The rewriting of historical narratives can have a significant impact on societal values and behaviours. When history is altered to reflect a particular viewpoint, it can shape collective memory and identity, influencing how a society perceives itself and others. For example, nationalistic rewriting of history can foster a sense of pride and unity but may also lead to the marginalisation or demonisation of certain groups. This can affect societal attitudes and behaviours, including the perpetuation of stereotypes, justification of social inequalities, and even the incitement of conflict. Additionally, the suppression or alteration of historical truths can hinder a society's ability to learn from its past, potentially leading to the repetition of past mistakes. The impact of rewriting history extends beyond the realm of academia; it touches every aspect of society, from education and politics to media and culture, shaping the collective consciousness and informing the social and moral fabric of communities.

Epistemic injustice is highly relevant to global issues like climate change and public health, as it affects whose knowledge and perspectives are given prominence in these crucial areas. In the context of climate change, indigenous and local communities often possess valuable knowledge about their environments, yet this knowledge is frequently overlooked in favour of scientific narratives dominated by Western perspectives. This dismissal can lead to ineffective or harmful environmental policies that fail to incorporate holistic and traditional understandings of nature. Similarly, in public health, epistemic injustice can result in medical research and healthcare policies that predominantly reflect the experiences and needs of certain demographic groups, often those in more affluent or developed regions. This leads to disparities in healthcare quality and accessibility, and a lack of culturally sensitive approaches to health, exacerbating global health inequities. Recognising and addressing epistemic injustice in these areas is crucial for developing more inclusive, effective, and equitable responses to global challenges.

It is challenging for knowledge to be entirely free from political influence due to the inherent interplay between knowledge production and power structures. Political ideologies, funding sources, and societal values often shape the research agenda, influencing what is studied, how it is studied, and how findings are disseminated. For instance, research that aligns with the interests of funding bodies or political agendas is more likely to receive support, which can lead to a bias in the types of knowledge produced. Moreover, political contexts can affect the interpretation and application of knowledge, with certain findings being emphasised or suppressed to suit political objectives. The implications of this are profound: it means that our understanding of the world is not merely a product of objective inquiry but is also shaped by the socio-political context. This realisation calls for a critical approach to knowledge consumption, where individuals are encouraged to question the origins, motives, and contexts of the knowledge they encounter, understanding that knowledge is often a reflection of power dynamics and societal values.

Socio-political power dynamics play a significant role in both the construction and validation of knowledge. Power structures within society dictate whose knowledge is considered credible and whose is marginalised. For instance, dominant groups in society – often those with greater socio-economic and political influence – have historically shaped the narratives in science, history, and other fields. This shaping goes beyond mere content; it extends to methodologies, what questions are deemed worth asking, and what answers are accepted. This dynamic leads to a skewed representation of knowledge, where the perspectives and contributions of less powerful or minority groups are overlooked or undervalued. As a result, the dominant knowledge base may reflect the biases and interests of the more powerful groups, while suppressing or ignoring alternative viewpoints. This not only limits the diversity and richness of our collective understanding but also perpetuates existing power imbalances by reinforcing the authority of dominant knowledge systems.

Educational institutions play a pivotal role in either perpetuating or challenging epistemic injustice. They are often the primary sites for knowledge dissemination and thus have a significant influence on shaping young minds and societal narratives. When educational curricula and pedagogies reflect the biases and perspectives of dominant social groups, they perpetuate epistemic injustice by marginalising other voices and viewpoints. This can reinforce existing power structures and limit students' exposure to a diverse range of perspectives. Conversely, educational institutions have the potential to challenge epistemic injustice by incorporating diverse curricula that represent a range of voices and experiences. By fostering critical thinking, encouraging the questioning of dominant narratives, and promoting the value of diverse forms of knowledge, educational institutions can play a crucial role in addressing epistemic inequalities and shaping a more equitable society. The approach taken by these institutions in curricular design, teaching methodologies, and institutional policies can significantly influence whether they reinforce or dismantle barriers to epistemic justice.