Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Epistemic Value of Testimony

  • Article
  • Published:
Contemporary Political Theory Aims and scope

A Correction to this article was published on 24 January 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

This article brings together two sets of insights about deliberative democracy and uses them to develop a novel epistemic justification for the importance of testimony. Some democratic theorists have argued persuasively that a deliberative process limited to formal argumentation is exclusionary and thus undermines democratic legitimacy; they have made a compelling case for testimony on grounds of democratic inclusion. Others have made the case that deliberation has important epistemic benefits. Those theorists emphasize the give and take of reasons as a means to arrive at well-informed collective decisions. The author’s central claim is that there is an important epistemic value to the inclusion of testimony. It can introduce new information into the deliberative process. It can enable deliberators to grasp connections between the particular and the general. And it can invite them to imaginatively engage with the experiences of others. These epistemic benefits provide a new set of reasons for including testimony in democratic deliberation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • Benhabib, S. (1996) Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. Democracy and Difference: Contesting Boundaries of the Political. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bereby-Meyer, Y. and Shalvi, S. (2015) Deliberate honesty. Current Opinion in Psychology 6: 195–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. and Bowman, Q. (2018) Qualitative assessment of deliberation. Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickford, S. (1995) In the presence of others: Arendt and Anzaldua on the paradox of public appearance. In B. Honig (ed.) Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt. University Park: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, A.H., Valerie, C., Kurtz-Costes, B. and Rowley, S. (2007) Perceived racial discrimination and self-esteem in African American youth: Racial socialization as a protective factor. Journal of Research on Adolescence 17(4): 669–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S. (2009) Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory 37(3): 323–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1986) An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics 97(1): 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (eds.) The Good Polity. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (2009) Truth and public reason. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(1): 2–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, R. (1989) Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87, 2411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, R. and Sefancic, J. (2017) Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, D. (2008) Democratic authority. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, D. (2012) The truth in political liberalism. In J. Elkins and A. Norris (eds.) Truth and Democracy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, D. and Landemore, H. (2018) The epistemic value of democratic deliberation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, P. (2000) The social character of testimonial knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 97: 581–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson: A report from occupied territory. (2015). [Online] Orlando De Guzman. Fusion Media Co. [October 2015]. YouTube.com.

  • Fricker, E. (1987) The epistemology of testimony. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 61: 57–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, M. (2007) Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. (1976) Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 73: 771–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. (2009) A guide to social epistemology. In A. Goldman and D. Whitcomb (eds.) Social Epistemology Essential Readings. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. London: Academic Press, pp. 22–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996) Popular sovereignty as procedure. From between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, A. (2009) Moral testimony and moral epistemology. Ethics 120(1): 94–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, L. and Page, S. (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 101(46): 16385–16389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpowitz, C. and Raphael, C. (2016) Ideals of inclusion in deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation. 12(2): 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, S. (2008) Civil passions: Moral sentiment and democratic deliberation. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1987) Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(4): 636–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvanvig, . (2009) The value of understanding. In A. Haddock, A. Millar and D. Pritchard (eds.) Epistemic Value. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackey, J. (2011) Testimony: acquiring knowledge from others. In A. Goldman and D. Whitcomb (eds.) Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landemore, H. (2013) Democratic reason. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landemore, H. (2017) Beyond the fact of disagreement: The epistemic turn in deliberative democracy. Social Epistemology. 31(3): 277–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landemore, H. and Page, S. (2014) Deliberation and disagreement. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. 14(3): 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthar, S. (2015) Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. Developmental psychopathology risk, disorder, and adaptation. Hoboken: Wiley Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin, B. (2005) Democratic deliberation: Why we should promote debate rather than discussion. Program in ethics and public affairs seminar. Princeton: Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J., et al. (2010) The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy. 18(1): 64–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marti, J.L. (2006) The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended. In S. Besson and J.L. Marti (eds.) Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meirowitz, A. (2007) In defense of exclusionary deliberation: Communication and voting with private beliefs and values. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(3): 301–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. (2007) “White Ignorance” in Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Min, J. (2015) Inclusion and the epistemic benefits of deliberation. Contemporary Pragmatism. 13(1): 48–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemeyer, S. and Dryzek, J. (2007) The ends of deliberation: Meta-consensus and inter-subject rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review. 13(4): 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neblo, M. (2015) Deliberative democracy between theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ober, J. (2008) Democracy and knowledge: Innovation and learning in classical Athens. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J. (2006) Deliberating in the real world. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patihis, L., et al. (2013) False memories in highly superior autobiographical memory individuals. Proceedings in the National Academy of Sciences. 110(52): 20947–20952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, F. (2007) Democratic legitimacy and proceduralist social epistemology. Philosophy, Politics, and Economics 6(3): 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (2012) On the people’s terms. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, S. (2007) Types of discourse and the democracy of deliberation. In S. Rosenberg (ed.) Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Samoluk, S.B. and Pretty, G.M.H. (1994) Sex Roles 30: 679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L. (1997) Against deliberation. Political Theory 25(3): 347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartzberg, M. (2015) Epistemic democracy and its challenges. Annual Review of Political Science 18: 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scudder, M. (2020) Beyond Empathy and Inclusion. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scudder, M. (2016) Beyond empathy: Strategies and ideals of democratic deliberation. Polity 48: 524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2008) Relevance theory. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I.M. (1996) Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I.M. (2000) Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The arguments in this article were made markedly better through extensive comments from Clarissa Hayward. Ian MacMullen, Frank Lovett, Randall Calvert. Matthew LaVine also provided invaluable feedback. The two anonymous reviewers were extremely detailed and constructive. Finally, CPT’s consulting editor, Lisa Disch, went well above and beyond the call of duty with her feedback and suggestions, resulting in a considerably better article. I am grateful to them all.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hartwick College, Oneonta, NY, 13820, USA

    Matthew Chick

Authors
  1. Matthew Chick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Chick.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access cancellation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chick, M. The Epistemic Value of Testimony. Contemp Polit Theory 21, 93–113 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00496-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00496-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation