The Nuisance of Nuance: I. Pedantry

Here’s one I know:

Knowledge is personally constructed, socially mediated, and inherently situated.

I’ve quoted this before – it was coined years ago by my doctoral advisor and has remained a real foundational statement for him. More recently, I found another one, kind of similar:

… knowledge [is] always ‘situated’ – in other words, produced by and for particular interests, in particular circumstances, at particular times.

This one I found in a dissertation (p. 45, footnote 19), cited as MacLure (2013, p. 167).[1] I wanted more context, so I read the MacLure article, every word, and failed to find this quotation at all – plus the page numbers were off. This is not unusual – in the hustle-and-bustle of research writing, sources get mixed up, or even accidentally forgotten. Okay, so… a little more searching and – whaddya know – another dissertation (p. 137, footnote 71) with the same quotation, cited as MacLure (2013, p. 167). Now, this is a bit unusual – two dissertations, same year, half a world apart, citing the same page from the same source for a quotation that isn’t there. Search for yourself… or try this alternative MacLure link, which is open access. Who knows, must have been a recall or something… salmonella academia.

But once I got to thinking about the whole thing… it seemed almost too perfect: always ‘situated’ for particular interests, in particular circumstances, at particular times. Could it really be that this disembodied quotation had somehow actually found a way to live out its own truth? That’s what the kids say these days, isn’t it… live your own truth?

What could that mean… ‘live your own truth’ – I mean if it’s true. Well, for one thing, it could mean all knowledge is partial and prone to dispute, what you know and what I know simply being portions of what can be known. That’s nothing new, but now even the quote-unquote “same” knowledge must necessarily be air quotes ‘different’ knowledge. So, say you came to know ‘X’ just a split second before me, or say I came to know ‘X’ while standing just a step to your left… I know, it sounds silly but remember, so did disembodied quotation recall… anyway, this isn’t fantasy, it’s academics.

Test on Thursday…
Photo Credit (edited): Kaja Sariwating on Unsplash

Okay, so… let’s say I come to know ‘X’ while descending a flight of stairs, or while standing at the bottom. In each case – however painstaking the difference – I come to know ‘X’ in a way that I literally could not from the other perspective. Even one step above or one step below is not the ‘same’ step on a flight of stairs. Plus, upon any shift of ground, some time will pass – barely a split second from one spot to the next – and since nobody outside Star Trek can be in two places at one time, well… painstaking pedantry over space and time seems ridiculous, but remember… this ain’t SciFi, it’s academics.

Okay, so for example… take the difference between what you come to know and what I come to know.

Let’s say you and I witness some incident together… some movie, some moment, whatever.

And let’s suppose this occurs for each of us simultaneously because we’re standing side-by-side. Wouldn’t anyone just say we’re experiencing “the same thing”? By thing, of course, what they’d mean is an ambiguous pronoun that points at the event. Except for… thing can also point to the experiencing of the event, the distinction being that from either perspective, yours or mine, thing 1 points outward at the event, and thing 2 inward to the experiencing.

And who’s going for beers with someone this pedantic, he asked in a blog post. Anyway, if someone said we’re experiencing “the same thing,” even this would still depend on who said it and when they said it. By the way, if “Who cares?” actually bothered anyone, we wouldn’t even have pedantry. And since we’ve now found out how knowledge is always ‘situated’ for particular interests, in particular circumstances, at particular times, well… you might dare to imagine the situation that compels you to care… and now imagine all the kids wearing Get Pedantic t-shirts.

Okay… you and I experience the same “thing” together, but we each experience it exclusively: you as you, and I as me. As for differing upbringings, educations, biases… as far as coming to any consensus about this ‘same’ event, well… you and I haven’t actually experienced “the same thing” at all, have we? Experience, for want of a better word, must be owned: yours as yours, and mine as mine. And now someone will be disputing all this with something like, “Yeah, but knowledge and experience are different things!” to which I would reply, “You’re buying the first round.” By experience, how about five senses? No, in all fairness, if experience and knowledge were the same thing, we’d use the same word.

So, if knowledge really is situated, then neither you nor I can claim to have the same knowledge – not about that event, and not about anything, ever: at best, we’ll take each other at our word… one read-through of Hamlet should be all anyone needs to grasp this, and if that can’t put the whole ChatGPT fuss in perspective, I don’t know what can.

Okay, how about… you and I have “extremely similar” knowledge. Yeah, except for… if similarity reflects how closely we share background-and-belief, couldn’t it also reflect how closely we stood side-by-side? In fact, couldn’t it reflect both… or maybe that’s ‘either’ – or actually, ‘each’. Hmm…

On the trains, ‘side-by-side’ can even be ‘cheek by jowl’
Photo Credit (edited): Anna Dziukinska on Unsplash

And, of course, whether extremely similar or vastly different, neither your individual knowledge nor mine negates the event itself: something actually happened, and we were each there experiencing it. And neither your individual knowledge nor mine can preclude some fact from the event – not unless we simply didn’t detect it, or unless we simply deny it. But let’s not deny how partially we understand the things that we do detect since – knowledge being situated, and all – we can simply preclude Fact ‘X’ with Alternative Fact ‘Y’. It is, after all, my knowledge. Isn’t it.

