{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02263540824575586, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032336297493936943, 'mean_word_length': 5.381443298969073, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
For a knowledge with the other in psychological science

In our comment on Held (2020) we attempt to deepen her criticism and reflection about epistemic violence while addressing the need for its elimination in psychological science. We acknowledge her argument about the prepositional divisions that emerge between two large groups of psychologies or psychologists (mainstream psychology vs. Indigenous and critical psychologies): from above and from below. In relation to these prepositional problems, we agree that the explanations derived from these divisions in terms of of, for, and about are confusing. However, we consider that Held’s reflections concerning the set of prepositions in the production of knowledge based on “of, from, and for the other” neglect another alternative that is “with the other.” According to this last point, we briefly present Bakhtin’s theoretical notion of co-authorship to argue that generally, epistemic violence is committed by not recognizing the voices of the participants involved. In addition, we use examples of our work with Indigenous communities in Brazil to show that generating knowledge together and with Indigenous peoples is a valid and necessary way to eliminate epistemic violence.