Hermeneutical injustice in global health

Abstract

Many injustices in global health have been described in recent literature. Most authors analyse these issues from a distributive paradigm. The distributive paradigm, however, has been criticized to fall short of identifying important relational and structural injustices in global health. This thesis contributes to advancing our understanding of relational global health injustice by arguing there is hermeneutical global health injustice between the Global North and the Global South. Miranda Fricker describes hermeneutical injustice as a gap in hermeneutical resources between the speaker and the hearer, which disables the speaker to interpret and make sense of his or her social experiences (2007). Most analyses discuss local hermeneutical injustice. To illustrate how it is also present globally and specifically in global health, I will provide two examples: paternalism in and the medicalization of global health. Moreover, I will, as a justification for pursuing hermeneutical justice, argue for an ecumenical account of duties from justice that appeals to both cosmopolitans and social liberals. Finally, having outlined the problem and moral basis for the obligation to remedy hermeneutical injustice in global health, I will critically examine Fricker’s normative account of the virtue of hermeneutical justice and advocate for a participatory approach instead.