Knowledge centres, knowledge circles, knowledge companies and knowledge management.

Clouds of knowledge are spread over the environment by Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden

Read this morning in the “Metro”, a for-free distributed daily Dutch newspaper: “The knowledge company (kennisbedrijf in Dutch) DelftTech will investigate the murder on Prince William of Orange again with modern technological equipment”. Again it confronted me with the meaning of the word “knowledge”. We are often confused about it because knowledge can have different meanings, ranging from broad to narrow, and from external to internal. I have a feeling that, since one or two of these meanings are associated with power and importance, they will be exploited by commerce and politics. The problem is that we are often unaware of our confusion, we think we know what knowledge is. Smart politicians and managers know this and stealthily impose their definitions on society, totally according to Norbert Elias’ definition of the “meaning” of social concepts (see below, Elias, N.(1991): Symbol Theory; Sage, London).
Why is the meaning of a concept so important? Can’t you simply state that a meaning is the description a dictionary or Google gives to it? I follow the wisdom of Norbert Elias who states that a meaning of a social concept is always the meaning most common people attach to it. This is the meaning a culture, a society attaches to a concept, and not the meaning some scientists or scholars try to propagate. Huh? Do we not consult dictionaries because in our school assignments and academic papers we first have to define (=give the meaning) of the items we are writing about? Yes, that’s because science has developed into a jungle of concepts and theories and most scientifically constructed concepts are not used by the men in the street. If you write about “knowledge” you first have to define it. OK, but most articles, messages and scribblings (such as the one quoted from “Metro”) don’t define it because they assume that the reader already knows the meaning, and isn’t “knowledge” a very frequently used word, and doesn’t it sound important and valuable? Defining it would be like inventing the wheel again. This way readers and clients become vulnerable of the way commercial and powerful elements such as politicians and media try to impose a certain meaning. And since a school or university is supposed to work with “knowledge” as their core product, it’s important to know what they are dealing with, and what politics and general opinion assume they are dealing with.
I will try to give an overview of the different meanings it can have. I do this because I find that not only science but also commerce and many people who (find that they) work with knowledge try to influence readers, clients and customers with their vision on what “knowledge” is. So first of all, Norbert Elias has said (and he is right) that the meaning of a concept such as “knowledge” (not of a chemical compound or a biological process) is determined by its users, and not by sociologists or philosophers or whatever scholars. Second, I will try to do this by using the two dimensions: from broad to narrow, and from external to internal.
In ancient antiquity knowledge was a very broad concept. In Latin it is “scientia” (from “scire” = “to know”), in Greek it is “gnosis”. There is a famous old saying in Greek “Know yourself” (gnothi seauton). This is thé example of the broad, and at the same time internal, definition of “knowledge”. In English we often say: “he knows the ropes”. This is an example of a broad, external definition (which by the way, is not in line with the meaning of knowledge used in the “competence learning” theory): knowing the ropes is having good professional competence. In competence learning theory “knowledge” is only part of “knowing the ropes” because it has to be integrated with attitude, affinity and other personality traits. For knowing the ropes all this is “knowledge”. Knowing the ropes is broader.
Then we have our knowledge centres, knowledge campuses, knowledge circles, knowledge industry and knowledge companies. They are called that way by policymakers, board members, managers, etc. and never by the scholars or “knowledge workers” themselves. These knowledge producers or, better, “knowledge generating institutions” can be split up into two groups: one part is intended to “spread knowledge” over its environment which is mostly meant to be the local small business, and politicians want to raise the employability figures this way. The other part is intended to enhance application of scientific research in the areas of business & industry, “sustainability”, energy saving, environmental pollution, building and construction, and ICT innovations and applications. Knowledge is always used in relation to application when you hear a politician or manager speak about it. Knowledge without direct application is useless, is no knowledge at all in their eyes. It is highly external and moderately narrow. External because knowledge of oneself is not the issue (or at most only supporting the external knowledge, like a student has to know his/her own strengths and weaknesses as a support, a means to learning the ropes of his/her study discipline), and narrow because it entails limited knowledge on specialist areas.
Then there is knowledge in what I would like to call knowledge in its spiritual meaning. This knowledge is both external and internal, and broad. It comes close to the ancient meaning of knowledge and is universal. The Greek called it “gnosis” (= “knowledge”). It comes also close to religion. We call e.g. somebody an “agnostic” (= “not-knower”) if (s)he is convinced that (s)he doesn’t know if there exists a God or not. It’s also knowledge in the meaning of “life experience” as we see it in the Dutch proverb: “Who collects knowledge, collects sorrow”, meaning that the more you know about life and world, the more sorrow there is you know about.
Now I hope I have explained to the reader and to myself why I get a bit irritated hearing the word “knowledge” pronounced by a politician or manager. Knowledge spread in a “knowledge market”(183,000 hits on Google) by an army of knowledge managers (“knowledge management”: 17.6 million hits on Google). After “hospitality” and a number of other meaningful social concepts, now also “knowledge” is going to be absorbed by business. An impoverishment.

