Knowledge, power and action: towards an understanding of implementation failures in a government scheme
AI and Society 21 (1-2):72-92 (2006)
| Abstract | Conceptual knowledge inspires imagination. On the other hand, it is a claim to power as well. Multiple knowledge claims often, therefore, are engaged in a contest. This contest can take the form of several discourses. Extant power structures play a significant role in lending (or not lending) a voice to one or several such discourses. To one with the power to govern, knowledge claims flowing from abstract concepts generated in an elite discourse not only inspires imagination but also often leads to ânormsâ and ârulesâ that drive governance in the system which leads to action. Norms and rules define actionability of the conceptual knowledge claim. However, for the one weighed by powerlessness in being governed, knowledge claims often get generated only in action, since an autonomous discourse is often lacking. Yet the sheer powerlessness of the authors of such knowledge claims generated in action leads to its non-celebration. It fails to get elevated. It might also wither away. Such actionable knowledge claims of the powerless often then gets manifested as something like an âunvoicedâ or an âunvoicableâ discourse, in macabre forms of subversion of ânormsâ and ârulesâ of the system that leads to a sense of failure in governance among those with power as well. Power, thus, brings actionable knowledge to the fore, but in two different forms. For the power-holder, it takes the form of a âdeviationâ from norms and rules in the actionable domain through subversion by the powerless, revealing a gap between knowledge in the conceptual and actionable domain that is reluctantly (often tacitly) tolerated. For the powerless, on the other hand, actionable knowledge is living; negotiating on the âdeviationâ is an existential requirement. This paper is an attempt to explore these dichotomies, how power (and the lack of it) alters the significance and implications of actionable knowledge | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGeorgios Constantine Pentzaropoulos (2012). From Data and Information to Actionable Knowledge. Philosophy for Business (75):Part III.
Robert Nola (1994). Post-Modernism, a French Cultural Chernobyl: Foucault on Power/Knowledge. Inquiry 37 (1):3 – 43.
Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (2005). Williamson on Knowledge, Action, and Causation. Sats - Nordic Journal of Philosophy 6:15-28.
Keith Hossack (2003). Consciousness in Act and Action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2 (3):187-203.
Chia-Ling Wang (2011). Power/Knowledge for Educational Theory: Stephen Ball and the Reception of Foucault. Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (1):141-156.
John Hyman (2006). Knowledge and Evidence. Mind 115 (460):891-916.
James Wong (2003). Can Power Produce Knowledge? Reconsidering the Relationship of Power to Knowledge. Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (1):105-123.
Katherine Hawley (2003). Success and Knowledge-How. American Philosophical Quarterly 40 (1):19 - 31.
Paul A. Roth (1991). The Bureaucratic Turn: Weber Contra Hempel in Fuller's Social Epistemology. Inquiry 34 (3 & 4):365 – 376.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-30Total downloads2 ( #232,316 of 549,013 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
