On the sociology of knowledge

(priliminary thoughts - under construction)

How is it that all these VIP “intellectuals” turn out to be so stupid, with such “poor judgment”, as they or their friends say after they have been exposed to be associated with the largest in history international human trafficking and farming ring?

It makes you think of what we haven’t talked about enough that lies in the heart of epistemology. The sociology of knowledge. How is it that throughout history mostly famous in the realm of thinking and knowledge are men, and why some specific ones? Is it because what they say is indeed so deep, unique, and important for humanity or is it the result of the privilege of attention and money from their associates with similar privileges, and the structures they build, apparently based on the abuse, oppression of women and the burial of their thoughts?

Could it be that what it is true is what it is agreed to be true by those who are heard and paid attention to? If you observe the history of thinking and knowledge there is not much of novelty. Core ideas are reiterated every few generations in a different language and context, presented as new.

Their voices are heard and they enjoy fame that comes from associations and their position in the thinking network. Enterprises, funded and associated by abusers, like edge.org of John Brockman, “Closer to the truth” of Robert Kuhn, pouring money and attention, claim to know what’s profound and worthy of being heard, and it is reinforced by those who want to be in their ranks, accepting it like a herd, driven by their ambition.

If we really want to get closer to the “truth” we need to liberate ourselves from admiring persons over ideas and from lusting to be admired.

How do we do that? The big obstacle is resources. It is indeed very hard to engage in deep thinking and research when you are struggling for survival and when you are taking care of others. You need time, free of distractions, to do that. Funding brings admiration, admiration brings funding. Our academic structures promote the “publish or perish” mechanism, leading to accumulation of money and fame in a few, ie academic capitalism, and all others trying to become like them. How can this change? One first thought is by democratizing thinking. Thinking cannot be a privilege of the few. Sure, everybody thinks, but the question is what makes someone to be heard and be part of the discussion. Academic Elites and VIPs limit human advance in knowledge and understanding of the world and life.

First thing is to stop being impressed by names. Second, to grant access to resources to anyone who is willing to put the time and energy on knowledge pursuit, like a public good, after a proper public education. Third have horizontal platforms where their thoughts and work are presented and easily searched and discussed. Something like what is happening with the social media, but maybe less chaotic. What else?

–

Men have been trained to be the mentally weak sex.

By weakness I mean the underdevelopment of morality, empathy, and the inability to understand the ethical implications of one’s actions.

Boys grow up in social environments that grant them early on entitlement to power over girls, children, women and vulnerable groups. It is not that they are biologically incapable of empathy or moral understanding. It is that these capacities are not cultivated with the same urgency. Instead, dominance and entitlement are cultivated by one generation of men to the next. It has become a cultural avalanche.

Girls, on the other hand, are typically trained from early on to be considerate, emotionally attentive, accommodating, and ethically alert.

Empathy and moral reflection are mislabeled as weakness. This is a profound mistake.

Societies do not remain stable through dominance. They remain stable through trust, safety, and mutual recognition, through development of moral capacities. What is called “soft” is in fact structurally foundational.

For long term change to occur, moral and emotional development must become central in the upbringing of boys as well. We need to cultivate empathy, accountability, and ethical reflection as essential strengths.

Women, who have long carried the work of relational and ethical maintenance, are in the position to reshape these conditions, to transform the standards by which maturity itself is defined.

What is needed is a shift of our value system: Weakness = moral underdevelopment, empathy = structural societal strength. In the short term it falls on the shoulders of women to fight for it.

We are used to think that in order for women to rise in power hierarchy need to fit in male created environments, to become like them: dominant and abusive. We see this often, in many fields. I’ve seen this a lot in academia. But it is not the sustainable way. We don’t need to fit in men’s environment, we need to change the environment.

The term “inclusion” that has been used a lot in the recent past in many industrial, academic and other environments is a deeply misleading and offensive term. We don’t need to be included. Included where? By whom? It is our world as it is theirs.
We demand to co-create it.