Tiedon politiikasta ja kielestä politiikassa

Författare

• Ilkka Heiskanen

Abstract

There are close links between knowledge, language and politics. One can e.g. say, that language is a media of knowledge, knowledge is power, power means politics. But these kind of equations have a definite meaning only if the perspective used to look at knowledge is carefully clarified. The article takes a non-voluntaristic approach, where knowledge is not looked at as a generalized knowledge (connaissance) but as general societal intelligence (savoir) and as a historical and social »actor» in its own right. — Politics of knowledge is perceived centering around the sedimentation and de-sedimentation of knowledge. These processes are maintained by several mechanisms: by autonomization of knowledge, constructionism, hegemonization of »reified» knowledge; and conversely by reformism, contra-constructionism and transgression ad aburdum. These processes and mechanisms stabilize the micro-power relations in society (in the sense described and analyzed by Michel Foucault). In order to understand these processes and mechanisms we must study language in terms of symbolic structures both on primary and secondary level (as Roland Barthes has indicated). We must also analyze the content of language as it appears in the formations of discourse. —- The politics of knowledge has an interface with politics proper at least at two levels. First, it determines the micropower relations within practical political action. Secondly, the knowledge on which the practical political action is based is inclined to become automatized — with or without assistance of political science analyses. When automatized, it turns into political discourse, which defines politics and begins to control practical politics as »reified» knowledge. The article points out, how politics of knowledge analyses may broaden and deepen the scope of political science proper; and our conceptions of politics. Finally, the politics of knowledge implications of the »subjectless» approach to analyses of knowledge and politics of knowledge are discussed.