The Defensive Role of Identity-Protective Reasoning Under Structural Epistemic Injustice: Toward Context-Sensitive Epistemic Humility and the Hermeneutic Regulation of Identity Leakage

In contemporary social epistemology, identity-protective reasoning (IPR) is predominantly treated as an epistemic vice or an obstacle to truth. This article argues that such a view is incomplete and one-sided, suffering from a structural deficiency: the inability to distinguish between the positive and negative functions of identity-defense mechanisms under conditions of epistemic inequality. By employing a conditional normative framework and integrating it with the ontology of finite continuity and the theory of the dynamic mask, I demonstrate that under specific conditions of structural epistemic injustice, IPR can function as a provisional epistemic safeguard. This safeguard operates not as an impediment but as a mechanism for preserving the epistemic dignity and threshold of sufficiency of marginalized groups, until a symmetrical and fair deliberative space becomes available. Through a systematic critique of Gadamer, Habermas, and Rorty, and by synthesizing these critiques with recent research in cognitive psychology, deliberative democratic theory, and the hermeneutics of limited failure, this article proposes a model of context-sensitive epistemic humility. Within this model, identity-defense is not only compatible with truth-seeking but, under unjust conditions, constitutes a prerequisite for equal entry into the deliberative arena. The proposed model is formalized through three necessary and sufficient conditions and addresses the primary objection of relativism via the principle of conditional defeasibility and the criterion of structural proportionality. The main innovation of this article lies in introducing the concept of hermeneutic regulation of identity leakage as an operational mechanism of epistemic defense, linking it to the threshold of epistemic sufficiency, thereby providing a framework that is simultaneously quantitative and qualitative for assessing the legitimacy of identity-defense. Keywords: Identity-Protective Reasoning, Context-Sensitive Epistemic Humility, Structural Epistemic Injustice, Threshold of Sufficiency, Regulation of Identity Leakage, Dynamic Mask, Responsible Suspension, Hermeneutics of Limited Failure, Deep Disagreements, Context-Sensitive Rationality, Finite Continuity.