The Normalising Power of Knowledge

The things you are currently learning at IBDP are generally accepted as knowledge by the majority of experts and educators. This knowledge is considered to be valuable and, generally speaking, (factually) correct. However, what is accepted as knowledge one day, may be rejected another. Some of the things your grandparents learned at school, for example, may now be considered erroneous. This could be because new evidence has come to light, but it can also be because we have changed our perspective over time. Knowledge has a certain normative power. When you learn something at school, for example, you will usually consider this to be true. When something is rejected by an institution that represents knowledge (eg. the IB DP curriculum or a good university), we often refute this too.

To illustrate this further, we can look at the concept of classification. At schools, we learn to classify things. Classifications can be useful, because they create order in what seems to be chaos. Some classifications seem rather obvious (eg shapes in Maths) and some classification criteria stand the test of time. However, when we classify human behaviour and groups of people, the very act of classifying is "political" in nature. This is particularly well illustrated through the history of knowledge surrounding mental health. A prime example is the classification used by the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual of what is "normal" with respect to mental health.' It may surprise you that homosexuality was only removed from the APA's list of mental illnesses in 1973. Previously, homosexuality was even treated as a crime. The history of the diagnosis and treatment of women's 'hysteria' provides another interesting (and shocking) starting point for further research. Unfortunately, these deeply held beliefs at the basis of misconceptions regarding gender, mental illness and sexuality, have hampered the progression of knowledge in the human sciences. Many of those beliefs were political (in a broad sense). In that respect, the acquisition of knowledge may be hampered by political bias.

The knowledge we possess is often deeply rooted in our language. The language we use to talk about minorities, illness and gender, can further reinforce stereotypes and relationships of authority. Once again, the connection between language, knowledge and (political) power is very clear. The knowledge we possess can further shape the political beliefs and biases that we hold deeply.

Power: https://youtu.be/BBJTeNTZtGU

In addition to faulty reasoning, politicians may use emotive and persuasive language to shape and manipulate political views. They may tap into the emotions of their audience/voters to win them over. Emotions are indeed vital to connect with voters, and politicians know this. This emotional connection may shape our political affinities and ultimately affect (voting/political) decisions. Unfortunately, emotions may cloud judgement to such an extent that it is difficult to gain knowledge in an unbiased manner. The latter is particularly relevant in this post-truth age. In this sense, emotions can clearly be an obstacle to knowledge. Emotions influence how we view the world, but are we always aware of how emotions lead us to make political claims? Emotions such as disgust, for example, can influence our ethical and political views in a subtle manner and we are often unaware of this fact (see TED talk Pizarro, below). We obviously do not want our emotions to rule political decisions entirely, however, can emotions perhaps give us political knowledge? And, if so, how do we know?

We all know that emotions influence our judgement, but have you ever thought about how emotions can be an actual source of knowledge as such? Emotions may lead us to knowledge which other methods or tools might not reveal. Emotion lies, together with imagination, at the basis of empathy. It would be very difficult to (try to) understand what others think and feel without being able to rely on emotions. The latter is obviously important in politics. One could argue that emotionally intelligent people are indeed more knowledgeable. So how does this tie in with knowledge and politics? Can we gain better political knowledge and understanding through emotions? Ethics and politics are not the same, but some political judgements may require a type of moral judgement. In that respect, emotions do play a role in the creation of political knowledge. Some research even seems to suggest that emotions, such as anxiety, drive us to find more politically relevant information. This, in its turn (or so the argument goes), could lead us to make more rational decisions. Overall, emotions arguably drive politics at its core, as well as the search for knowledge within politics. In addition, emotions can trigger political change, as well as social and moral progress.

Eventually, we aim for knowledge based politics, in which facts still matter and we have an increased awareness of what shapes the formation of our political affinities or voting decisions. In this sense, a good understanding of yourself, and what shapes your emotions as a knower, is invaluable.

The Strange politics: https://youtu.be/pqX9zMuKENc

As seen previously, language may shape thought. In this sense, the language and concepts used by dominant groups (dominant discourse), may subtly affect what we consider to be knowledge knowledge (dominant cognitive paradigm). The political power of knowledge is therefore deeply rooted in the language we use. We can also use language to reinforce political structures and relationships of authority. When we talk about politics in TOK, we do not strictly refer to party politics.

