October 20th, 2008

The reading for this week presented several ways to understand what one believes about knowledge. On the one hand there was a division between a microscopic level, which is based at the level of the individual, and a macroscopic level, which is based at a more global level of society or the context in which one lives. To add another dimension, knowledge was also classified as either subjective or objective. When I tried to place myself into one of the cells in the matrix, I found it to be quite a challenge. What I found is that I don't really fall into any one of the cells.

At the microscopic and objective level (functionalism) I believe that a truly objective understanding of reality is not possible because it is shaped as much by our experiences, emotional states, and deeply ingrained biases we carry around with us. However, I don't fall into the microscopic and subjective (interpretivism) category either. I think when enough people agree on a specific knowledge and they act on it, it in fact becomes objective. The question of whether we can truly know it or not at that point becomes irrelevant. Based on the fact that an action took place based on it, I think that knowledge exists independently of the knower, even if in an abstract and roughly defined way.

At the macroscopic level, I have always been focused on exploring the power relationships in the society that I live in (placing me more in the radical structuralist camp). This preference for exploring the power relationships was definitly shaped by the fact that most of my family members were persecuted by the dictatorships that ruled the Dominican Republic. Listening to their experiences has made me sensitive to how power can be abused and arbitrarily applied, so I have always been aware of power relationships, especially since I live as a minority student within a majority society. At the same time, I believe power needs some kind of mechanism to continue to perpetuate itself and this is where culture comes in, especially in the form of values. Power relationships do not exist in a vacuum but need certain societal norms to either continue to exist or to be disrupted. This would put me in the radical humanist camp.

As for the relationship between the two levels (macroscopic and microscopic) I agree with Skrtic that there is a tension between the two, but I disagree with the order in which he has them showing in his chart. Whereas he emphasizes the importance of order at the microscopic level and that of conflict at the macroscopic level, I tend to see this a little differently. I see the macroscopic level of the power relations in society and the existing culture as the elements that reinforce order and continuity, and the microscopic level of the individual and choice as the catalysts for change that break that continuity through action.

As you can see, I could make a rationalization for any of the four categories set out by Skrtic in our reading. However, rather than a series of boxes, I would use a Venn diagram to show how all of these perspectives compete within my intellectual identity. This Venn diagram would not be static, but it would be constantly in motion, with the center of it, where each of the different categories intersects, moving in one of four directions depending on which interpretation of reality is receiving the most attention. The way this diagram reshapes itself continously represents the tensions that exist between the different interpretations in my mind. Rather than hoping that the motion ceases and one category becomes dominant, I would rather continue to have a more unsettled and dynamic understanding of knowledge. I believe it creates a richer live because it leaves openings for new and unexpected understandings to enter into my identity. This makes for a more exciting life.