Epistemic Injustice in dialogue with phenomenological psychopathology

In this post, Lea Nickel explores the potential and limitations of phenomenological psychopathology for better valuing the experiences of people diagnosed with mental health problems.

Image credit: Wellcome Collection

People who are suspected of having or have been diagnosed with a mental disorder are often stereotyped in ways that undermine their credibility. The concept of epistemic injustice is an important analytical tool for capturing these experiences. Testimonial injustice can manifest itself in the form of prejudiced overgeneralization of statements and behaviour. An example would be when all statements made by a person with delusions are seen as delusional, therefore, interpreted as part of the delusional belief system. 

Another form of testimonial injustice is “diagnostic overshadowing”, which describes the tendency to attribute physical symptoms to a pre-existing diagnosis of a mental disorder. Hermeneutic injustice is fuelled by the dominant status of the third-person biomedical perspective on experiences and the excess credibility of psychiatric knowledge. These forms of injustice not only hinder individual recovery but also contribute to the structural discrimination of people with mental disorders. This highlights the need for a more inclusive incorporation of the experiences of those impacted.

I see phenomenological psychopathology as a suitable starting point for this. Rooted in Husserl's vision of phenomenology as a ‘rigorous science’ that strives for knowledge without preconception, phenomenological psychopathology is focused on the exploration of patients' first-person experiences. By actively bracketing assumptions and deep-rooted prejudices and empowering patients to develop their own interpretative frameworks, the factors contributing to epistemic injustice are reduced. In the following, however, I will examine one possible limitation of phenomenological psychopathology with regard to improving epistemic injustice.

When we deal with epistemic injustice in the psychiatric context, identity biases that affect people because of their mental disorder are central. We call those sanistic prejudices. Sanism, like other “isms”, is based on deeply rooted social constructs and structures that aim to disadvantage or exclude certain groups, and thus contribute to the maintenance of social inequalities. However, forms of discrimination rarely occur in isolation. If a person is impacted by sexism, racism, classism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia, then these oppressive mechanisms also operate in the context of mental disorders. 

This can only be captured by an intersectional approach, which leads us to a closer inspection of the “phenomenological reduction” used in phenomenological psychopathology. In general, this means questioning assumptions about the person as well as their symptoms and possible diagnoses, in order to follow Husserl’s call to get “to the things themselves”. This, however, can lead to certain dimensions of experience, such as racialized and gendered experiences, being lost. As a result, differences in experience due to the different situations of those affected cannot be reflected. If the experiences of marginalized people are taken as a basis for knowledge without reflection and without naming the oppressive structures that produced these experiences, these very structures can be re-naturalized. In the context of phenomenological psychopathology, this could be countered through an “intersectional unfolding” as proposed by Spencer (2024). Here, the various social positionings and their effects can be addressed.

An interesting starting point for this is the connection between rationality and femininity. Historically, the feminine – and consequently women – have been pathologized as unstable, hysterical, deceitful, and irrational. What such an intersectional unfolding can look like is shown in Ruth Bankey's paper “La Donna è Mobile: Constructing the irrational woman”. She shows, based on intensive conversations with women impacted by agoraphobia with panic attacks, that their experience can be described as a fear of embodying the hysterical image, characterized by excessive femininity, loss of control, and potential “madness”. While phenomenological reduction carries the risk of perpetuating a kind of ignorance and thus upholding seemingly neutral conditions of experiences an intersectional framework allows clinicians to recognize how overlapping identities shape experiences of distress.

In general, the sexist ideas surrounding mental disorders make it difficult for marginalized people to understand their experiences beyond these discriminatory constructions. Thus, in order to fully analyse epistemic injustice in the psychiatric context, there must be an awareness of the intersections of different axes of discrimination. This addition would facilitate the capturing of different experiences and structures of meaning that arise from different social positions. Not only can phenomenological psychopathology be fruitful for combating epistemic injustice in the psychiatric context, the debate on epistemic injustice can be used to renew phenomenological psychopathology and make it more epistemically just.

Lea Nickel

Lea Nickel is a PhD candidate in the Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine at the University Medical Center Göttingen, Germany. Her dissertation is focused on the influence of AI on doctor-patient communication. Her research interests lie in the fields of ethics of AI, empirical ethics and epistemic injustice. She is particularly keen on amplifying patients’ perspectives in the design, evaluation, and implementation of AI-based technologies in medicine. 

