That's an excellent concept to focus on.
The nonlexical in this context refers to forms of knowledge and communication that exist outside of traditional written or spoken language (i.e., outside of "books" and "signs").
The Role of the Nonlexical in the Epistemic Commons
The inclusion of the nonlexical is crucial because it directly challenges the dominant model's reliance on the "book of knowledge" and written credentials as the sole source of legitimacy. It recognizes that understanding and meaning are generated through diverse, non-verbal processes.
Here's a breakdown of what the nonlexical encompasses and its function in the proposed commons:
1. Types of Nonlexical Knowledge
The nonlexical includes forms of knowledge that are felt, practiced, embodied, or materially expressed:
Embodied Knowledge (Habitus): Skills, crafts, practices, and physical knowledge acquired through experience and repetition, such as a master carpenter's intuition, a musician's touch, or a dancer's movements.
Affective/Emotional Knowledge: Understanding derived from feelings, shared sentiment, and emotional resonance within a community that words alone cannot capture.
Material and Sensory Knowledge: The knowledge embedded in objects, materials, and environments—how a ceramicist "reads" the clay, or how a sailor "knows" the weather by the feel of the wind.
Rituals and Performance: Shared actions, ceremonies, and performances that communicate deep cultural meaning and history without relying on a written text.
2. Function in the Commons
In the shared epistemic commons, including the nonlexical serves several key functions:
De-centering the Text: It moves authority away from the group that merely possesses the written word or the notation, forcing participants to acknowledge that knowledge is richer and more varied than what can be formalized into a credentialed text.
Situating Knowledge: It highlights knowledge as a situated and relational process, emerging directly from the doing and the interaction with materials, other people, and nonhuman elements—a core concept of the "human-nonhuman actor-networks."
Promoting Co-Interpretation: Since nonlexical forms are often ambiguous or tacit, they require people to gather around them and engage in informal co-interpretation to make meaning, directly fostering the collaborative nature of the commons.
Including the "Without the Book": Crucially, it provides a channel for the knowledge of those "said to be without the book" to be recognized and valued, directly countering the initial critique of epistemic domination.
In essence, the nonlexical ensures that the epistemic commons is truly hybrid and plural, grounding knowledge in practice and lived experience rather than solely in abstract, codified information.
Would you like me to elaborate on the connection between this "nonlexical" knowledge and the concept of contextual authority?
ok
Yes, the link between nonlexical knowledge and contextual authority is central to how the proposed commons mitigates the dangers of "flattening authority."
Here is how these two concepts work together to create a more robust and equitable knowledge system:
Nonlexical Knowledge and Contextual Authority
In the traditional, monopolistic system, authority is fixed and universal, tied to a written credential (like a university degree) regardless of the specific situation. The commons flips this by making authority dynamic and situational, validating expertise based on the immediate context.
1. Authority Emerges from Practice
Contextual authority means that the recognition of expertise is granted based on demonstrated ability and situated knowledge, rather than just abstract certification. This is where the nonlexical shines:
The Nonlexical as Evidence: If someone's knowledge is primarily embodied (a master chef, a skilled farmer, a technician), their authority isn't proven by a text but by their success in a specific context (the quality of the dish, the health of the crop, the repair of the machine). The nonlexical knowledge is the evidence.
Situated Expertise: The person with contextual authority is the one who knows how to deal with a specific problem in a specific location, using tools and materials that might not be mentioned in any book. Their knowledge is high-resolution for that particular context.
2. Modularity and Preventing Flattening
By emphasizing contextual authority, the commons prevents the risk of "weighting knowledge claims equally" (flattening), which could lead to misinformation:
Modular Recognition: The system becomes modular. Someone might hold high authority (expert status) in one module (e.g., repairing specific antique machinery, which requires high nonlexical skill) but have low authority in another (e.g., astrophysics). This is a hierarchy based on relevance, not general social prestige.
Specificity over Universality: Contextual authority forces participants to ask: "Who knows the most about this specific thing right here, right now?" This immediately validates nonlexical forms of knowledge that are often ignored by universal, text-based credentials. For example, a village elder's nonlexical understanding of local weather patterns or medicinal plants is given authority in the context of local ecology, even if they possess no formal scientific degrees.
In short, nonlexical knowledge provides the practical, situated content, and contextual authority provides the mechanism for that content to be recognized as legitimate and authoritative within the hybrid commons.
LLM
No comments:
Post a Comment