Politics can also refer to power structures and the relationship between those who have and those who do not have power. Politics can refer to groups that are excluded from power or diminished (and even oppressed). Within each country, school or community you know, you are probably able to name the dominant group(s) and the marginalised ones. You may also be able to identify the dominant cognitive paradigm as opposed to other ways of thinking, which are not usually considered "the norm". To illustrate this, we can look at gender and race. Although progress towards equality has come a long way, we have inherited old ways of thinking in the way we speak and think about gender and race. Our language is still very much influenced by concepts that express discriminatory ideas. We are not always aware of this fact.

These concepts, however, subtly influence our thought and they may reinforce existing "political" power structures. All too often we think in binary oppositions. We oppose West to East, man to woman, reason to emotion, 'developed' to 'primitive'. Whilst doing so, we attach value judgements to each element in the opposite binary pairs; and we usually value our side of the coin that bit more than the other side. We also exclude whatever is in the middle of the continuum and consequently simplify our interpretation of the world or reality. French feminist Cixous claims that this binary thinking finds its origins in patriarchal society. Whatever the cause may be of such thought, it is important to remain open-minded and to steer clear of false dilemmas, which are all too often implicitly embedded in cognitive paradigms of knowledge communities. Painter Magritte [Ceci n'est pas une pipe] makes us question through his art how we tend to forget the differences between representation and reality. We can use language and symbols to 'map' reality. Within our language we use words as 'signifiers' to denote something else ('the signified'). But all too often we blend the "signifier" with the "signified". According to Charles Sanders Peirce, we end up thinking through these signs. Just like we end up thinking through maps. And we forget what is really out there. Baudrillard takes this notion even further with his conception of 'the hyperreal'.

Michel Foucault was very much concerned about the relationship between knowledge, meaning and power. He "adopted the term ‘discourse’ to denote a historically contingent social system that produces knowledge and meaning. He notes that discourse is distinctly material in effect, producing what he calls ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’.1 Discourse is, thus, a way of organising knowledge that structures the constitution of social (and progressively global) relations through the collective understanding of the discursive logic and the acceptance of the discourse as social fact. For Foucault, the logic produced by a discourse is structurally related to the broader episteme (structure of knowledge) of the historical period in which it arises. However, discourses are produced by effects of power within a social order, and this power prescribes particular rules and categories which define the criteria for legitimating knowledge and truth within the discursive order. " (Critical Legal Thinking) The relationship between discourse and knowledge is very powerful. Exploring the relationship between knowledge and politics will inevitably lead to an analysis of how we accept discourse (as fact) and how we may accept or reject knowledge.

Scope

• ​In what ways is factual evidence sometimes used, abused, dismissed and ignored in politics?

• Is being knowledgeable an important quality in a political leader?

• How can we know whether we have sufficient knowledge before voting in an election?

• If experts set the standards by which their claims are then to be evaluated, is this process undemocratic?

• How is the discipline of politics distinct from the practice of politics?

• What role does knowledge play in the formation of political affinities, or voting decisions?

• What issues does politics raise about the difference between knowledge and opinion?

Perspectives

• ​What kinds of knowledge inform our political opinions?

• To what extent are our political views shaped by society, family backgrounds, education or social class?

• Why do facts sometimes not change our minds?

• In what ways may often deeply held political beliefs and biases affect the acquisition of knowledge?

• Is it possible to write about politics in an objective way?

• Do museums package past knowledge to serve the needs of contemporary political systems and authorities?

• Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts on a political issue?

• When exposed to numerous competing ideologies and explanations, what makes an individual settle on a particular framework?

Methods and Tools

• ​What impact does technology, particularly social media, have on how we acquire and share political knowledge?

• What role does emotion play in the formation of political affinities or voting decisions?

• How might emotive language and faulty reasoning be used in politics to try to persuade and manipulate?

• To what extent can polls provide reliable knowledge and accurate predictions?

• What role do political authorities and institutions play in knowledge creation and distribution?

• Why are referendums sometimes regarded as a contentious decision-making tool?

• In what ways may statistical evidence be used and misused to justify political actions?

Ethics​

• Are political judgements a type of moral judgement?

• Can knowledge be divorced from the values embedded in the process of creating it?

• Do political leaders and officials have different ethical obligations and responsibilities compared to members of the general public?

• When the moral codes of individual nations conflict, can political organisations such as the UN provide universal criteria that transcend them?

• On what criteria could we judge whether an action should be regarded as justifiable civil disobedience?

• On what grounds might an individual believe that they know what is right for others?

• What new ethical challenges are emerging from the increased use of data analytics in political activity and decision making?

• Is it ever justifiable for a politician to act without having good grounds or evidence for doing so? Can we know what justice is and what it requires?