ToK Essay 5 May 2023: What is meant by "helpful in the communication of knowledge?"

Since writing the essay notes, and making the video, for ToK Essay 5 May 2023 (Visual Representations) I have been returning to the phrase “helpful in the communication of knowledge”. I feel that more unpacking of this term will be useful for students writing this essay.

For the wider (more introductory) notes on ToK Essay 5 May 2023 see this video, and pick up the detailed notes from here.

In this blog post I look at 3 perspectives that students could use to approach / unpack this term:

1. Ways of understanding the typology of knowledge (Zuckerfeld, 2017)

2.The role of symbol and signal in the communication of knowledge.(Berry, 2019)

3. The role of meaning in the communication of knowledge.(Hornsby & Stanley 2005).

My starting premise for all of these perspectives is that in order to judge whether something is helpful we have to decide what its purpose is, in this case we have to decide what the purpose of the communication of knowledge is in order to judge whether visual representations are helpful. This post focuses on the question - what are some of the possible purposes of the communication of knowledge ?

Perspective 1: The Typology of Knowledge (Zuckerfeld 2017).

Students could explore whether the communication of knowledge is helpful for the individual knower or for the development of the Area of Knowledge as a whole. Different types of knowledge will be helpful for one, the other, and sometimes both. Obviously, this distinction will be further differentiated by the various factors of context.

When looking at the individual knower in ToK there is always the danger of falling into a relativist argument that fails to make any substantial statements. To help to avoid this I point students towards the idea of ‘intersubjective realities’ (Zuckerfeld, 2017) - the idea that knowers share common knowledge (which leads to language, culture etc).

It is in these intersubjective realities Zuckerfeld argues that we can find some answers to the purpose of communication of knowledge - at either the level of the knower or at the level of the AoK. Zuckerfeld describes 5 main types of inter-subjective knowledge to which we can apply the use of visual communication in order to assess its usefulness.

Types of Knowledge

(i) Recognition Based Knowledge

This is the institutional based knowledge (both formal and informal) (such as work & education) which enables location and hierarchy. This is value based, and as such visual representations are only useful in so much as they consolidate values based comprehension. 

(ii) Linguistic Knowledge.

This includes not only formal language, but also informal language (such as slang & dialect) and non-human language (such as computer coding). Students could argue that language itself is a form of visual representation (emojis are obvious etc). The argument for ‘helpfulness’ seems clear here, however, strong counterclaims could be developed around misinterpretation and the contextual nature of meaning. The strength of formalised semantic (rather than visual) based language is standardised interpretation, as such a strong argument could be developed for the unhelpfulness of visual representations.

(iii) Organisational Knowledge.

This is knowledge which increases the specialisation and precision of process and understanding. Such knowledge allows for high degrees of human expertise, which arguably increases the effectiveness of knowledge. Zuckerfeld includes the internet, and social media such as Facebook & Youtube under this typology. Arguably Visual Representation only adds value here (ie is ‘helpful’) when it can convey greater meaning than written or spoken words.

(iv) Axiological Knowledge.

This is knowledge which defines the knower’s identity. Zuckerfeld argues that this is experienced as individual, but is increasingly consumption based. Strong arguments for the role of visual representations helping to quickly convey meaning could be developed for this type of knowledge.

(v) Normative Knowledge.

 This is formalised, externalised, standardised knowledge such as laws, academic content, and rights. This is highly networked, social and public knowledge. As such a student could develop strong arguments that visual representations are helpful in the communication of aspects of this knowledge, if not so much in the production of this knowledge.

Perspective 2. The role of symbol and signal in the communication of knowledge.(Berry, 2019)

Berry et al look at the Digital Humanities as an emerging field of AoK Human Sciences, arguing that the prevalence of digital communication of knowledge requires us to redevelop the Human Sciences. Obviously, much digital communication is in the form of visual representation, and as such Berry’s article can add much depth to the Human Sciences element of ToK Essay 5 May 2023.

Berry starts with vivid analysis of the problems caused by the digital communication of knowledge at both the level of the Knower, and the development of wider (AOK) social knowledge. He borrows the term ‘disorientation’ ( the difference between the human ordering of time and the digital representation of time) from Stiegler (Stiegler 2008)  to describe the effects of this vastly increased digital communication of knowledge. ToK students could develop this concept to look at the effects of visual representations in Human Sciences of the representation of the more qualitative aspects of that studied.

Berry et al propose that GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) as a representation of big tech has led to a commoditization of human experience in which symbolic lived reality has replaced been replaced by the signal of the communication. As such, all knowledge becomes data which can be directly compared, calculated, and standardised. Again, ToK students would have to be careful not to spend too many words on descriptions of the negative effects of digitalisation of knowledge, but rather focus on the challenges that this poses for AoK Human Sciences which were primarily developed in a pre-digital era.

