The Philosophy of "Woke" - Standpoint Epistemology

A brief discussion of what is known as "standpoint epistemology," one philosophical concept informing the "woke" cultural phenomenon.
Standpoint Epistemology Defined - 1:26
How it Connects to Discourse Today - 3:42
Standpoint Epistemology Considered - 6:02

[@HenriFaust]

Standpoint epistemology lends itself to the motte & bailey fallacy. As you have outlined, there are two senses of standpoint epistemology, a simple, self-evident sense and a universalizing sense, but in practice only the universalizing sense is used. When people are called out, they revert to the former sense, then immediately slip back into the latter at their first convenience.

[@brianmidmore2221]

I can identify 2 problems with SE. 1. The establishment of a hierarchy of what is true based on identity. 2. The denial of absolute truth so that the truth of identities at the top of the hierarchy can contradict common sense (things obviously true).

[@amyl4074]

1) it’s not identity, it’s situatedness & discursive knowledge formation. the idea that women share an identity isn’t even true a priori. 2) “common sense” is precisely the sort of reified conception that is seen as natural & immanent by those in the centre that SE offers avenues for diagnosis for in the first place. & u can’t just say “x is true bc it’s obviously true” like 😭 these r literally the issues that SE is trying to solve in the first place?

[@sageoverheaven]

@@amyl4074 Breaking ideas down to their foundations leaves the world exactly as you describe (and repudiate, if I'm reading it right) in point 2. There certainly are universal truths, axiomatic at the basic level, because without the axioms that frame discourse, discourse in and of itself (including the expression of any arguments in the format 'premise(s) + conclusion(s)') is an impossibility. "Mass bends the spatial geodesic of other lesser masses within a distance of its epicentre" Why? Because that is a property of mass. What I just expressed is one of the axioms underpinning gravitation. "Light behaves as both a wave and a particle" Why? Because it does. This is one of the axioms underpinning general relativity. Standpoint epistemology seeks to reject all axioms. This is why it functionally collapses when applied in any real scenario. You can question *most* assertions of axiom, but not all of them.

[@justmauldie2455]

@@sageoverheaven Your view heavily depends on a claimonly you have made thus far: that SE rejects all axioms. A more chaste interpretation could certainly allow for atleast some fundamental axioms, while still maintaining the relevant social perspectivism to get it off the ground

[@sageoverheaven]

@@justmauldie2455 The claim you attribute to me was made by the individual I replied to in no uncertain terms. I'll copy and paste their comment text, in case it was invisible to you (KZbin loves doing that): "u can’t just say “x is true bc it’s obviously true” like 😭 these r literally the issues that SE is trying to solve in the first place?" I said that you can say "x is true because it's obviously true" because you can. Such a thing is self-evident in a lot of cases. I also specifically made the interpretation you allude to in the final sentence in my comment: "you can question most assertions of axiom, but not all of them". Universalization of standpoint epistemology to take the discursive high ground is a scummy tactic that needs to be called out as much as possible, because most of the people engaging in it are weasels who just want to amass more power at the expense of whoever they perceive as their 'oppressors'.

[@allisterblue5523]

One's experience does shape one's beliefs, but I would argue it more precisely determines our bias, the way we distort objective truth, it does not change what truth is. If one was previously part of an altercation with another individual and remembers being attacked, but a camera captured proof of the contrary, it would be madness to give credit to the experience over the empirical evidence; the way someone arbitrarily interprets an event through bias and lack of complete information should therefore neither be used to dismiss nor confirm a belief/determine what is true, ergo standpoint fails as an epistemology.

[@s1lentsound]

You have a new subscriber . Thanks for the upload 😀 great stuff

[@edwoodsr]

If some one says "As a [blank] person this is what it's like to work for the [blank] company," still only gives one person's (idiosyncraticly edited) summary of what it's like to work for one company.

[@josephcostantino54]

Thank you for your continued insights. Nicely explained. Just a thought: besides standpoints which seem individual and based on one’s experience, there are also frameworks, hermeneutical lenses if you will, in which whole groups share together their take on reality and the truth. These too get universalized. Might the virtue of humility be the or an antidote to such “woke” monadism whether in standpoint or framework epistemology?

[@JoelWentz]

Thanks! Yes, your point about standpoints getting applied to "group identity" is a good one, and definitely relevant. There is indeed a thread of Marxism there (though I hesitate to use the 'M-word' since that flares up all kinds of reactions). But I do constantly come back to humility, as you say! It's crucial now, maybe more than ever. Thanks again for the thoughtful engagement.