Now, I will say… for me, what “alternative facts” means is some people interpret the same thing differently from other people, which is really a short summation of this entire post. But rather than make academic claims when someone declares my fantasy vastly removed from their reality, I prefer to accept that (a) not everybody agrees on everything, and (b) the idiocy to motivate a couched phrase like ‘alternative facts’ doesn’t change what got experienced; it only describes someone’s interpretation of that experience.

Here’s one thing I know: when a tree falls down, that tree is down, and no amount of fantasy will be standing it back up again.

Click here for Part II. Belief


[1] Maggie MacLure is an Education professor in Manchester, UK.

One Thing, I Guess, is Certain

Featured Image Credit: “Court of Exchequer, Westminster Hall” in the Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

Death and taxes have held court since what seems like forever, maybe because people just come to accept as guaranteed whatever’s managed to sit long enough upon the throne.

You wonder, though… nothing lasts forever, so they say.

Wow, so they would doubt the guarantee of death? I guess I’m saying not everyone agrees that death is final, and where this is predominantly a question of spirituality, faith has long managed to dwell in willing hearts and minds, come what may – that includes scorn, imprisonment, and execution. “Better heat now than later,” might be faith’s reply, and where there’s smoke, I guess there’s fire.

As for taxes guaranteed, well… until recently, these were easier to defend if only because the governments that collect them need their own currency to cancel their debts. In fact, the very creation of authorized currency, more and more year after year, is a self-sustaining need to collect taxes in perpetuity. I guess you could say money really does make the world go round.

Still, though… that authority to create currency, like when it’s superdesperately necessary, that could be extrapolated to conclude that taxes are unnecessary: why tax when currency could simply be authorized year after year to pay what’s needed? I guess the key word in this question is “enough,” which I guess I left out of this question, so I’m gonna need you to go ahead and draw your own conclusions about decision and consequence. As for me, I’m drawn back to the earlier phrase about which one’s the better heat.

If there’s a common theme underway in this brief meditation, I guess some might call it vision, others might call it ambition, and still others might call it imprudence. I will call it hubris and, in the same desultory breath, try to lift your spirits by drawing attention to Russell Napier’s latest exhibit in the Library of Mistakes, a place where the shelves groan with volumes of dalliance – that much, at least, is certain.

Of Memories in Motion

Elsewhere – and, come to think of it, (sort of) elsewhere – I’ve mentioned Martha Nussbaum’s exploration of memory.

For her part, what she’s suggesting connects our emotions, which help us respond to the world, with our memories, which arise as a flood of perceptions that she calls emotional habits. Essentially, in our day-to-day living, the purpose of our emotions is to help us make sense of it all by recalling previous times when we felt such-and-such a way; the purpose of our memories is to supply those emotions with substance – and not with just any old substance but with invested value. If Nussbaum is on to something, then this is why we’re moved to say about [ your life here ] that “we care.”

Nussbaum refers to neuroscientist, Joseph LeDoux, who suggests that memories are not individual items but composite outcomes of our physiological network – in one sense, like how a check-up isn’t just your doctor and a stethoscope but all their years and training, and this upon centuries of practice, which now includes you, the patient; in another sense, like how a bridge isn’t just an edifice of concrete, cable, and steel but an intentional span engineered to overcome the gulf that precluded any link between two separated sides.

Iconic

One idea suggested by memory is that, with something going on inside everybody, we can still only respond from our current perspective. That means some parts of our lives will remain unseen from others and maybe even subconsciously from ourselves – we can never really completely know what’s happening with anybody. Occasionally, I’ve seen people apparently lose sight of this and press ahead with someone else, despite what seemed to be signals to hold up – yet as this is merely something I remember seeing from my perspective, here’s me doing it, myself, right now! A lot of our shared living is guesswork, and if it seems like I’ve suddenly departed from the topic of memory, I wonder if it’s fair to say I’m still in the ballpark.

In the ballpark, I guess, if just a little off-base…

Memories remind us of when we were other places, doing things, which all contributes to describing who we are now although, of course, not completely since nobody remembers everything, much less remembers anything perfectly. Maybe let’s say what gets remembered is what we take to be most important, which could be rather selective and self-serving, as we might decide to ‘remember’ only what helps us out the most. That’s a pretty blanket statement, though, and I can’t blame your eye-roll just now. As to what we do remember, we can decide whether a memory is something from the past to which we’re attached, or something in the past from which to distance ourselves. But either way, the past is always there, all of it, and that’s affecting all of us.