She wrote her master’s thesis on epistemic injustice in the psychiatric context: “Reden ist Silber, Zuhören ist Gold. Phänomenologische Psychopathologie im Dialog mit epistemischer Ungerechtigkeit” [Talking Is Silver, Listening Is Gold: Phenomenological Psychopathology in Dialogue with Epistemic Injustice]. In November 2025 she was awarded the Prize for “Philosophy and Ethics in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy” by the German Society for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics and Neurology for a shortened version of her thesis (2026).

Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable 2025 (part one)

The Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable was held at King's College London on 2nd and 3rd June 2025. Here is a brief account of some of the talks and posters presented on the first day of the event.

Bush House in London, conference venue

The first talk was by John Ioannidis, "Research results: the false, the fake, the useless, and the untouchables". The presentation started with the statement that "Science is the best thing that can happen to humans". Yet, Ioannidis argued that most scientific research has used non-reproducible and sub-optimal research practices.

Results can be:

• False = due to random error or bias
• Fake = not real, crafted, fabricated
• Useless = not having a meaningful purpose
• Untouchable = impossible to access or use.

John Ioannidis

Problems:

• Megajournals publish too many papers and have high acceptance rates (25-60%). Review is fast and authors pay to publish.
• Predatory journals publish poor science and have an acceptance rate of 100%.
• Extreme publishing behaviour is another threat (researchers publish 60 research articles every year) and get high citation rates in problematic ways.
• Many fake papers are generated through AI and only a few are detected and retracted.

In the rest of the presentation, Ioannidis analysed in more detail the challenges of doing science in a way that produces results that are not fake, not useless, and accessible; and suggested some ways we can improve scientific practices.

In the first break of the conference, participants were invited to look at the research posters. One of these posters was by EPIC postdoctoral researcher Jodie Russell. Russell's work is on intersectional invisibility. You can download her poster here.

Jodie Russell on intersectionality

In the afternoon,  Maria Cristina Amoretti presented a paper about the distinction between values and biases in medicine, co-authored with Elisabetta Lalumera. While values guide research priorities and clinical decision-making, biases are typically seen as distortions to be eliminated. However, this view is too simplistic: both values and biases can promote or hinder medical knowledge and patient care. 

Cristina Amoretti and... Pimpa!

Amoretti and Lalumera proposed a functional distinction: values are explicit, discussable, and justifiable judgments shaping medical aims, whereas biases are implicit tendencies influencing reasoning in ways not explicitly articulable. Values are not always beneficial, and biases are not always harmful. Instead, their roles in medical research and clinical practice need further examination.

In another talk, Elena Popa and Jay Zameska discussed the relationship between social determinants of health and various conceptions of causation. The empirical evidence linking wide social issues such as inequality or poverty to health outcomes justifies the search for interventions on these high-level phenomena. This can be a more efficient way of improving the health of a population in contrast with targeting individuals suffering from downstream health effects. 

Elena Popa presenting

But it is difficult to fit insights from population health science with biomedical approaches which focus on downstream causes and which have been preponderantly used in public health. For Pola and Zameska, overcoming the dominance of narrow biomedical models requires considering a wider range of causal concepts, particularly mechanistic and dispositional ones. The suitability of these concepts can then be assessed by analyzing the interventions resulting from them through the lens of priorities in public health

ethics.

Another break in the conference meant another look at the posters! Themistoklis Pantazakos prepared a poster on the role of biomarkers in debates about pathologization.

Themistoklis Pantazakos on biomarkers

Rebecca Brione presented on the importance of philosophy of language for doctor-patient interactions. In particular, Brione focused on failed refusals of medical treatment. Should the patient have the right to refuse treatment, and if so, under what circumstances? Little attention has been paid to the speech act of refusal itself. 

Brione argued that philosophy of language offers the resources we need to develop a more sophisticated understanding of medical refusal (and similar speech acts), in isolation and in context. These resources enable us both to conceptualise refusal as a normative act, and to understand what is required for a patient to succeed in their attempt to refuse treatment. 

Rebecca Brione on medical refusal

Brione presented a novel account of refusal as an assertion which attempts to add both a direct proposition and presupposed content about the normative landscape to the communicative common ground (the shared beliefs, knowledge and information that form the background for an assumed-collaborative conversation).

