Un retropost de 2014:
La dinámica de lo relevante y de lo irrelevante en la realidad
social—en Facebook se percibe agudamente, por ser espacio público
comprimido, pero se aplica a todo espacio público o todo mundo social.
Esto viene de Berger y Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality:
Although the total stock of
knowledge represents the everyday world in an integrated manner,
differentiated according to zones of familiarity and remoteness, it
leaves the totality of that world opaque. Put differently, the reality
of everyday life always appears as a zone of lucidity behind which
there is a background of darkness. As some zones of reality are
illuminated, others are adumbrated. I cannot know everything there is
to know about this reality. Even if, for instance, I am a seemingly
all-powerful despot in my family, and
know this, I cannot know all the factors that go into the continuing
success of my despotism. I know that my orders are always obeyed, but I
cannot be sure of all the steps and all the motives that lie between
the issuance and the execution of my orders. There are always things
that go on 'behind my back'. This is true a fortiori
when social relationships more complex than those of the family are
involved—and explains, incidentally, why despots are endemically
nervous. My knowledge of everyday life has the quality of an instrument
that cuts a path through a forest and, as it does so, projects a narrow
cone of light on what lies just ahead and immediately around; on all
sides of the path there continues to be darkness. This image pertains
even more, of course, to the multiple realities in which everyday life
is continually transcended. This latter statement can be paraphrased,
poetically if not exhaustively, by saying that the reality of everyday
life is overcast by the penumbras of our dreams.
My knowledge of everyday life is
structured in terms of relevances. Some of these are determined by
immediate pragmatic interests of mine, others by my general situation in
society. It is irrelevant to me how my wife goes about cooking my
favourite goulash as long as it turns out the way I like it. It is
irrelevant to me that the stock of a company is falling, if I do not
own such stock; or that Catholics are modernizing their doctrine, if I
am an atheist; or that it is now possible to fly non-stop to Africa, if
I do not want to go there. However, my relevance structures intersect
with the relevance structures of others at many points, as a result of
which we have 'interesting' things to say to each other. An important
element of my knowledge of everyday life is the knowledge of the
relevance structures of others. Thus 'I know better' than to tell my
doctor about my investment problems, my lawyer about my ulcer pains, or
my accountant about my quest for religious truth. The basic relevance
structures referring to everyday life are presented to me ready-made by
the social stock of knowledge itself. I know that 'woman talk' is
irrelevant to me as a man, that 'idle speculation' is irrelevant to me
as a man of action, and so forth. Finally, the social stock of
knowledge as a whole has its own relevance structure. Thus, in terms of
the stock of knowledge objectivated in American society, it is
irrelevant to study the movemements of the stars to predict the stock
market, but it is relevant to study an individual's slips of the
tongue to find out about his sex life, and so on. Conversely, in other
societies, astrology may be highly relevant for economics, speech
analysis quite irrelevant for erotic curiosity, and so on.
One final point should be made
here about the social distribution of knowledge. I encounter knowledge
in everyday life as socially distributed, that is, as possessed
differently by different individuals and types of individuals. I do not
share my knowledge equally with all my fellowmen, and there may be some
knowledge that I share with no one. I share my professional expertise
with colleagues, but not with my family, and I may share with nobody my
knowledge of how to cheat at cards. The social distribution of
knowledge of certain elements of everyday reality can become highly
complex and even confusing to the outsider. I not only do not possess
the knowledge supposedly required to cure me of a physical ailment, I
may even lack the knowledge of which one of a bewildering variety of
medical specialists claims jurisdiction over what ails me. In such
cases, I require not only the advice of experts, but the prior advice
of experts on experts. The social distribution of knowledge thus
begins with the simple fact that I do not know everything known to my
fellowmen, and vice versa, and culminates in exceedingly complex and
esoteric systems of expertise. Knowledge of how
the socially available stock of knowledge is distributed, at least in
outline, is an important element of that same stock of knowledge. In
everyday life I know, at least roughly, what I can hide from whom, whom
I can turn to for information on what I do not know, and generally
which types of individuals may be expected to have which types of
knowledge.
______
PS, 2024: Hay
que señalar que especialmente desde el memorable año 2020, por sentar
una fecha representativa, el supuesto "conocimiento experto" está patas
arriba y ha demostrado que los supuestos consensos y presuposiciones
están allí para ser manipulados y reutilizados por quienes son más
expertos que los expertos.... en manipular expertos, y a través de ellos
a todo el cuerpo social.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario