Telling a story in a deliberation: addressing epistemic injustice and the exclusion of indigenous groups in public decision-making

ABSTRACT

Deliberative scholars have suggested that citizens should be able to exchange arguments in public forums. A key element in this exchange is the rational mode of communication, which means speaking through objective argumentation. However, some feminists argue that this mode of communication may create or intensify epistemic injustices. Furthermore, we should not assume that everyone is equally equipped to take part in deliberation. Certain groups, such as Indigenous peoples, for instance, who may not be versed in rational forms of argumentation, may not be listened to or involved sufficiently in the deliberative process. Therefore, it seems we need an alternative mode of communication, such as storytelling, which is a first-person or collective narrative. Given this, how should we pursue this goal? This article aims to answer this question by analysing a local conflict involving an Indigenous tribe and a neighbouring community in Brazil and exploring the underlying testimonial and hermeneutical injustices. I argue that storytelling has an important normative and institutional role in public deliberation and show that its applied version could overcome epistemic injustices and lead to better public policies.

KEYWORDS:

• Deliberative process
• storytelling
• epistemic injustices
• Indigenous voices
• public policy

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Samuel Barbosa, Amneris Chaparro, Axel Gosseries, Andrea Felicetti, Refia Kadayifci, Louis Larue, Marie-Pier Lemay, Sebastian Ostlund, Camille Pascal, Pierre-Étienne Vandamme, Yannick Vanderborght, Andrew Walton, Jo Wolff and Danielle Zwarthoed for the excellent feedbacks on earlier versions. Many thanks to the editors Christine Koggel and Eric Palmer, and to my three anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments and suggestions. In this paper, I build further on elements of my PhD research, and I am grateful to my supervisor Hervé Pourtois for supporting my project. This paper was also presented at the Festival of Ideas (Pompeu Fabra University) at the Human Development and Capability Association Conference (Catholic University of Buenos Aires) and at Disputationes (Leiden University), and I am grateful to the audience at those events.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Queremos nossa terra para plantar e construir um centro cultural para mostrar nossas raízes (my free translation, Fiocruz 2015).

2 In this paper, I focus on intergroup communicative struggles between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, rather than on intragroup communication. I am aware that power inequalities within the tribe may occur (for example involving gender or age difference). However, this would require proper attention as a topic for another paper.

3 A caveat: in this paper, I raise the case of the Mbyá-Guarani to reflect on the role of storytelling in public deliberation as a means of producing better public policymaking. My research is based on official judiciary documents (Brasil 2008), reports and manuscripts written by anthropologists who studied the case (Campos 2012; Pereira 2014) and reports from Fiocruz (2015), and FUNAI (2009).

4 SOPRECAM (Society for the Ecological Preservation of Camboinhas), despite their environmental discourse, saw the Indigenous tribe as a threat, because they were concerned with the devaluation of their properties. They took a stand against the stay of the Indigenous group in Camboinhas and demanded their judicial expulsion (Brasil 2008).

5 At the meeting, the listeners did not trust that the tribe were originally Indigenous people. For them, Mbyá-Guarani had a different appearance from the Western understanding of an Indigenous tribe. This was because Mbyá-Guarani incorporated mainstream culture into their lives, such as clothes and phones, while remaining a threat due to their habits and cultural attitudes (such as their language and rituals), which was considered as an element that negatively affected the area (Campos 2012). In 2013, Mbyá-Guarani was obliged to leave Camboinhas and decided to occupy an area in Itaipuaçu, in Maricá, another municipality. However, up to the present day there has been no formal recognition of their right to stay in the new land (Fiocruz 2015).

6 This interview was carried out in 2012 by Maria Cristina Rezende Campos as part of her PhD research project (Campos 2012).

7 While greetings reveal mutual recognition and conciliatory caring (Sanders 1997, 371), rhetoric is persuasive talk that can involve humour or figures of speech and storytelling helps to communicate understandings by bringing out personal experience (Young 1996, 129).

8 I do not, of course, assume that all Indigenous peoples in Brazil communicate their needs and interests primarily by storytelling.

9 This personal and/or collective narrative is a powerful way to represent local issues and motivational grounds. It can be based on individual experience, or even on traditional stories passed from one generation to another. But, by virtue of their content and local significance, the stories should have a strong connection with the individual who is telling them (Geertz 1973, 5).

10 Empirical research shows that although it is not always recognised as part of the deliberative process, storytelling is the most common communicative mode in political forums (Polletta and Gardner 2018, 74–75).

11 I am not myself able to speak for the Mbyá-Guarani tribe. I also do not intend to provide instruction on how they should deal with their struggle. Rather, my goal is to offer normative reflection on and analysis of how a public policy should be more respectful towards and engaged with the tribe’s needs.

12 This is not restricted to storytelling. Manipulation of arguments also occurs in considered ‘objective and rational’ modes of communication (such as reason-giving); a person can always use a logical and causal structure for her argument and arrive at an invalid conclusion (or vice versa).

13 Facilitators must improve these exchanges by helping participants to connect their stories to the subject of discussion, or to highlight particularly relevant aspects of their story. Yet they should remain neutral, not benefiting anyone or being directly involved in the subject of the deliberation. Their function is to encourage engagement by stimulating the debate. Because of this, they need to understand the principles of the deliberation, and be fair and culturally sensitive.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP): [Grant Number 2019/13470-1].

Notes on contributors

Katarina Pitasse Fragoso

Katarina Pitasse Fragoso is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Metropolitan Studies, at São Paulo University, Brazil. Her research in normative political philosophy mainly focuses on relational inequalities and poverty. Currently, her research interests include applied philosophy (particularly, public policy and participatory local governance), and contemporary political philosophy (particularly, contributions on housing, segregation and gentrification).