We Must End The Epistemic Violence Against Intactivists

They could understand. They choose not to.

“In short, to communicate we all need an audience willing and capable of hearing us. The extent to which entire populations of people can be denied this kind of linguistic reciprocation as a matter of course institutes epistemic violence.”

- Kriste Dotson, Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing.¹

Epistemic violence is defined as “a refusal, intentional or unintentional, of an audience to communicatively reciprocate a linguistic exchange owing to pernicious ignorance.”² In other words, when someone deliberately refuses to understand the other, despite being capable of engaging or meeting them halfway, social justice activists see this as a form of violence against their ability to be understood.

Since solving an injustice first requires the injustice to be understood, epistemic justice is crucial for any marginalized group. When dominant groups refuse to understand an oppressed group, they prevent that group from seeking justice, and in doing so, perpetuate the continued violence of that injustice against them.

Note that epistemic violence refers to “pernicious ignorance” or deliberate willful ignorance, not “reliable ignorance,” meaning “ignorance that is consistent or follows from a predictable epistemic gap in cognitive resources.” In other words, just being stupid is not epistemic violence. Epistemic violence refers to people who could understand, even if that understanding might require some learning, but choose not to.

By this definition, the dominant culture has been engaged in epistemic violence against the Intactivist community for over a decade. Media, medical institutions, and Jewish organizations have all been complicit and willing actors in this violence. These groups are capable of understanding the Intactivist perspective but choose not to because they wish to perpetuate injustice against Intactivists and the children they advocate to protect.

None of these people are stupid. Journalism requires deep research and interviewing people from other perspectives and cultures. Doctors spend four years in medical school reading complicated texts. Jewish organizations are run by highly skilled political actors. If you can learn to read Hebrew, you can read a post from someone who disagrees with you. All of these people could easily understand what Intactivists are telling them. They just chose not to.

Epistemic violence against Intactivists often takes the form of deliberate and willful misinterpretation. For example, doctors interpret peaceful Intactivist protests and attempts to educate them as “harassment” despite endorsing far more aggressive social justice protests during the summer of 2020. Jewish organizations deliberately interpret reasonable criticism as “hate” and media often plays along with these false political narratives. Media organizations understand how to cover social justice movements but deliberately choose to place Intactivists in a different category.

When dominant institutions set an epistemically violent example, it filters down to everyday conversations. One common example of epistemic violence used against Intactivists is the reply “I’ve never heard anyone complain about circumcision” to their testimony. I’ve seen people say to activists who just complained about it to their face. Hearing someone complain, and then saying you’ve never heard them, despite the fact you just did, is the most glaring and obvious example of epistemic violence based in willful pernicious ignorance anyone could possibly imagine. This epistemic violence can also take the form of “I don’t know of any research,” right after you told them the research, or “I’ve never heard of that,” right after you just told them that.

The purpose of this epistemic violence is to precede physical violence. This physical violence takes two forms, physical violence against children in the form of genital cutting, and physical violence against Intactivists. Multiple activists have experienced situations where someone interpreted their protest or speech as “antisemitism” based on epistemic violence they saw in media and used that as justification to threaten or engage in physical intimidation against activists. The refusal to understand what Intactivists are saying is what allows circumcisers to continue harming children. Epistemic violence is the right word because this refusal to understand perpetuates and can lead to real-world violence.

This violence must end. Before we can have a conversation about this issue or even begin to communicate, we need an audience willing to listen. Right now, that doesn’t exist. If the other side is not willing to listen, then there is no possibility of communication. No new “argument” will solve this problem if it cannot be heard. At this point, there is enough out there that the organizations engaged in epistemic violence against activists and physical violence against children could educate themselves and understand the Intactivist perspective. The problem is not the “argument” or “educating” them. The problem is their violence.

1. Dotson, Kristie. “Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing.” Hypatia, vol. 26, no. 2, 10 Mar. 2011, pp. 236-237.

2. Dotson, Kristie. “Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing.” Hypatia, vol. 26, no. 2, 10 Mar. 2011, pp. 236-237.