[@InfoDisco]

Hey Joel, I really enjoyed watching this, thanks for the upload!

[@JoelWentz]

Thanks! I'm so glad you found it interesting/helpful!

[@InfoDisco]

​@@JoelWentz Another reflection that I've been meditating on lately is the notion that Standpoint theory seems to select these "Standpoints" by a criteria that is rather arbitrary. Baked into the theory seems to be the implicit assumption that traits such as gender, sexuality, or race are the primary, or dominating tenants of a person's sense of inner-identity. Oddly enough, there are multitudes of experiences and enviormental factors which surely anyone would agree are massively impactful on a person's identity, and thus perspective: -Traumatic accidents involving self. Car accidents, etc. -Loss of a parent at a young age -Loss of a child -PTSD from combat or other extreme circumstances -Terminal Illness The list goes on and on. Anyone would agree that these events are all extraordinarily life-changing and would have a profound impact on the perspective of anyone who went through them. Yet, standpoint epistemology tells us that somebody's sexual orientation is a larger indicator of their personality than any of the above mentioned items. This is quite a baseless assumption, I'd dare to say an outright fallacy. Especially when dealing with such subjective things like feelings.

[@JoelWentz]

@@InfoDisco I resonate a lot with these thoughts. I wish that we had a bit more honesty in our cultural discourse about this - just admit that we have a certain "hierarchy" of identity standpoints, then I feel like we could have much more thoughtful and beneficial discussions about the historical realities that created this hierarchy, what standpoints we are ignoring or devaluing (and why) and hopefully make more progress in the type of culture we are trying to build. Right now, though, it feels like a mess because it cannot be discussed (because to question the hierarchy in any way is to be judged moralistically or labeled with -'phobic'). But I do think we can make the needed progress if we can cultivate non-judgmental conversation spaces and intellectual honesty (that's, in a small way, what I'm trying to do with this channel. Thanks for your input, and thanks for watching!

[@InfoDisco]

​@@JoelWentz Thanks for your response Joel, and I really respect your methodology of approaching these ideas in a way that aims specifically to open up the conversation. In our current culture, a conversation that is open, sincere, and genuinely "truth-seeing" is something which I (and I imagine many others) deeply crave. Maintaining this mature demeanor also presents our views in the best possible light, so keep up your great work! I really enjoy these types of discussions- would you by chance ever be interested in getting on the microphone for a philosophical / theological / sociological conversation of some kind? I deeply enjoy speaking with other great thinkers- let me know if that would interest you.

[@JoelTrousdale88]

Thanks for the excellent content as always. I’m in complete agreement with you here. I think the basic truth of standpoint epistemology is intuitive to most people. I am colorblind, and it is very difficult to explain the experience of colorblindness to others. And when I meet another colorblind individual, I immediately feel a sense of kinship because that individual understands me in a way others just can’t. I also agree that the basic truth is stretched to the point of breaking in the woke crowd. One additional observation would be how standpoint epistemology can be weaponized by the “anti-woke” crowd as well. I think of conservatives holding up Candace Owens as a counterpoint to wokism mainly because she is a black woman who agrees with them. Unfortunately, this hijacking of the ideology of your opponent is far too frequent. David French has recently been talking about this phenomenon in regards to conservatives and free speech today (e.g. complaining about corporations championing progressive causes but just a couple years ago defending Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby tooth and nail). I wonder whether conservatives have intentionally hijacked a radical standpoint epistemology or whether there is something deeper going on that we share as a cultural inheritance as 21st century Americans.

[@JoelWentz]

Oh man....there is SO much here to unpack! I resonate with so many things you bring up. For now, I'll just say "THANK YOU" for such a thoughtful response.

[@benjiradach347]