The Party Snacks (True Story)

Jan and Marie would celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary and a lot of guests had been invited for a tremendous party at their home. Fine snacks and delicacies had been ordered at a catering firm. These were delivered during the day and were intended to be served in the late evening. Jan didn’t have enough storing space to keep them cool and fresh, so he decided to store them in the garage (in the Neteherlands garages are mostly cool due to the cool weather) covered by plastic sheet, until the time was there to serve them. So far so good. After an hour or so Jan went to the garage to get a hammer to attach some decorations on the wall. He was astonished to see that Pedro, the cat, was eating from the delicacies!! Luckily enough, only a small part was eaten and Jan put the parts eaten at in the garbage container, and chased the cat away out of the garage.

That evening they had a wonderful party and nobody worried about this small cat-incident. When all guest had left Gerrie, Jan and Marie’s daughter helped to clean up the mess and Jan said: put those clean bowls and plates in the garage, then the caterer will come and collect them tomorrow. Gerrie started to bring the things there. After a while Jan and Marie heard a loud scream from the garage, and they hurried to see what was going on there. They didn’t need to ask because they saw immediately Pedro lying before the garage door. The poor animal was dead. Jan was the only one knowing about the illegal nibbling by the cat, and after the family recovered a bit after the shock, he told what happened. The family was struck by a second shock: everybody had eaten from the snacks, and Jan decided to call all guests out of their sleep to tell them what danger was threatening them. He himself didn’t feel sick already but he decided to go to the hospital first thing in the morning. Some of the guests couldn’t wait and went that same night. It was an awful night!

That morning the little family went outside to get into the car to the hospital. Jan had wrapped some of the leftovers in plastic so that they could be analysed, you never can tell. Also the dead cat had been put into a board box, maybe the doctors could use the remains to investigate. Then the neighbour came outside and asked “Well, folks, did you have a nice party yesterday night?” Jan started to think: don’t come up with complaints about the noise, we can’t use that now. But the neighbour said: “I knew your were having a party and didn’t want to disturb the festivity. But when I came home after walking the dog I saw how your cat was hit by a car, the poor animal was dead, and I couldn’t do anything but laying him down before your garage door, then you would see him after the party without startling the visitors going home, they wouldn’t see it in the dark”.

This story is true, only the names and cause of celebration have been changed.

Everybody their own State, at what costs?

King Willem I of the Netherlands (including Belgium)

In 1813 Napoleon got defeated by the world powers of the time and all countries he had conquered had to be re-distributed. This was done at the Congress of Vienna (1814 – 1815). The Kingdom of the Netherlands was born anew, with king William I of Orange-Nassau as the ruling king. His territory comprised the present independent states of the Netherlands and Belgium. In 1832 Belgium wanted to be independent of the Northern half of the new kingdom and started a separation movement, supported by France that felt punished by the large kingdom at its Northern border. The separation reasons were not formed by ratio, but by feelings. The North was mainly protestant, the South Roman Catholic. The Southern people had a more or less Roman lifestyle, the Northern people were more Calvinistic. In the South nobility, clergy and elite were still powerful forces, in the North merchants and elite were more enlightened and more “democratic” (although not comparable to what today is understood by that concept). It would however have made far more sense if the states remained together. Together they had everything a modern state needed to develop: raw materials, infrastructure (heavily supported by the new king), ports and harbours, colonies, a developed agricultural sector, cities such as Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Liege, etc. But no, the elites of both parts of the country despised each other and found the others dumb and not reliable. A theatre play in Brussels in 1832 was the spark in the powder barrel. The audience got inspired to raise an uprising movement. The Northern answer was sending an army but neighbouring countries put pressure to withdraw the army, and king William II lost his Southern part of the kingdom. Negotiations followed, and the South had to leave the provinces of North Brabant and Limburg to their Northern neighbours although these provinces had the cultural traits of Belgium: Roman Catholic and a Southern lifestyle. Otherwise the North half would be smaller than the South half and that wasn’t considered “fair”.

