Furthermore, those people who have more power have more influence over the information people receive, thus shaping norms and values. My claims will be dismissed as unjustified unless I had some power to disseminate my views, too. Thus, justification, really, would belong in the hands of the few. A social context can be myself, it can be a group of friends as well as myself, it can be my town, it can be my state, and it can be my country. I could quantify the norms of all the people in the room or within the radius, figure out what their objections would be, think about what some imaginary people who share my interests would think, and then make my claim.
Contextualism knows no such rules.
Of course, the rules that I present are rather arbitrary, but so is figuring out justification under contextualism. Perhaps contextualism does account for my examples, but I do not understand how it does given Annis' description. I admire Annis for trying to find the definition of justification in a place where foundationalists and coherentists had not looked - our very own lives. Instead of analyzing how we use justification and what we view as justified, Annis gives us a vivid depiction of how we use justification and what we view as justified. This depiction does not tell us why or how things are justified but rather why and how we think that they are justified.