The epistemic injustice of Lookism

[C C]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....22.2076629

EXCERPT: Since there is insufficient consciousness of how crucial attractiveness is in life (contrasted with our consciousness of the factors of race and gender), the ugly person is hermeneutically disadvantaged in a way that they might not be aware of. If ugly people are told repeatedly that they are not ugly or that their woes are not due to them being ugly, even though they are, then this social taboo of being ugly and telling someone they might be ugly, are what puts those people at a hermeneutic disadvantage of interpreting the social world and their place in it.

The taboo upholds a disconnect between the way ugly people experience the social world and the way in which they are told the social world actually is. The taboo of ugly itself is an instance of hermeneutic injustice, insofar as it hampers people’s self-understanding with regards to how their looks partially pre-determine their place in the social world. And this, in turn, matters because this kind of stigmatization prevents subordinated people from ‘developing their full capacities’). (MORE - details)


PAPER'S ABSTRACT: Lookism refers to discrimination based on physical attractiveness or the lack thereof. A whole host of empirical research suggests that lookism is a pervasive and systematic form of social discrimination.

Yet, apart from some attention in ethics and political philosophy, lookism has been almost wholly overlooked in philosophy in general and epistemology in particular. This is particularly salient when compared to other forms of discrimination based on race or gender which have been at the forefront of epistemic injustice as a topic of research.

This paper argues that lookism is associated with various forms of epistemic injustice. In the specific case of lookism, hermeneutic injustice takes the shape of the taboo of acknowledging that unattractive people are unattractive.

This, on the one hand, results in a hampered understanding of one’s own situation insofar as one is deterred from seeing one’s looks as one major factor for one’s social position. On the other hand, this hermeneutic injustice serves as the backdrop of instances of a special kind testimonial injustice in which the ugly person’s burgeoning realization that their looks influence their social standing detrimentally is discounted due to the pejorative nature of ascribing someone the property of being unattractive or ugly.

[Magical Realist]

Many common-appearing and even outright ugly people learn their place in the pecking order during the brutal years of middle school. How they end up surviving and even defying that fate determines the person they are to become. Ironically I'd say more nerdy types end up being more successful in the world than the prom queen/handsome jock types. Perhaps the relentless adversity of their school years sets them up for that. To develop more interests and talents in areas that have nothing to do with physical appearance.

[Image: GueiMqw.jpg]

[Ostronomos]

For the most part Darwinism rules and governs the pecking order. I read that intelligence is really the only thing that defines us. Looks come second in today's society. We may distance ourselves from others based solely on their looks because that really seems to originate from something deeper. The value people hold may not be recognized because of this. But this doesn't justify superficial behavior. I tend to give everyone a chance if I don't fear them.

[Zinjanthropos]

The world needs ugly people, how else we going to know who’s beautiful?…. Some pearl of wisdom I once heard from my grandmother. She didn’t mean the person receiving this was ugly. The person who she directed this to was worried about being ugly.(wasn’t me)

All I can say is that Hollywood always needs ugly faces, maybe more than the beautiful. Seems like more ugly actors than not, maybe producers think the contrast makes the good looking actors even more good looking. Couple come to mind like Steve Busciemi & Vincent Schiavelli, the latter being the subway ghost Patrick Swayze meets in the movie Ghost. Most of these actors have names we can’t remember or bother searching for in the credits.

Wasn’t going to touch on it but how do you judge people with tattoos? Saw one guy with his face completely tattooed, I couldn’t tell whether he was handsome or not in the conventional sense. Guy’s face was in the news for being fired from his Kindergarten teaching job. Student scared by his looks.

So is scary looking the same as ugly? Do tattoos make one better looking or worse? I’ve seen such beautiful looking people from one angle and then from another angle I see the tattoos and wonder why they would need them to look better. I guess it’s the eye of the beholder thing at work.

[confused2]

Many common-appearing and even outright ugly people learn their place in the pecking order during the brutal years of middle school.

Yep - brutal is a good (the best) word for it. The other day my eye fell on a woman in traditional Indian dress in an English seaside town that hasn't changed much since 1930. My look clearly made her feel uncomfortable - I kind'a felt l should go over and explain it wasn't a hostile look just the thing of her being in traditional Indian dress in an English seaside town that hasn't changed much since 1930 - I don't think it would have helped either her or me and I didn't do it.