The first day of the Roundtable was very rich and thought-provoking, showcasing the variety of issues that can be tackled by philosophers of medicine.

Structural Injustice: Reflections on Social Groups, Identity and Intersectionality

The Special Issue "Structural Injustice: Reflections on Social Groups, Identity and Intersectionality", co-authored by Ingrid Salvatore and me, was published in the journal Phenomenology and Mind at the end of 2024. The volume investigates the ways in which oppression, marginalization, and misrecognition are determined and/or fostered by practices, social standards, and attitudes concerning intersectional identities and how we should conceptualize social groups against these circumstances. 

The various contributions, from different perspectives, tackle how forms of oppression can be directed toward individuals qua members of a specific group and can involve systemic forms of misrecognition often coupled with unwarranted biases regarding the epistemic credibility of these individuals (Dotson 2011; Fricker 2007). Many contributions reason upon how social discrimination against members of racialized, sexualized, or otherwise stigmatized and oppressed groups must be understood as institutional, structural, or systemic phenomena deeply embedded in the social system of our political societies. 

From this normative framework it follows that addressing injustices related to identity groups requires clarifying the self-reinforcing dynamics between structural disadvantages and identity-based prejudices. These forms of injustice take stock of the constrained position in which members of disadvantaged groups find themselves given the “unintended consequences of the combination of the actions of many people” (Young 2011, p. 53).

Not just bad luck;
disadvantaged groups often face the consequences
 of actions within unjust social structures.

The special issue illustrates the social dynamics impacting agents in making fundamental life decisions within the constraints of unjust social structures that restrict their options and capacity for critical reflection. The attempt by some of the contributions, then, is to outline a paradigm of social justice that aims to provide normative guidance for actual people, situated within their complex lives and interacting with societal structures and imperfect political institutions. From the perspective of disadvantaged social groups, multiple belonging invites intersectional philosophical and sociological investigation into how individuals can be victims of multiple injustices (Crenshaw 1989). But it also requires deeper philosophical research on personal identity and group belonging (Appiah 2006).

Specifically on the topic of epistemic injustice in healthcare, I think that the last section of the volume, Power, Social Oppression and Recognition, is of most interest. The section has a double goal: on the one hand, it is interested in laying out concrete instances of group discrimination related to specific ascriptive characteristics possessed by groups’ members and in proposing some justice-oriented remedies; on the other hand, this section delves into the notion of recognition, illustrating how helpful the recognition framework (Honneth 1996) is in identify instances of social injustice in contemporary societies.

In the context of mental illness and disabilities that impact the collective perception of agents’ epistemic capacities, it is essential to promote epistemic justice that improves relationships between speakers with mental disorders and people who care for them in society. On this specific topic, the volume presents two relevant contributions. 

First, the article by Christian Tewes, “Reconsidering the Double Empathy Problem”, addresses the exclusionary mechanisms directed towards autistic individuals, showing the deeply discriminating side-effects of neurotypical individuals and institutions projecting their implicit normative rules of behavior and assumptions onto autistic individuals. In so doing, Tewes argues that neurotypical individuals and institutions inaccurately ascribe a lack of empathetic understanding to autistic individuals, resulting in their exclusion, stigmatisation, and even traumatisation (Milton 2012). This analysis, employing a range of embodied-phenomenological perspectives, is illuminating in showing the often-overlooked exclusionary mechanisms activated, sometimes even involuntarily, by social norms and social conventions that are established mirroring the preferences, costumes, and ascriptive characteristics of members of the cultural majority (Galeotti 2017). 

On similar lines, a second contribution, by Donata Chiricò and Maria Tagarelli De Monte, “Hearing perspectives on deafness: a century-long form of power” illustrates the kind of structural exclusion and discrimination historically suffered by deaf and hear-impaired individuals. Through the powerful example of Charles-Michel L’Épée (1776), who founded a school where deaf individuals were treated equally to hearing individuals, the authors problematize the exclusionary dimension of spoken language for subjects precluded from it and the enduring implicit stigmatization that characterizes the historically established notion of “physical and cognitive normality”.

Federica Liveriero is associate professor of political philosophy at the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the University of Pavia. Liveriero's main areas of interest are normative theories of justice and legitimacy; democratic theory; social epistemology and oppression studies. She is interested in understanding what we owe to each other as fellow citizens in democratic settings, both practically and epistemically. You can see more about her publications and published monographs here.