This argument then develops into the description of what they call “The Second Machine Age” in which the digitalisation of knowledge leads to high levels of anxiety and alienation. An age in which emotions are no longer represented symbolically, but become commodified signals. This argument provides a rich framework for ToK students to unpack the ideas of both visual representations (representing what ? and in which ways ?) and helpful (to whom ? and for what ?). Again, they borrow from Stiegler the idea of the “Grammatization” of culture, which could easily & equally be applied to visual representations and knowledge in the PT.

Encoding-Decoding

A core part of their argument is that in the digital age knowledge has to be encoded before it is communicated. This has two consequences: (i) the knowledge is now constrained by its compatibility to the platform of communication (ii) the decoding of the signal depends upon the receiver who is further removed from the signaller than in a pre-digital age. This argument could be developed to demonstrate the unhelpfulness in the communication of knowledge in the Human Sciences, especially in Psychology, Anthropology and Sociology. More pertinently, it is maybe an argument that those Human Sciences need to be redeveloped in order to take account of the new forms of visual representations in the communication of knowledge.

A final point of interest of their argument is a development of Drucker’s paper on digital scholarship in which she argues that “tool making has replaced hermeneutics”. Essentially she’s arguing that the production of the representation of knowledge (signal) has replaced the meaning (symbol) of that knowledge. In terms of PT#5 this could be developed as a strong argument (counterclaim ?) that the visual representation is now the knowledge itself, the visuals no longer represent the knowledge, they are the knowledge.

Perspective 3: The role of meaning in the communication of knowledge. (Hornsby & Stanley 2005).

Hornsby & Stanley (2005) take a linguistic approach to the purpose of the communication of knowledge. This is useful to us as we can think of written knowledge as being a visual representation of knowledge, and contrast it with verbal knowledge. Obviously, both are means by which knowledge is communicated.

Hornsby & Stanley make a distinction between Semantic Knowledge (knowledge conveying meaning), Practical Knowledge (knowledge enabling us to act), and Procedural Knowledge (knowledge which tells us how to do something). Their starting point is that Semantic Knowledge is Practical Knowledge, and that within practical knowledge we have the realisation of semantic knowledge. They argue that practical knowledge is developed through speaking rather than visually. This is useful for students writing ToK Essay 5 May 2023 because it provides a counterclaim to the helpfulness of visual representations . Obviously students writing this answer will have to place this theory within the Areas of Knowledge concerned (Hum Sci & Maths), however it has direct relevance within both AoKs.

Hornsby & Stanley argue that spoken language is more meaningful than written / visual language because with spoken language the meaning of the communication is integrated with the understanding of the knowledge in real time, in situ. As such the sender of the knowledge is able to adjust the message in response to the receivers comprehension in situ. They develop this argument to show that the semantic structures associated with spoken language (knowledge) are different to the semantic structures associated with written (visually represented) language (Knowledge). Again, this can be used as a counterargument against the helpfulness of visual representations, for example in the communication of knowledge in the maths classroom.

What about the communicator ?

The third string of their argument is the emphasis they place on the communicator in the production and packaging of the knowledge. The communicator shapes the semantic meaning of the knowledge in the production of the message. With visual representation of the knowledge that shaping must be done hypothetically, however with spoken communication of knowledge it can be done organically in response to the receiver. 

A fourth position in their paper which can be applied to ToK Essay 5 May 2023 is the type of knowledge best described by visual representations. They argue that visual representations of knowledge best describe procedural knowledge, and that this is typical in both the production, sending and reception of the knowledge. Such procedural knowledge, they argue, is best developed as semantic knowledge in a spoken environment (e.g. think about ‘reading it out loud to make sense of it’).

Their article goes onto develop an argument concerning a ‘meta-meaning’ enshrined within spoken language (knowledge) as opposed to written / visually represented language (knowledge).

What I have presented here are 3 perspectives on ways in which we can understand the purposes of the communication of knowledge in order to judge whether visual representations are helpful. Obviously, all that I can give in the scope of this post are brief overviews of the research cited. Full references (plus doi references, or JSTOR references) are included below should you wish to read the original articles to get more details for your ToK Essay.

Should you have any questions or thoughts please do not hesitate to get in touch with me at Daniel@TokToday.com.

Enjoy your ToK Writing!
Daniel, Lisbon,
December 2022 

References.

• BERRY, DAVID M., et al. “No Signal without Symbol: Decoding the Digital Humanities.” Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein, University of Minnesota Press, 2019, pp. 61–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvg251hk.8. Accessed 30 Nov. 2022.

• Drucker, Johanna. “Humanistic Theory and Digital Scholarship.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, 85-95. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 2012.

• Hornsby, Jennifer, and Jason Stanley. “Semantic Knowledge and Practical Knowledge.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, vol. 79, 2005, pp. 107–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106937. Accessed 30 Nov. 2022.

• Stiegler, Bernard, Technics and Time: 2 Disorientation. Translated by Stephen Barker. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2008.

• Zukerfeld, Mariano, and Suzanna Wylie. “The Typology of Knowledge.” Knowledge in the Age of Digital Capitalism: An Introduction to Cognitive Materialism, vol. 2, University of Westminster Press, 2017, pp. 53–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv6zd9v0.7. Accessed 30 Nov. 2022.