"I think of conservatives holding up Candace Owens as a counterpoint to wokism mainly because she is a black woman who agrees with them." I think you'd be wrong to think that, at least, with respect to ALL conservatives. It would be worth stopping to consider whether some conservatives concur with Candace Owens ("CO") because many of the positions she holds on sociopolitical issues are in fact true and correct? My thought, if I were in your position, is that to the extent that any of the conservatives you have in mind is a brother or sister in Christ (forgive me if I have wrongly assumed that you are a Christian), you would do well to either (i) believe the best of him or her (this is what love calls for after all) before you have confirmed his or her reasoning, or (ii) have a conversation with him or her to confirm his or her reasoning. Further, the above statement seems to take it for granted that ALL conservatives are white. I'm black, conservative and hold many of the same positions on sociopolitical issues as CO--though I don't quite prefer her communication style, which can be unduly bellicose at times. Dismissal of black conservatives--as inauthentic or otherwise--would be rather convenient, and further goes to show the folly of stand point epistemology. Also, obvious as it might seem, it probably bears pointing out here that being colorblind--kindly believe that I'm sympathetic to your condition, and wish it was otherwise--is quite different from being black, white or any other color for that matter. The former is a disability--i.e. the inability to see colors--while the latter is not. Additionally, in regards to melanin level, many people of the same skin color have very different interpretations of reality, even here in the U.S. Thus, even if the majority of black people shared a particular interpretation of reality (an episteme, if you will), it would still be incorrect to describe said interpretation as the interpretation of black people writ large--which, of course, is still to say nothing about which interpretation actually corresponds to objective reality. Next, please forgive me if I've misread you, but the phrase "because she agrees with them" reeks of condescension. It would be better said that CO and the conservatives you have in mind hold similar positions on sociopolitical issues. Unfortunately, your phrase seems to suggest that all black people are merely by-standers in a debate between woke and anti-woke factions, not thinking, not reasoning independently, but merely "agreeing" with one side or the other. That view, my friend, is incredibly patronizing. Lastly, it might be worth stopping to consider the logic in your statement that "standpoint epistemology can be weaponized by the 'anti-woke' crowd". The statement seems to take it for granted that there can't be genuine concerns in regard to stand point epistemology, which seems to be less of a bug and more of a feature of woke culture, and thus with woke culture itself. Your use of the words "weaponized" and "hijack" and even the designation "anti-woke crowd" would seem to suggest that you're starting from a bit of a cynical position with respect to, at least, some people who have honest concerns about woke culture--with which lot, I would include myself.

[@JoelTrousdale88]

I'm largely in agreement with you and perhaps my brief statement could have used more qualifications. I tried to use general terms in order to avoid confusion, but I apologize that I was not as clear as I could have been. So let me clarify. 1. I don't think this is something ALL conservatives are guilty of. I think this is something some conservatives do. I have no idea how frequent this is, but the frequency was not the point I hoped to get across. Since I think standpoint epistemology has some legitimacy, it is difficult to pinpoint at what point someone is being tokenized and at what point they are being included in the conversation for good reason. I actually agree with Candace on a good number of things, too, and I certainly think her viewpoint as a black woman is worth listening to. But at the same time, just because I cannot always know why someone is doing something, that does not therefore mean no one is guilty of it. And that's my point - this happens sometimes (but certainly not each time a conservative quotes Candace Owens). 2. I'm not exactly sure why the statement implies that all conservatives are white. Again, I'm trying to speak in broad generalities. I intentionally left out identifying details in the hypothetical because I wanted to be as broad as possible, not specific. Of course, a black person can also be guilty of abusing standpoint epistemology as well, but one would assume they would do that less often than white people with Candace on the topic of race because they have their own experience from which to utilize standpoint epistemology. Either way, I did not mean to imply that and I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. 3. So about whether "because she agrees with them" reeks of condescension. This is precisely the abuse I'm criticizing. Many conservatives quote Candace Owens appreciatively because they agree and because they think she is a good defender of that position and because they think her reasoning is sound. Again, I am in that camp at times. But perhaps I should amend my statement slightly: there are some conservatives who quote Candace for no other reason than that she is a black woman who agrees with them. They do it to prove a point. I'm not saying that Candace doesn't have her own reasoning for anything, but rather that for the abuser of standpoint epistemology, the reasoning is not the central focus. It is the abuser who is condescending, in my opinion. To quote someone for no reason other than the color of their skin and not for the force of their argument is condescending and it is precisely what I am criticizing. 4. I apologize for sounding cynical. I probably am. I also have honest concerns about woke culture. I'm kind of a political mutt. I don't think any of my friends who consider themselves "woke" would allow me the label, although many of my friends on the more conservative side may call me that. I am pointing out that some conservatives criticize standpoint epistemology and then turn around and equally abuse it. It's the hypocrisy that I'm pointing out. I have seen few conservatives do what Joel did here - give an even and thoughtful criticism which includes areas of agreement. It is often simply dismissed out of hand. But then they use the very same rhetorical tactics they disparaged. I don't pretend to say whether this is most conservatives or only a vocal minority. I am mainly saying that some people on the right do this as well.

