Ignorance, Injustice and the Politics of Knowledge

Bearing witness in nursing practice: More than a moral obligation?

“…For some authors, witnessing encompasses both “eyewitness testimony and bearing witness to what cannot be seen” (Oliver, , p. 475). Code () contrasts testimony with direct experience and defines it as “a range of practices… of knowledge‐conveying exchanges between and among people in the real world—in short, to acquiring knowledge/information from other people and from… ‘secondary sources’” (p. 152). Thus bearing witness and testimony share common characteristics: both are social practices that involve the sharing and receiving of experientially based stories.…”

“…For example, Schmidt () describes knowledge acquisition in everyday life as a form of testimony, such as when children learn by listening to their parents and teachers. Similarly, social epistemologists recognize the inescapably social and situated nature of knowledge acquisition in their analyses of roles that structured differences such as gender, race and class play in the production and circulation of knowledge (Code, ). Thus, recognizing the sociality of testimony as an epistemic practice brings to the forefront its ethical and political aspects.…”

“…In contrast to conceptions of bearing witness in nursing literature, the notion of testimony central to the work of feminist epistemologists like Code () recognizes the full force of what interactive means. “Testimony is by definition interactive; it brings such complex matters as trust, credibility, responsiveness and responsibility… and ‘situation’ into focus in knowledge‐making and knowledge‐circulating practices.…”

“…“Testimony is by definition interactive; it brings such complex matters as trust, credibility, responsiveness and responsibility… and ‘situation’ into focus in knowledge‐making and knowledge‐circulating practices. Often testimonial exchanges have to negotiate structures of power and privilege” (Code, , p. 152). Similar to Haraway's () concern with claims‐making as a power‐sensitive conversation, Code highlights the non‐transparency of receiving testimony and locates the ethics of this practice not in simple reception but in critical interrogation of meaning.…”

“…Approaching testimony as a power‐sensitive conversation, Code () emphasizes the structuring effects of power and privilege in society, and the influence of these in how testimony is able to be received and understood. She also stresses the responsibility for action that results from receiving another's testimony (Code, ). As noted above, Code () describes testimony as an interactive process—the sharing of knowledge and experiences between people.…”