As to memories being fallible, this takes me back to guesswork, of a kind, as we try to recall exactly this-or-that detail. But since we can only remember from our current perspective, there’s a great deal of our lives that goes never seen by others, and even grows fuzzy and inexact to us – like I said, we can never really completely know what’s happening with anybody, selves included. If each person’s memories can only acknowledge their own cross-sections of the past, and this but partially, then over time I imagine this would cause a bit of collective amnesia, eventually having a kind of atomizing effect as certain details were highlighted while others were finally lost forever.

Certainly our culture seems to embrace the individual, has done ever since the Enlightenment sort of introduced the world to itself, as it were. What crawled from those Platonic caves of religious obeisance and feudal sovereignty eventually separated into an oddly homogeneous heterogeneity of individualism, which today we venerate with slogans like “Liberty, Happiness, and that other one – slips my mind. If we’ve actually been killing off cultural memory and swapping in some individuated substitute… well, in that case, I’d say cultural memory is becoming a rather haphazard assemblage of whatever coincides between us. Which, hey, might work for a while, but… life-by-coincidence I just feel like can’t be good.

That brings something else to mind… for all our enlightenment, we seem awfully susceptible to uncertainty. Weren’t we a lot longer chained up to those cave walls… yet now it’s like we can’t even remember what certainty is. Maybe our uncertainty – what the kids these days call narratives – whether spun by someone or spun by us, whether in our favour or in our face, maybe our uncertainty lies in its doctor’s motives. And of course, the better the storytelling, and the sharper the hook, the more we’ll feel we can relate – which is something else I mentioned of Martha Nussbaum although, this time, I’d say let’s take heed as a cautionary word. Yes, the more precise the object, the sharper that vision, and the more certainty we’re likely to feel, but no trust will exceed the worthiness, the value, of its object. Stick to the healthy objects, I guess is what I’m saying, objects not just inherently potent but of the greatest worthiness… your most highly treasured value.

In that sense, memories – remember this was all about memories? – in that sense, memories implicate, or are they implicated by, our present circumstances and our future objectives. As we presently look back to our memories, our memories are prompting our attention forward, into the future. We don’t remember anything perfectly, but we also don’t forget everything utterly. I’m not necessarily saying we spin solely what we remember; rather, I’m saying let’s not spin solely to remember. Just like words matter because, once spoken, their consequences flow, our memories matter too, for the same dynamic reason. They need to be as genuine as we can recall them. “And then,” Nussbaum concludes, perhaps with a touch of whimsy, “it remains to be seen what the world will let us do about them” (p. 135). Whether their flow will be placid, mundane, inconsequential, or anything beyond is beside the point that their flow is indisputably certain. What is past is having a very real effect right now and will thus see its effect realised in what is yet to come, come what may.

“Okay,” you say, “but what happened to that imaginary bridge – what was it, spanning the gulf between here and memory, or something? I mean, here you are, now, going on about time and spin and worth? Has this post lost its way? Another batch of mixed metaphors?”

Is that really even a “bridge”… ?

Fair. OK, well, besides piecemeal memories inciting ad hoc futures for atomized individual persons, what all this seems to implicate, for me, is the sincerity of relationships, of care. Our continued honest attempts to communicate with each other are like an antidote, and in their absence we risk sullying or undoing whatever may have been true of us beforehand. Of course, though – and here I go again! – that last sentence was written through an altruistic lens, not really allowing for someone with, say, more practical motives. Meanwhile, as to any less-than-honest attempts at communication, well, they’re obviously no antidote at all but really pollutants. As only real engineers build bridges, so only real physicians administer antidotes, and only real spin doctors spin.

… OK, this one counts

One last thing… I think maybe what’s most potent about our memories – in their pointing us toward objects ahead – is the nature of their absence, like travelling into the city and saying, “Look where there used to be trees.” As we take hold of a memory and turn it over in our fingers… with the curiosity that brought it back, we acknowledge a kind of respectful past-that-was as we find it within us-as-is. There’s a bit of healthy mutuality in that, for without that memory, we could only make less of ourselves while, without us, the memory wouldn’t be recalled at all. I suppose that’s all a bit banal, but still… it seems important, a kind of respectfulness that authorizes both the memory and ourselves at once, however inexact our memories may actually be.

But we need to be careful. Any respectful authorization of memory and ourselves at once is us doing both, which is tantamount to saying “I am history,” as in “Whatever I declare now is now what happened then,” which of course would be delusional. And not in the sense of claiming to be God, who controlled it all back then as now but, rather, in the sense of looking inward to ourselves, like a doctor prescribing an antidote without remembering what it was for.

Someone very practical once told me there are plenty of good memories to be made and happy events to experience wherever one resides. Practical health in this object, practical wisdom, a beautiful radiance such as might alight you from the bridge deck with delight since now you want to see where it’s landed you, over here on the other side. As I recall, my reply was something along the lines to say, yes, that’s definitely true although it ain’t where you’re at so much as it’s who you’re with.

In the gulf beneath, a mighty flood rolls on, and you still hold your dearest treasures to heart. And from the shore you understand a wee bit better why somebody decided to build that bridge.

Photo by Kyle Fiori on Unsplash