Endometriosis in Later Life: A Hidden Healthcare Inequality

In honour of International Women's Day, Elisabeth Langmann highlights the importance of talking about women's healthcare through an intersectional lens in discussing her recent open-access paper, co-authored with Anna-Christina Kainradl, Merle Weßel, and Alekszandra Rokvity, "Endometriosis in Later Life: An Intersectional Analysis from the Perspective of Epistemic Injustice":

Endometriosis has long been framed as a disease of reproductive age – something that affects menstruating individuals and supposedly disappears with menopause. But what happens when these assumptions mean that suffering goes unnoticed, and necessary care is withheld? What happens when postmenopausal individuals continue to experience symptoms, yet the medical system fails to recognize or address their suffering?

In our recent paper, Endometriosis in Later Life: An Intersectional Analysis from the Perspective of Epistemic Injustice, we critically examine how sexism, ageism and epistemic injustice shape the experiences of postmenopausal individuals with endometriosis. 

We argue that the invisibility of endometriosis in later life is not just a gap in medical knowledge – it is a systemic injustice with real, harmful consequences.

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting an estimated 10% of biological women. Despite its prevalence, it remains largely misunderstood. 

One of the most persistent myths is that endometriosis vanishes after menopause due to the decline in estrogen levels. This belief is deeply ingrained in both medical literature and public discourse. However, research shows that a significant number of individuals continue to experience symptoms well into perimenopause and beyond.

Yet major menopause guidelines, including those from the European Menopause and Andropause Society and the North American Menopause Society, fail to mention endometriosis – leaving postmenopausal individuals without recognition, research, or care. 

This silence has consequences: when healthcare professionals do not recognize endometriosis in postmenopausal individuals, symptoms are dismissed, misattributed to other conditions, or outright ignored.

Our research highlights how gender and age intersect to shape the marginalisation of older women with endometriosis. While gender bias in endometriosis diagnosis has been well-documented, where individuals are told that their pain is “normal” or “all in their head”, less attention has been given to how ageism compounds this issue, making older women more vulnerable to dismissal and misdiagnosis.

This erasure is reinforced by the perception that older women are unreliable sources of knowledge about their own bodies. Their reports of pain are dismissed not only because of long-standing biases about female pain, but also because of assumptions that postmenopausal individuals are no longer affected by reproductive health conditions. This results in testimonial injustice – where individuals are denied credibility due to prejudiced assumptions about their age and gender.

At the same time, the medical system lacks the necessary interpretive frameworks to recognize endometriosis in later life. When postmenopausal women seek medical care for pelvic pain or other symptoms, their experiences are often filtered through ageist and sexist biases. 

Instead of investigating endometriosis as a possible cause, healthcare providers may attribute symptoms to “normal ageing” or conditions unrelated to endometriosis. This is an example of hermeneutic injustice, where a lack of shared knowledge prevents individuals from making sense of and communicating their experiences.

Why This Matters: A Call for Change

The exclusion of postmenopausal individuals from endometriosis research, clinical guidelines, and public health discussions is more than an oversight, it is a structural injustice. As long as endometriosis remains framed as a disease of reproductive age, those who experience symptoms later in life will continue to be disbelieved, misdiagnosed, and left without adequate care. 

To address this, we argue for a lifespan approach to endometriosis, one that recognizes the possible persistence of the disease beyond reproductive age, integrates postmenopausal individuals into research, clinical guidelines, and public health policies, and challenges ageist and sexist biases in healthcare that shape medical knowledge and practice. 

Endometriosis does not end with menopause – but the belief that it does continues to shape who receives care and who is left suffering in silence. Thus, if endometriosis can last a lifetime, so should our commitment to recognizing, researching, and addressing it.

 

Elisabeth Langmann is a postdoctoral researcher in bioethics at the Institute of Ethics and History of Health in Society (IEHHS) at the University of Augsburg, Germany. Her research focuses on structural inequalities in health, particularly ageism, ableism, and the systemic exclusion of marginalised groups in healthcare. She is currently part of the DFG-funded project "Centring Marginalisation for Effective and Just Public Health Policy and Practice," examining how public health policies engage with marginalisation, whose experiences remain unrecognized, and what shifts are needed for more inclusive approaches. Rooted in feminist bioethics and social justice, her work explores how power, knowledge, and institutional biases shape health experiences.