I tell this story because of the striking resemblance with “modern” conflicts such as in Georgia, where people from different cultures don’t want to live with each other in one state. Such conflicts are never rational, and are exploited and encouraged by more powerful nations who see this as an opportunity to increase their own power. The same holds for the Kosovo-conflict and other conflicts.

Suppose that one day Belgium would claim the South bank of the river Schelde which is the access to the harbour of Antwerp, and is Dutch territory. The Dutch have obliged themselves to scoop out the Dutch part of the Schelde, but are sometimes slow with performing this duty, and always are accused by the Belgians of slowness, and that they want to protect the interests of the competing harbour of Rotterdam. Suppose that one day the people of the Dutch province of Limburg would be “fed up” with the “Hollandse” exploitation of their province, and want to be part of Belgium, and Belgium would support their claim. Numerous other such examples could be mentioned in Europe, of parts of countries that would like to be independent or belong to another country: maybe Alsace would like to be German (their previous country), maybe Friesland would like to be independent, etc. In fact, Sweden would not hinder their Southern part to become Danish again, as I read a couple of years ago in the newspapers, but this isn’t realized yet. The Basks would also like their own republic, and maybe also other provinces of Spain and Italy. These strivings are not taken seriously because of arguments of reason, of ratio. Except in some rare instances (the Basks) this never leads to war-like situations.

After the fall of communism, it seems as if history repeats itself in countries formerly dominated by communism and, consequently, by the Soviet Union. This “union” appeared to be an imposed union, enforced by Russian power. Now Georgia shows that Russia wants to gain back part of this old power, if not by a communist ideology, then otherwise. Georgia itself had to deal with a similar claim by the Ossetians and other small nation-like groups within and around their young country. Everybody seems to want to have their country, and is prepared to shed blood for it. What this means to welfare and prosperity, doesn’t seem to be of interest. This way a conflict becomes a real conflict because of feelings of misery and revenge for lost house and family. It escalates, former friends and family become mutual enemies, within only a week or so.

Just like in the case of Belgium and the Netherlands, the Georgians and Ossetians would have done better to co-operate, just like all other small countries around the Russian Empire, and don’t give super-powers the alibi to interfere and take advantage from their quarrels. But this seems to be asked too much. It’s not Estonia, Georgia or Poland that Russia wants to “teach a lesson”, what they fear is USA-, NATO- and European influence in these young states. Russia is at this moment the most capitalist country in the world. Former party coryphées are now the billionnairs because they became the president-directors of oil and gaz firms and rule the country still more autocratic than even under communist regime. They don’t want to loose this wealth overnight, and know that many Russians are longing to the time in which they were a superpower, and will forget about the drawbacks. If these super-rich élite can help, then many “common” Russians want to remain poor and pay for protection by the rich, exactly like the Medieval farmer was protected by the count or duke. A dream world, don’t forget that Russia knew centuries of serfship, prolongated in the kolkhozes. Many Russian country people take life as it is, the last thing they long for is democracy, let alone they want to die for it. They only fear it because it belongs to non-Russian lifestyles, and the modern rich will do everything to let them keep this belief. They themselves fear it, too.

