There is a large and growing literature on communal interpretive resources: the concepts, theories, narratives, and so on that a community draws on in interpreting its members and their world. (They’re also called “hermeneutical resources” in some places and “epistemic resources” in others.) Several recent contributions to this literature have concerned dominant and resistant interpretive resources and how they affect concrete lived interactions. In this article, I note that “using” interpretive resources—applying them to parts of the world in conversation with others—is “a rule‐governed activity”; and I propose that in oppressive systems, these rules are influenced by the rules of oppression. Section I clarifies some rules governing the use of resources. Section II draws on work by Gaile Pohlhaus, Jr. and others to suggest that according to the present rules of our oppressive system, it is permissible for dominantly situated speakers to dismiss interpretive resources developed in marginalized communities. Section III appeals to Charles Mills’s work on White ignorance to propose, further, that our system’s rules make it impermissible and deserving of punishment to use resistant resources. The conclusion enumerates several further points about such rules governing the use of interpretive resources, their social effects, and some philosophical literatures.

中文翻译：

---

资源，规则和压迫

关于公共解释资源的文献越来越多，包括社区在解释其成员及其世界时所借鉴的概念，理论，叙述等。（在某些地方，它们也被称为“诠释学资源”，在其他地方，它们又被称为“认知资源”。）最近对该文献的一些贡献涉及占主导地位和抵抗力的解释性资源，以及它们如何影响具体的生活互动。在本文中，我注意到“使用”解释性资源（将其应用于与他人交谈的世界各地）是“规则管理的活动”；我建议在压迫性制度中，这些规则会受到压迫性规则的影响。第一部分阐明了一些管理资源使用的规则。第二部分借鉴了Gaile Pohlhaus，Jr. 其他人则建议，根据我们的压迫制度的现行规则，处于优势地位的演讲者可以撤消边缘化社区开发的解释性资源。第三节呼吁查尔斯·米尔斯（Charles Mills）关于白人无知的工作，进一步提出，我们系统的规则使其不被允许，并且应受到使用抵抗资源的惩罚。该结论列举了有关解释性资源的使用，其社会影响和一些哲学文献的规则的其他几点。我们系统的规则不允许使用抗性资源，因此应受到惩罚。该结论列举了有关解释性资源的使用，其社会影响和一些哲学文献的规则的其他几点。我们系统的规则不允许使用抗性资源，因此应受到惩罚。该结论列举了有关解释性资源的使用，其社会影响和一些哲学文献的规则的其他几点。