[@JoelWentz]

This is a great back-and-forth, seemingly done in good faith. Really appreciate you both providing such thoughtful comments. It makes me think this whole KZbin channel is worth continuing to work on 🤓

[@benjiradach347]

@@JoelTrousdale88 Thanks for taking the time to respond, and thanks for the clarifications. Also, thanks for the apology: you are well and completely forgiven. Please let me know if there is any way I could have communicated more clearly and kindly, so I can, likewise, seek your forgiveness. Also, if you see any blind spots in my perspective, either based on the below or from my response yesterday, do point those out as well. I too will try to respond to each of your now clarified points. 1. I am generally in agreement with your point here. However, along similar lines of being careful to avoid speaking in generalizations, I would caution you to avoid getting into fights with abstractions. It is likely that there are conservatives who are guilty of what you’re pointing out. Nonetheless, similar to something I said in my original response, your time might be better spent actually having conversations with conservatives (and/or woke folk)-actual flesh and blood people-to find out what they in fact believe, and then believe the best of those for whom you do not have good reason to believe otherwise. This brings to mind the book, Them, by Ben Sasse, in which he discusses our tendency to bunker in, believing this or that about our neighbors and fellow citizens who we fail to engage. The more we do this, the more we fail to steward and are at risk of destroying a country we have received as a matter of common grace. 2. The statement seemed to assume that all conservatives are white, because a conservative who is black wouldn’t need to point to CO “as a counterpoint to wokism mainly because she is a black woman”, since such a person need only point to himself or herself. I think it would be redundant for a conservative who is black to have to point to another conservative who is black in order to make a point from someone who is black-one of these steps can be easily done away with. I do, nonetheless, grant your point that it is not impossible that a conservative who is black would adopt this two-step approach, though it seems very unlikely to me. I think we are generally in agreement on this point, though (a) I probably think resort to the two-step approach by a conservative who is black is less likely than you think it, and (b) I don't think a conservative would use, let alone abuse, racial stand point epistemology--at least as it is used by purveyors of racial identity politics. 3. I think I understand. However, I don’t think I would necessarily describe someone who points to CO and her sociopolitical opinions, even if solely because she is black, in order to counter certain claims of racial standpoint epistemology, as being condescending. If the claim of racial stand point epistemology (or ethnic gnosticism, as some have called it) is that there is a uniform (authentic) viewpoint held by one group or another, the claim is falsified by pointing to one or more members of said group who do not hold that viewpoint. I’m not clear that this is what you are getting at, but if what you are communicating is your issue with people, for example, who jump from the afore-described falsification to claiming that there is no racism in the U.S. (not to be confused with the more modest claim that there doesn’t appear to be systemic racism in the U.S.), then we are in agreement. (I’ve actually pointed out the logical gap in the preceding claim to some of my well-meaning Christian brothers, and they’ve humbly changed their minds. I’ve challenged them-as I, likewise, challenge myself-to love God with their minds, by critically assessing issues, and avoiding conflation errors-incorrectly assuming that because there is error in one direction, then there is no error in the opposite direction.) 4. I understand how cynicism can easily creep in these days. I have to regularly remind myself of the nature of the world I’m in and of the people I’m surrounded by: broken and in need of a savior, just like me. Judging from your response, you are a thoughtful and caring person, so I want to encourage you not to become wary in doing good, and to let you know that I’ll be praying for you to that end. Per 3. above, it is possible that I’m misunderstanding what you mean when you refer to conservatives who abuse racial standpoint epistemology-I don’t think conservatives would actually use racial standpoint epistemology, though they might seek to refute it, which refutation must include reference to racial standpoint epistemology. If I have misunderstood, and if you wouldn’t mind, kindly elaborate. Again, thank you for your clear and organized response. It speaks volumes of your integrity that you would be transparent and not hide behind rhetoric and other obfuscation.

[@kmin2080]

Postmodern Nonsenses are always like that. It begins with a seemingly self-evident (yet trivial commonsense like ) truism, such as "human thoughts and reasoning are mediated by, expressed in language", and then derive a highly bogus metaphysical claim from it via logical leaps, like "there is no way to gain objective knowledge".

[@justmauldie2455]

Unless you believe Kant is a Postmodernist, then questioning the idea of objective knowledge shouldnt be so wild

[@kmin2080]

@@justmauldie2455 They are not questioning it, but blatantly denying it. In the regard, it can be said they are modern sophists.