In 1813 Napoleon got defeated by the world powers of the time and all countries he had conquered had to be re-distributed. This was done at the Congress of Vienna (1814 – 1815). The Kingdom of the Netherlands was born anew, with king William I of Orange-Nassau as the ruling king. His territory comprised the present independent states of the Netherlands and Belgium. In 1832 Belgium wanted to be independent of the Northern half of the new kingdom and started a separation movement, supported by France that felt punished by the large kingdom at its Northern border. The separation reasons were not formed by ratio, but by feelings. The North was mainly protestant, the South Roman Catholic. The Southern people had a more or less Roman lifestyle, the Northern people were more Calvinistic. In the South nobility, clergy and elite were still powerful forces, in the North merchants and elite were more enlightened and more “democratic” (although not comparable to what today is understood by that concept). It would however have made far more sense if the states remained together. Together they had everything a modern state needed to develop: raw materials, infrastructure (heavily supported by the new king), ports and harbours, colonies, a developed agricultural sector, cities such as Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Liege, etc. But no, the elites of both parts of the country despised each other and found the others dumb and not reliable. A theatre play in Brussels in 1832 was the spark in the powder barrel. The audience got inspired to raise an uprising movement. The Northern answer was sending an army but neighbouring countries put pressure to withdraw the army, and king William II lost his Southern part of the kingdom. Negotiations followed, and the South had to leave the provinces of North Brabant and Limburg to their Northern neighbours although these provinces had the cultural traits of Belgium: Roman Catholic and a Southern lifestyle. Otherwise the North half would be smaller than the South half and that wasn’t considered “fair”.

I tell this story because of the striking resemblance with “modern” conflicts such as in Georgia, where people from different cultures don’t want to live with each other in one state. Such conflicts are never rational, and are exploited and encouraged by more powerful nations who see this as an opportunity to increase their own power. The same holds for the Kosovo-conflict and other conflicts.

Suppose that one day Belgium would claim the South bank of the river Schelde which is the access to the harbour of Antwerp, and is Dutch territory. The Dutch have obliged themselves to scoop out the Dutch part of the Schelde, but are sometimes slow with performing this duty, and always are accused by the Belgians of slowness, and that they want to protect the interests of the competing harbour of Rotterdam. Suppose that one day the people of the Dutch province of Limburg would be “fed up” with the “Hollandse” exploitation of their province, and want to be part of Belgium, and Belgium would support their claim. Numerous other such examples could be mentioned in Europe, of parts of countries that would like to be independent or belong to another country: maybe Alsace would like to be German (their previous country), maybe Friesland would like to be independent, etc. In fact, Sweden would not hinder their Southern part to become Danish again, as I read a couple of years ago in the newspapers, but this isn’t realized yet. The Basks would also like their own republic, and maybe also other provinces of Spain and Italy. These strivings are not taken seriously because of arguments of reason, of ratio. Except in some rare instances (the Basks) this never leads to war-like situations.

After the fall of communism, it seems as if history repeats itself in countries formerly dominated by communism and, consequently, by the Soviet Union. This “union” appeared to be an imposed union, enforced by Russian power. Now Georgia shows that Russia wants to gain back part of this old power, if not by a communist ideology, then otherwise. Georgia itself had to deal with a similar claim by the Ossetians and other small nation-like groups within and around their young country. Everybody seems to want to have their country, and is prepared to shed blood for it. What this means to welfare and prosperity, doesn’t seem to be of interest. This way a conflict becomes a real conflict because of feelings of misery and revenge for lost house and family. It escalates, former friends and family become mutual enemies, within only a week or so.

Just like in the case of Belgium and the Netherlands, the Georgians and Ossetians would have done better to co-operate, just like all other small countries around the Russian Empire, and don’t give super-powers the alibi to interfere and take advantage from their quarrels. But this seems to be asked too much. It’s not Estonia, Georgia or Poland that Russia wants to “teach a lesson”, what they fear is USA-, NATO- and European influence in these young states. Russia is at this moment the most capitalist country in the world. Former party coryphées are now the billionnairs because they became the president-directors of oil and gaz firms and rule the country still more autocratic than even under communist regime. They don’t want to loose this wealth overnight, and know that many Russians are longing to the time in which they were a superpower, and will forget about the drawbacks. If these super-rich élite can help, then many “common” Russians want to remain poor and pay for protection by the rich, exactly like the Medieval farmer was protected by the count or duke. A dream world, don’t forget that Russia knew centuries of serfship, prolongated in the kolkhozes. Many Russian country people take life as it is, the last thing they long for is democracy, let alone they want to die for it. They only fear it because it belongs to non-Russian lifestyles, and the modern rich will do everything to let them keep this belief. They themselves fear it, too.