Knowledge and Politics

It may come as no surprise that knowledge and politics are closely connected. Indeed, with knowledge comes power; and power may in its turn shape what is considered to be knowledge. Foucault is a critical thinker who made some very poignant observations on discourse theory and power structures. He claimed that both are firmly intertwined. Educational institutions are in a sense a very good representation of the connection between power and knowledge. What is part of the national curriculum is therefore highly debated by politicians, because what will be accepted as knowledge by the next generation will either reinforce or shake existing power structures. Not surprisingly, what is part of your country's history (consider Japanese history lessons) or science curriculum (consider the teaching of creationism in the US), is of a great concern to its people and their leaders.

When we think about knowledge and politics, we may immediately conjure up images of how politicians deal with knowledge and facts, as exemplified by election campaigns and political debates. Politics can be a game of knowledge evasion and the manipulation of facts to win over popular opinion. But does this mean that facts don't matter in politics? With the expansion of the media through the use of modern technologies, we come across a staggering amount of claims made by politicians on a daily basis. In this "post-truth age", it seems increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, news from "fake news", and knowledge from propaganda. Nevertheless, failing to do so can lead to potentially harmful relativist thinking, whereby room is created for unfounded knowledge claims. Trump conveniently brushes off fact as "fake news" when the truth does not suit him, for example. Conway even used terms such as "alternative facts" to disguise lies. A disdain for the factual is arguably as dangerous as dogmatism. Perhaps it is now more important than ever to reflect upon what is true and what not, what constitutes a fact and what is fiction, who possesses and represents knowledge and under what circumstances we should trust expert opinion.

​Sometimes it is not very clear to what extent political ideologies permeate our lives. For example, you may read an article about climate change in the science section of a well-known newspaper. You may trust the knowledge proposed by the article because the argument is well presented and it contains references to research. However, the newspaper itself may be politically coloured or even owned by people with political power and vested interests. It is also important to remember that (scientific) research can be funded by politicians, corporations and ideological groups, albeit indirectly. In addition, some factors that are by and large "beyond our control" (such as culture, upbringing, class and education) can influence our ideological affinities; and we are not always aware of the latter.

It is obvious that politicians are skilful at shaping public opinion and thought. They are often masters at the art of persuasion. They may manipulate their audience and misinform the general public to drive their agenda. Obviously, politicians are not necessarily devious and not all political claims are sinister. When you are very much convinced that your political ideas are correct, you may feel that convincing others is the morally correct thing to do. Nevertheless, it is important to have a good understanding of how knowledge is presented in a political context. A clever use of euphemistic language can downplay things politicians want to hide, whilst emotive discourse might shape voters' opinion. Political propaganda is often one-sided (excludes the middle) and regularly taps into emotions such as fear. This can alter our decision making processes.

The dominant discourse that prevails within a society will also affect what we accept and reject as knowledge. In that sense, those in power may arguably claim ownership of knowledge. Michel Foucault investigated the relationship between knowledge, thought, language and power through an insightful historical analysis. Some of his ideas will be discussed further on this web page.

Why study politics? https://youtu.be/PzhniSEhrIs

Politics https://youtu.be/TCs_hyI15R8

PP on Knowledge and Politics: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18sCaDG2ePPAt2PkNecYzKgmCw8lmY1VH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=102303112386118913028&rtpof=true&sd=true

When we talk about knowledge and politics in TOK, we will consider more than just party politics. Politics can encompass how we consider important current issues and view concepts such as race and gender. Politics can comprise ways of thinking and the textual politics of language and discourse. Dominant groups and those in power may shape and define what we accept and reject as knowledge within a particular community of knowers. Unfortunately, group think and authority worship can be dangerous, as the documentary "Five Steps to Tyranny" highlights. In that sense, we want to encourage independent critical thinking, especially when it comes to issues such as fairness, society, power, values, and law.

A good understanding of the political nature of knowledge may have positive ethical outcomes. For example, if we understand the implications of things such as group think by analysing real life (historical) examples, we may less easily be swayed to accept unethical and biased political claims we encounter in our own lives. In this sense, there is a close connection between ethics, knowledge and politics.

Equally, we have an ethical responsibility to care for what happens in the world around us and to be well-informed before we make political decisions. Sometimes groups of people decide it is time for change. They are not happy with the way things are and may resort to "civil disobedience". In TOK, we could assess the criteria through which judge whether an action should be regarded as justifiable civil disobedience rather than simply discuss "crime", "laws" and "punishment". In this is sense, it is important to remember that simply because something is law, does not make automatically right. Likewise, it is not because something has always been done a certain way that it should necessarily continue that way.

It may be tempting to conclude that facts don't matter much in politics. Our existing political views are indeed shaped by a range of factors such as the society we live in, our education, wealth, family background etc. However, facts may sometimes change our minds. For example, when we get exposed to facts about climate change, we may change our political affinities. When we see statistics about the Covid-19 Pandemic, may may change the trust in our leaders. When we experience personal, real-life consequences of a government's decisions, we may rethink what we previously believed in.

​A new perspective may trigger much-needed ethical political and social change. Yet, before we ask for change and end up repeating what we reproach previous generations, let's ask ourselves some important questions: On what grounds might an individual believe that they know what is right for others? In what ways may often deeply held political beliefs and biases affect the acquisition of knowledge? What criteria can we use to decide what makes a society, or nation great?

Watch 5 steps to tyranny https://youtu.be/PeBisBQblFM and

What makes a nation great https://youtu.be/250SAQNJdI0