The Problem With Speaking For Others Cont’d

There are great ethical dilemmas involved in representing others, particularly marginalized others. Linda Alcoff writes that many people believe that when speaking for others so, no matter how well-intentioned the speaker is, can inflict discursive violence on those being represented. Although many believe that speakers can only speak for groups that they are a part of, Alcoff explains that this approach is problematic because it is near impossible to sort people into neat groups–as a woman can I speak for all women? Or does race, class, sexuality, etc., restrict who I can speak for. Others believe that the solution is to abstain from speaking for others altogether; they believe that because everyone’s social location is different, one can only speak for oneself. Alcoff claims that taking this approach is politically irresponsible as it allows oppressive discourses to go unchallenged, allows speakers to ignore their own privilege, tends to make people not accountable for what they say, and makes advocacy and coalitions impossible.

Therefore, Alcoff concludes her article by offering four considerations for speakers before speaking for others, which I find highly valuable to consider within my own project of inquiry.

1) Resist the urge to speak–“If one’s immediate impulse is to teach rather than listen to a less-privileged speaker, one should resist that impulse long enough to interrogate it carefully” (Alcoff, Speaking For Others, pp. 24)

2) “Interrogate the bearing of our location and context on what it is we are saying, and this should be an explicit part of every serious discursive practice we engage in” (Alcoff, Speaking For Others, pp. 25)

3) Remain open to criticism

4) “Analyze the probable or actual effects of the words on the discursive and material context” (Alcoff, Speaking For Others, pp. 26).