I didn’t understand what Alcoff meant by saying that “a speaker’s location is epistemically salient.”

I feel like there are so many things to consider when deciding whether speaking for others is appropriate and a lot of it depends on specific circumstances and individual judgements. In the same way that everyone imposes their own characteristics on other groups, so too their own experience will color their decision about speaking for others. The whole thing is very subjective and Alcoff acknowledges this when she says, “we must begin to ask ourselves whether this is ever a legitimate authority, and if so , what are the criteria for legitimacy? In particular, is it ever valid to speak for others who are unlike me or who are less privileged than me?” but she goes on to say that there are some cases when speakers are accepted and other repudiated. So, we can conclude that in some cases speaking for others is appropriate.

Alcoff raises issues regarding service in the same way as speaking for others. She claims that speaking for and/or serving those less privileged “has actually resulted (in many cases) in increasing or reinforcing the oppression of the group spoken for.” So this brings up the concern that instead of helping by “serving” at the Boys and Girls Club, if we are actually perpetuating or even exacerbating the problem.

As a student this article is helpful in recognizing when my own perspective is speaking for others and imposing itself. I will be more sensitive to this natural tendency in my own work and in any other discourse.