Is there a term for being for and against the view that (only) someone from some group (ethnic, religious, disability, etc.) can automatically talk for others from it?

It's kind of a political and sociological question, so apologies in advance (though philosophers do talk about tolerance and, of course, socio-ethical questions like recuperation).

It seems fundamentally wrong to say that I, e.g. as a woman, can talk for other women merely because I really am a woman. In deed, many women may want someone that isn't a woman to talk for them. By 'talk for' I mean assume a role whereby I am privileged in understanding what it means to be e.g. a woman.

But then again, there probably are commonalities of experience. What is the word for this impasse?

  • i'm actually not a woman, but i'm illustrating the question in the most universal and understandable way i can
    – user38026
    Oct 13, 2019 at 13:11
  • 2
    Maybe Standpoint epistemology is what you’re looking for?
    – E...
    Oct 13, 2019 at 14:01
  • maybe, but if so they don't seem to recognize that it's an issue, at all @Eliran
    – user38026
    Oct 13, 2019 at 18:20
  • Ingroup / outgroup. Oct 13, 2019 at 21:42
  • I can not understand if you are asking what can empower an individual to speak for a group, in which case the answer is any of the usual mechanisms of delegating authority, or when an individual is generic enough for us to take their reporting as representative of the group, in which case the answer is proper statistical sampling.
    – Conifold
    Oct 14, 2019 at 10:03


You must log in to answer this question.