Original post on LinkedIn.

One of the principles we hold at Dienk is that our work must open—not restrict—space for dissenting voices.

Alison Jaggar’s 1989 article ‘Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology’ can help us understand that dissenting voices often speak from “a kind of epistemological privilege in so far as they have easier access to” perspectives that offer a less partial and distorted and therefore more reliable view on the subordinating effects of dominant values. It is from these perspectives—which “are more likely to incorporate reliable appraisals of situations”—that we “stand a chance of ascertaining the possible beginnings of a society in which all could thrive.”

Jaggar uses the term “outlaw emotions” to refer to the conventionally unacceptable emotion experienced by individuals who pay a disproportionately high price for maintaining the status quo. Outlaw emotions are epistemologically important; they enable us to encounter reality in a way that is different from and sometimes more accurate than the way dominant values let us.

Jaggar poses they question of how one might determine which outlaw emotions are to be endorsed or encouraged and which rejected? To this, she answers:

“I suggest that emotions are appropriate if they are characteristic of a society in which all humans (and perhaps some non-human life too) thrive, or if they are conducive to establishing such a society.”

In designing for the world that we want to live in, outlaw emotions help us see problems in the orthodox understanding of the status quo, and how our work can be towards such a thriving, equitable society.

Link to Jaggar’s article.