Knowledge and Inquiry: Power - Knowledge Relationship

Power is defined socially as the ability of someone to exert his will in a social action,
regardless of the will of other people.

Two views of knowledge and power:

Under Foucalt’s social construction of knowledge, created truths are internalized as reality
and people act accordingly to these created truths. Thus, all knowledge claims are social
constructs.

In Marx’s cultural hegemonic ideology, the elites have the power to shape and influence
ideology to their advantage. Thus, the accepted knowledge model of society is prevalent
only because it keeps the elites in power.

Question to ponder: Are limitations or flaws in our knowledge model detrimental?

Draft answer: Yes, because limitations or inaccuracy in our accepted knowledge paradigm
limits our potential. If an inaccurate worldview is upheld, then society will not be able to
explore beyond what is already popularly accepted. Thus, society, being satiated with its
flawed ideology, will not be able to progress and develop. Also, even if development is
achieved under the inaccurate worldview, then the “progress” made by society is
invalidated. This is seen clearly in the scientific context: Acceptance of the indivisible
atomic theory would have prevented the invention of Lasers, the development of quantum
mechanics and the use of nuclear energy. On the other hand, development of knowledge
under the indivisible atom paradigm would be severely limited and even if any progress
was to be made, it would still pale in comparison to the strides that science has taken with
the discovery of sub-atomic particles. For example, a popular belief prior to the discovery
of sub-atomic particles was that future scientific discoveries would have to be looked for in
the sixth decimal place. What this meant was that society was so confident in their
scientific worldview that they were ready to proclaim that there were no new discoveries to
be made, only more accurate measurements of already existing scientific data. Thus we
can see that limitations and flaws in our knowledge model is detrimental as it instills a false
sense of security within society in false premises. The result of this is that the potential for
society’s development is decreased.

Exertion of power:

Brute force/violence e.g: the state is the only institution with the legal right to commit a
violent act against you.

Authority - power without force

Requires the notion of legitimacy. Power, being a social construct, must be
popularly supported in order to be exercised.

Charisma - The leader possesses qualities that attract people and is central to
social action.
 Tradition - Dependent on society’s aversion to change and penchant for loyalty.
Ways of doing are well established although reasons for actions may not be known.

Rational legal - Based on a set of created rules usually founded on expertise and
experience.

Question to ponder: Is expertise simply a social construct?

Draft answer: Yes, the expertise of an individual is determined socially in two ways. Firstly,
the individual must be able to be convincing. Thus, the individual must be able to convince
others in order to be taken seriously. Secondly, the opinion of the individual must be
supported by other people. This support can come in the form of opinion or data collected
from external sources. Thus, expertise is social because it entirely dependent on society
and society’s acceptance of the individual’s opinion. The extent of an individual’s expertise
is also proportional to the number of people he is able to convince as well as the number
of people who are willing to support him. Thus expertise is an entirely social construct.

Assertion of power

Power is contested in all social situations. This is due to a combination of the concentration
of power within a small group of elites as well as the dynamism of social situations.

The yardstick for victory in a social power struggle is dependent on the victor’s ability to
exercise his will upon the group. In a macro view, this means that the victor’s ideology has
gained a foothold in society and social constructs of knowledge. The extent to which he is
able to push his ideology vis a vis other opposing ideologies is the difference in power
between the victor and the losers.

Power struggles in the world operate in a zero-sum game. There is a multiplicity of

contesting interpretations of social reality. 1 world view will dominate and be more widely
accepted than other competing interpretations. In this scenario, the initial proponents of the
domination interpretation stands to gain the most. This is because the initial proponents of
the paradigm usually have a vested interest in the adoption of this paradigm in society.
Furthermore, all ideologies will favor certain people over others. Thus, the favored group of
people will stand to gain. E.g. sanctity of human body favors most of society but
discriminates against necrophiliacs. However, in social situations, “victories” are never
absolute as the losers will always challenge the victors and the victors themselves will
continually be afraid of losing the power they have amassed.

Application of concept:

Framing of ideology - Power has the ability to make people see and believe things in a light
that is favorable to them. Knowledge on the other hand is seen as a rationale for power,
giving rise to meritocratic ideologies.
“Religion is the opiate of the masses” - Karl Marx

Possession of cultural capital/knowledge - Knowledge is seen as tied to the intrinsic worth

of the individual. A knowledgable person is taken to be of more value to society than an
ignorant person. Thus, knowledgable people have greater social clout than ignorant people
and possess more cultural capital.

Rational legality - Knowledge of rules as cemented by perceived effectiveness of a

pragmatic approach creates power in the possessor. E.g. lawyers in bureaucratic system.

Question to ponder: Is society’s adoration of knowledgable people justified? What are the
possible implications of such adoration?