias and meta-ignorance, I suggest that we turn to a concrete example, in this case, the context of correctional health care. In what follows, I argue that persons who are incarcerated may face hermeneutical injustices with respect to their medical care. One of the primary reasons for this is that the current legal evidentiary requirements needed to prove civil rights violations with respect to medical care in prisons set standards unobtainable for many prisoners. The inaccessibility of those standards, PAGE 6 FALL 2014 | VOLUME 14 | NUMBER 1 APA NEWSLETTER | PHILOSOPHY AND MEDICINE I claim, is due to a series of hermeneutical gaps in the epistemic resources available to prisoners. To defend these claims, I first turn to recent literature in social epistemology to frame my analysis of hermeneutical injustice. Then, in the second section of the paper, I examine two Supreme Court cases that set the current evidentiary requirements for proving violations of the Eighth Amendment, the U.S. constitutional amendment that prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, I argue that, due to systemic hermeneutical gaps in the context of U.S. prisons, such current evidentiary requirements unjustly restrict prisoners’ abilities to legally address harmful forms of under/overtreatment and misdiagnosis in correctional medicine. I. CLARIFYING HERMENEUTICAL INJUSTICE First, to specify what I mean by hermeneutical injustice, I refer here to recent work by José Medina. While Fricker’s view of hermeneutical injustice claims that interpretive gaps must be shared across a given collective to result in the marginalization or oppression of certain sub groups within a body of knowers, Medina argues that hermeneutical injustices need not refer to collectively shared forms of ignorance.3 Rather, he asserts that a collective is often comprised of multiple sub-groups, and that hermeneutical gaps and resources may be distributed differently depending on a knower’s position within any of the various sub-groups of a collective. For example, Medina offers Charles Mills’s conception of “white ignorance” as a relevant epistemic distinction among a given collective body of knowers that affects the type of hermeneutical resources that are available to that collective.4 That is, many privileged subjects have not developed the interpretive resources for understanding their own social experiences as racialized, nor how such processes of racialization have been constituted via specific social practices. Thus, those subjects who have developed hermeneutical resources for interpreting processes of racialization constitute a distinct sub-group within the larger collective that may have very different tools for understanding their own social experiences.5 Correctional health care focuses on a specific sub-group of the U.S. population, persons who are incarcerated. That disproportionately affects certain sub-groups in the United States—African Americans and Latinos. So Medina’s account of hermeneutical injustice is apt for my analysis. Also with respect to correctional health care, Medina’s conception of meta-ignorance is particularly relevant. Meta-ignorance, he claims, is distinct from first-order forms of ignorance in that first-order forms of ignorance involve “mistaken beliefs or [a] lack of beliefs” about an area of knowledge, whereas meta-ignorance involves “meta attitudes that limit our abilities to identify and correct our ignorance” about first-order forms of knowledge.6 To be meta-ignorant of specific phenomena means that a knower does not know that she/he does not know about a given area of knowledge. Two of the ways that Medina discusses meta-ignorance are in terms of meta-blindness, a set of attitudes about certain beliefs, and meta-insensitivity, an affective numbness or indifference to one’s own ignorance in a given area of knowledge. Additionally, meta-ignorance effectively “protects first-order forms of blindness” by hindering a knower’s ability to recognize epistemic gaps or sets of distorted beliefs about first-order phenomena.7 Meta-ignorance serves to occlude the subject’s epistemic limitations and to preserve forms of first-order ignorance. For this reason, it is important to mark the non-intentional nature of many forms of first-order ignorance. Distorted beliefs and hermeneutical gaps that occur about particular first-order phenomena may be the result of socially supported or systemic forms of meta-ignorance that, in Medina’s words, “maintain the subject’s inability to learn about others and his or her predisposition to accept distortions about them.”8 II. MEDICAL CARE UNDER THE EIGHTH