[@sub.owen.create]

Excellent explanation, highly recommend

[@decolonizedecolonization6986]

On the Epistemological Similarities of Market Liberalism and Standpoint Theory

[@akimoetam1282]

Great overview. I personally think that this wokism stuff is over blown by over zealous pastors trying to preach fire and brimstone to their parishes. It’s like post-modernism from a while back. They freak out about it now but in a year or two it will be completely forgotten

[@JoelWentz]

Thanks! I agree that there is a lot of overblown-reactionary stuff happening (I also remember this happening with "psychology" in the 90s....there's always a "cultural boogeyman" somewhere); but I'm not as optimistic as you are that it will be forgotten in a year or two. I think some of these currents will be around a while....but time will tell I suppose. Thanks for checking out my content!

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

1. By what standard do you judge how closely the beliefs that are 'collectively arrived at' manage to 'approximate (objective) truth'? 2. The best example of the 'tendency to universalize' subjective (esp. prescriptive) standpoints - though increasingly a trait of the woke left - is still given by religious believers.

[@justpeachy4393]

I am a Christian and have heard a lot of critique from other Christians about the phrase 'my truth'. I almost think we should form 2 new words to conceptualize the two very different ideas of 'my standpoint' and 'objective fact', just to avoid misunderstanding 😂 When people say 'my truth' I think they really mean 'my standpoint' and aren't NECESSARILY attacking or trying to change the definition of the word 'truth' to mean 'whatever they want'.

[@koenigcochran]

I couldn't find the through line connecting your "be careful not to universalize" analogy to what "woke" people are actually saying and doing. Not clear to me how they're universalizing.

[@amyl4074]

i’d love to see where u got this from bc this rly isn’t what standpoint epistemology is at all lol

[@Vee-Hive]

What is it, then, please?

[@hanskung3278]

So the truth of "Stand point Epistemology" can be whatever the hell I say it is....Jesus H. Christ! Can you discuss a serious book you've read?

[@santhiyapei5570]

Nice video, but you fail to point out that critical theorists and Postmodernism give EQUAL importance, if not higher, to SE than to evidence-based knowledge or ideas scrutinized under the Scientific Method. This is the real danger. Plus the fallacy that “your experience as a…” does not speak for everyone else in that category….unless, it seems, if you are radically offended or a Leftist (which is essentially the same thing). I appreciate you being non-partisan, but I think you’ve been far too accommodating to BS. lastly, do you have any videos about your own religious journey? I’d be curious to know more about that.

[@williamerdman4888]

Strongly agee!

[@kevinmote2369]

This.

[@hanskung3278]

"Move on Woke".....my new T shirt.

[@commoncure3335]

some schools are trying to apply it to the sciences. like fitting a square peg into a round hole it has very little use in problem solving

[@sageoverheaven]

Thank you.

[@vap0rtranz]

Sure, OK, yet there's both sides. My 'lived experience' is working alongside women and men, black, brown, white and many races, people of many faiths, people of various sexualities, people of many nationalities, and guess what? We all worked as peers to make the company money ... and yea, get paid too. There were Good Ole Boy networks, there were all women outings, there were preferences for STEM degrees, OK sure. Yet Woke presumes white male Christian privilege as systemic -- and universal. My lived experience is reduced to 0 because of 'the data'. My manager who happened to be a woman who immigrated and held a different faith than me. Perhaps she suffered from a pay gap, perhaps she didn't. She also held a higher degree than me and was sending both her kids to private schools that I could never send my kids to, and her husband was not a manager. That's just my lived experience. I'm not saying there aren't women who cannot get higher degrees or higher positions, or that people of certain faiths don't have religious freedom, or people of certain races are hated by bigots simply because of their skin pigment, etc. My experience is ... unique?? No, when I look at the data, the system that Woke describes is not universally convincing. It seems to be a collection of 'lived experiences' that are valid within certain contexts. But NOT universal. Woke seems to be a certain, idealized benchmark of universal lived values and if that benchmark isn't met 'the system' is presumed to be working against the individual. In other words, Woke represents as equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. Well, I asked my feminist professor of education philosophy a sidebar question once: "How about we all become absolutely equal?" My professors response was an emphatic: "No". (Sane) people do not want to have absolutely equal lives.

[@williamerdman4888]

I do not accept standpoint epistemology. There is objective truth and it is available to us all. Standpoint epistemology needs to be held up to objective truth with the intention of correction. Individual experience is of little/no consequence when creating public policy. Once again, identity has nothing to do with this.

[@ikigai174]

Your content is high... But the audience isnt....

[@Cyberphunkisms]

standpoint epistemology is neoliberal colonialism

[@Cyberphunkisms]

@Sarmatian Cat-a-phract there is a paper called "market liberalism" and "standpoint epistemology"

[@Cyberphunkisms]

@Sarmatian Cat-a-phract also my channel has videos talking about this