Understanding Binarisms: An Epistemological Account of Binary Opposition

Abstract

The epistemological analysis offered in this work is contextualised in public epistemological practices. It falls into three parts: Part I, 'Opposition' gives an epistemological account of our use of oppositional categorisation as a taxonomic strategy employing certain simple epistemic tools. Opposites are maximally saliently different sub-categories of a background epistemic field defined by a salient similarity. Oppositional classification is especially attractive to us because its structure satisfies our obligation (defended by Kant) to reconcile the conflicting maxims of seeking both unity and diversity in our taxonomic activities. ... Part II, 'The Good/Bad Contrast' applies the analysis from Part I to value opposition, as paradigmatically represented by the good/bad contrast. The good/bad contrast is a scalar opposition, in that the epistemic field it divides organises objects arranged on 'better than' scales (on 'better than' scalar fields). Value differences supervene on descriptive differences; similarly, the 'better than' scalar field supervenes upon some descriptive epistemic field. ... Part III, 'Understanding Binarisms', introduces the notion of 'power-inflected epistemic materials' in public knowledge-systems. Practical reason is employed in this Part as an organising background framework for an analysis of the relations between power phenomena and epistemic phenomena in public epistemological contexts. It is argued that these relations are governed by the political imperative of influencing the choices of practical reasoners through lying or deceptive justification ('persuasion'). This persuasion trades upon the epistemological connexions between descriptive and evaluative knowledge and choice, and is facilitated by the deceptive use of legitimate epistemic strategies and tools used to organise and communicate descriptive, evaluative and practical information in public epistemological contexts.