Words and (Social) Things
May 4th, 2009 Rafael AlvaradoI suppose it is the prerogative of different generations to simultaneously dismiss and retrieve old ideas by introducing new words for them. I have in mind words like “metacognition” and “knowledge management.” In both cases there is an existing word that more or less describes the referent of the new(ish) word: epistemology and education respectively. Both metacognition and epistemology refer to, roughly, the activity of “thinking about thinking,” and the core mission of education is the management of knowledge — producing it, storing it, reproducing it, etc. However, in each case, the intent of the new word is clearly different from the older one, and this difference can be attributed to a different organizational context: knowledge management is about education and research in corporate settings (now defined as “knowledge producers”), as opposed to society or the world at large, while metacognition has flourished within the relatively narrow context of academic departments of education.
But why the complete absence of the old words in the new discourses? Why not call metacognition something like “applied epistemology”? Or knowledge management “corporate education” or “corporate teaching and learning”? It can’t be for lack of familiarity with the older words. Nor can we assume that the newer words are more “sticky” and easier to use; that just begs the question. I think it’s clear that the problem with these constructions is their connotations: they carry too much semantic baggage.
But now here’s the thing: the new words do not simply stand alongside the old ones, they actually seem to take their places. The new words take the place of the old words at an abstract level–but then replace the implicit social meanings in the process. The effect is to implicitly usher in newer or different institutions in the space reserved for the old. So knoweldge management is about education, yes, but education in a business setting where knowledge is viewed as a competitive advantage, not a general good for the betterent of humankind. And, eventually, this will have implications for education itself, as essays like “Applying Corporate Knowledge Management Practices in Higher Education” become more common.
Similarly, metacognition is about epistemology, but not as an abstract philosophical concern, nor one tied to the remote activity of a purely scientific enterprise as it once was; it is epistemology in the service of classroom teaching and learning, where the users of the word no doubt think it belongs. So the effect of the word “metacognition” is to usher out the ivory tower and to replace it with the more populist institution of the classroom. And this meaning is consistent with the current ethos of educational populism, as expressed in wider ideas like connectivism.
So language really does embody the social: these words are actually the encodings and amplifiers of social changes happening right now. Perhaps those of us familiar with the older names of things would do well to note these shifts and pay attention to their institutional commitments.
