Discussions about epistemic inequalities have for several years highlighted the need to engage critically and reflexively with the politics of citation. Many authors have called for colleagues to correct longstanding epistemic and material injustices by proactively citing scholars and scholarship from marginalised groups, thereby producing radical knowledge that disrupts power. Analysing the epistemic-political grammar of these calls, I note that they often assume that resistance and disruption are intrinsic to corrective citation – i.e. that citing names understood as marginal will by default undermine relations of power. But is that always the case? Drawing on three sets of empirical examples, I demonstrate that citation often does not have the epistemic and material effects we predict, or hope, it will, and may reinforce some inequalities at the same time as it disrupts others. I show that the effects of citation are complex and contingent because they are shaped by unpredictable interactions between different structures of power, unexpected (dis)connections between global and local inequalities, and dynamic relationships between injustice within texts and inequalities beyond them. I argue, therefore, that we must question the more binary and reifying logics of contemporary conceptualisations of citation and attempt to think about corrective citation differently. To contribute to this rethinking, I draw on several authors to propose an approach that celebrates the potential of corrective citation, but remains attentive to its limitations, foregrounding complexity and opacity, recognising the possible failures of radical epistemic practices, and probing our affective investments in them.

中文翻译：

---

在关于引用的辩论中重新思考权力和位置性：迈向对学术等级制度中复杂性和不透明性的认识


几年来，关于认识不平等的讨论凸显了批判性和反思性地参与引文政治的必要性。许多作者呼吁同事们通过主动引用边缘化群体的学者和学术成果来纠正长期存在的认识和物质不公正，从而产生破坏权力的激进知识。分析这些呼吁的认识-政治语法，我注意到它们经常假设抵抗和破坏是纠正性引用的内在因素——即引用被理解为边缘的名字将默认破坏权力关系。但情况总是如此吗？借鉴三组实证例子，我证明了引用通常不具有我们预测或希望的认知和物质影响，并且可能会在破坏其他不平等的同时加剧一些不平等。我表明，引用的影响是复杂和偶然的，因为它们是由不同权力结构之间不可预测的互动、全球和地方不平等之间意想不到的（不）联系以及文本中的不公正与文本之外的不平等之间的动态关系所塑造的。因此，我认为我们必须质疑当代引文概念化中更加二元和具体化的逻辑，并尝试以不同的方式思考纠正性引文。为了促进这种反思，我借鉴了几位作者提出了一种方法，该方法庆祝纠正性引用的潜力，但仍然关注其局限性，突出复杂性和不透明性，认识到激进认识实践的可能失败，并探索我们对它们的情感投资。