Know something? How do you know?

This is a part 1 of a stream of thought that I have been seeking to tackle for a few months. Let's see where it goes...

In the past few years and more recently, I have been tossing about what forms of knowledge are legitimate? Legitimate in a way that I would take a course of action based on something gained from that knowledge. Knowledge and understanding, far from existing as monolithic concepts, exist within and without different systems and traditions. Humans, whether consciously or unconsciously, rate systems of knowledge to clearly delineate which forms are more relevant, valid, or applicable to them. This means that by default, certain forms of knowledge get the boot, or perhaps are never even considered to begin with.

A story to introduce this process. I was discussing international politics with a friend of mine about two months ago. My counterpart was far more well-read in the arena of a particular school of international political thought and theory. I stated with full conviction that I had much to read and learn, even comparatively to him, but also felt that I had something to contribute. We talked. And talked. At some point, I could tell that he felt ruffled, flustered, and even angry. I felt confused by this observation. Although I spoke passionately out of a place of personal conviction at that point and time, I was not angry and certainly not personally affronted by him. I did feel frustrated that my contributions were not considered in any way to have practical validity.

As we walked back to our hostel, I wanted to address these issues and try to get to the bottom of what turned up to be more than a political discussion and more of a personal human interaction. Eventually, what emerged was that he thought I was arguing for the sake of arguing (not so, it's an abhorrent waste of time and energy), and that I thought I knew more than he did. More importantly, however, he admitted that he believes that political science (realism and liberal internationalism) is not only the most inclusive body of knowledge, but is also superior to all other disciplines and forms of knowledge.

In short, one cannot consider anything but facts, logic, sound reasoning in political matters as valid. Taken a bit further (as I did when I pressed him to clarify this position), in creating policies around trade, war, jobs, diplomacy, poverty, education, and every other matter that ultimately affects individual citizens and lives, one must "leave emotions out of it" and make decisions based on self-defined and culturally accepted forms of 'rational thought' solely. He did not say 'self-defined' and 'culturally accepted'. This was not acknowledged or considered, but I added those phrases because I believe them to be clarifying. At present, U.S. politics and many other world powers still strongly embrace the Western, Eurocentric, modern scientific, realism ideals of international politics which emerged after World War II as a reaction to the failures of peace idealism of pre-WWII against the Nazi regime.

I thanked him for talking with me. I told him that I had been invigorated and challenged by our discussion and that I certainly did have loads more to read and learn. I felt overwhelmed and humbled because I felt unable to ever really grasp such complex topics that we were talking about, no matter how much reading I ever did. I also said that I could not go any further because I thought that while realism and political science were valid and useful, they were certainly in no way superior to other disciplines and forms of knowledge. What's more, I don't think that believing in this way would help me understand life or take actions that would lead to a more inclusive society or transformed relationships.

I kept returning to that interaction. Not just the words, the body language, the topics, the theory, the practical implications of the theory. I kept returning to this notion of knowledge. Superior knowledge? I disagreed strongly with this notion that life experience, emotions, intuition, morality, values, spirituality, and many other valid forms (what I consider valid) of knowledge were axed in the name of adhering to good political theory and thought. It is as if Book Knowledge/Science can be used to create Policies and National Value Systems while the other forms of knowledge that I just mentioned were strictly confined to personal life and relationships if at all. I believe this to be madness, although I am not surprised by it.

First of all, I found it interesting he was the one who felt personally affronted, emotionally rattled, and angry. This was acceptable to me, because politics are emotional. Politics are personal. Politics are ways that collective decisions are made about every form of life. Emotions are ways that we express how we are affected by life, or even in considering life. But I suspect he would claim that if he was our nation's leader, or even President, he would rely on his sound and rational judgment alone to make decisions that directly affect the lives and deaths of millions of people. Hmm...my observation and intuition tells me that in the heat of the moment, far more intense and than a casual debate over dinner, something other than 'rational' and 'sound' judgment may affect decisions.

Let's pretend that this 'rational' thought theory is even possible. If so, how does one know or prove that they aren't being 'tainted' by the irrationality of emotions, or ethical questions, or moral questions, or the voices of those claiming to be oppressed, or the voices of those promising personal reward if specific action is taken? How does a human being (which is all anyone really is in the end) composed in whole of a physical body, emotions, intuition, personal convictions, moral beliefs, unrecognized and recognized cultural norms, personality make-up, sexual orientation, gender, spirituality, nationality, etc. etc. --how does one claim that they have successfully separated out or excluded any one of these factors? Even to themself? If they do manage to ignore these essentially human traits, is this desirable, particularly within a system that claims to be moral?

I'd say not. I pose it is irrational, forgive me, delusional and ridiculous (a more accurate use of words to describe the emotions I feel about this) to believe that you can claim to be human and moral while using only one knowledge resource. A knowledge resource that claims to ignore the so-called wishy-washy and ambiguous nature of emotions and morals. If an individual or nation as an entity, composed of individuals and leaders claiming to desire democracy, human rights, freedom, and equality--all of which are value systems--wants to make decisions that reflect these stated values, that individual and nation should use all the forms of knowledge available to make decisions. But we're so good at being able to control ourselves and detach ourselves and make sound decisions based on our science, on our reasoning! We have become disconnected and we miss the mark. And we suffer for it. We make others suffer for it.

In class, we often talk about how individuals, groups and nations dehumanize others in order to justify violence or killing. I wonder if we dehumanize ourselves when we try to take away the validity of emotions, poetry, song, stories, dance, intuition, prayer, dreams, processes, memory, and other forms of learning and experience? I do not suggest that science (political or otherwise) is inferior either. It has been useful without question. It is not absolute truth. I am also not suggesting that decisions (political or otherwise) should be based on fleeting feelings or some misguided concept of spiritual guidance or morality. This is dangerous foolishness in much the same way that relying on any one form of knowledge will inevitably hurt ourselves and likely others.

What I am suggesting is that we stop kidding ourselves into thinking that we have the superior way of knowing who we are and why we do what we do. And why other people do what they do and why they should think and do what we do. We should stop claiming that we can suspend our humanity in order to let reason and rationality reign. What if we accepted and learned from other forms of knowledge in all areas of our lives, including politics? For one thing, more people would be heard and less people ignored. For another, we might just end up closer to the mark on things like equality, democracy, and human rights.

My friend during that discussion said "I've only ever lost a political science debate for x reason..." I venture that besides being irrelavent, this type of score-board mentality blocks learning. Any individual who believes they possess the ultimately superior form of knowledge must defend it and prove that all other forms are inferior. And why would you want to learn from an inferior form of knowledge? At this point in my life, I refuse to claim a victory in a debate or concede a loss, though my instinct is to go for the jugular. To impress. To prove another wrong. However, I think that the point is to go through the process and learn from the words, and from the tone. To be humbled and grieved by the nature in all of us that seeks to win at the expense of declaring another an inferior loser who can teach us nothing and only admit their errors to us.