Introduction
As history has so often proven, there is not one single philosophical concept that can acquire widespread acceptance without any form of criticism. The advancement of education has availed different skills and tools to scholars to question and challenge some of the philosophical notions and sometimes come up with notions of their own. This has consequently resulted in intensified debates and arguments about various philosophical concepts. In recent years, the academic world has been plagued by skepticism about knowledge. Various arguments have been brought forth about the nature of knowledge, its sources and its basic structure and form.
At the center of this heated discussion about knowledge has been the relativism theory. Generally, the relativism point of view in regards to knowledge is that it is always dependent on some specific conceptual framework (Boghossian, 2006, p. 25). This conceptual framework constitutes a web of beliefs. A conceptual framework holds no unique privilege over other frameworks (Rorty,1991, p.15). In fact, this is the major reason why proponents of relativism argue that no single claim to knowledge is more true or accurate than others (Latour & Woolgar, 1979). This is because preconceptions or ideologies shape all knowledge. Protagoras, a renowned Greek philosopher articulated one of the most classical phrases about relativism when he stated, “Man is the measure of things." What Protagoras meant through this classical statement is that man is the standard of all truth on earth. It is consequently futile to try searching for fixed knowledge standards beyond the various conceptual frameworks existent in the world and that are ever evolving. For instance, knowledge in Medieval and Renaissance Europe was dependent on the conceptual framework of that time and place (Clark, 1981, p 148). The knowledge on the modern world depends on the specific conceptual frameworks available throughout the world as well as throughout the distinctive and variant social environments (Clark, 1981, p 150).
It is virtually impossible to have knowledge, which is not shaped by ideologies and conceptions. Perhaps it would be wise to first look at the meaning of the two words. Ideologies refer to shared beliefs and ideas that serve to justify the interests of the dominant group in the society. Ideologies are essentially present in almost every society in the world whereby ingrained and systematic inequalities exist between different groups that make up that society. The ideology concept has a relatively close association with power, since the ideological systems of society often serve to legitimize or justify the differential power that is held by the unequal groups in the society (Giddens 2001, p.691). Knowledge has been shaped by ideologies since time immemorial. This is, in fact, the reason knowledge developed by one faction of the society based on its ideologies is often ridiculed by other societies. In other cases, other societies will use their own ideological values to refute the standards of knowledge set by another society. In this regard, ideology constitutes the conceptual framework on which knowledge is derived. Preconceptions also shape the way knowledge is produced in the society. Preconceptions also resemble ideologies significantly, as they also constitute a set on inner prior beliefs about a particular element or process that influences how an individual or society understands something or constructs knowledge about something. One again, different societies have different preconceptions about similar things and this often leads to the construction of varying knowledge standards. None of the different societies can, however, claim that their standard of knowledge is superior to the other, as both have been constructed using varying preconceptions that each believe are true and accurate. This argument is further proof to the existence the concept of social construction of knowledge. The theory reinforces the notion that impossible to have knowledge that is not somehow shaped by preconceptions and ideologies. The theory of social construction of knowledge tries to explain knowledge in term of historical and social factors (Bloor, D 1996, p.849). This refers to the technical and cognitive skills that specific groups such as scientists possess their level of training as well as the equipment that is at their disposal in the course of constructing knowledge (Nicolson and McLaughlin 1988, p.235). Generally, the hypotheses that human beings develop shape in advance what the same humans find out. Knowledge often emanates from observations made by humans and the interpretation of these observations by the same human. Naturally, all humans have some underlying assumptions that exist even before they observe certain phenomena (Deroy, 2010, p.448). This is indeed a credence to the adage that states, “humans will always be humans." It is virtually impossible for a human being to make objective observations. Consequently, different human beings can observe the same phenomena and make observations. However, the observations are often interpreted so differently and this leads to the production of varying modules of knowledge. No one interpretation can be considered to be superior to the other or considered to be of a better standard since as shown above, the observations themselves were not purely objective. Most of the facts in the society are themselves socially constructed and vary from one social setting or one culture to another. A perfect example is the rules if courtesy. These are mainly products of cultural beliefs and conventions. One society cannot to have superior rules of courtesy when these rules are based on local cultural conventions.
This concept relates to both social and natural science. In the creation of scientific knowledge, it is clear to see that this knowledge is hugely selective because the initial input under study is often filtered in accordance to the skills, the priorities as well as the equipment that is at the disposal of the observer (Allen, P. 2001, p.32). It is always subjective and never objective. In addition, the input that is used for the creation of “new knowledge” is never derived from a blank slate. Instead, it is always based on a set of previously existing theories and beliefs. Latour and Woolgar particularly criticize the notion that the discovery of scientific concepts is purely objective and claim that despite the claims of objectivity in the way scientists often eliminate chaos and make order; science constitutes a significant “craft of character” (Latour and Woolgar, 1979, p.290). All these concepts are further proof of the fact that it is not possible to produce knowledge that is not based or shaped by ideologies and preconceptions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is safe to argue that it is impossible to have knowledge that is not in some way shaped by preconceptions and ideologies. The way that human beings are created prevents this from taking place. No matter how hard they try, especially in regards to the investigation of new knowledge through experimentation and fact-finding, some element of subjectivity will always be there. This subjectivity will emanate mainly from the ideologies and preconceptions held by the observer. The preconception and ideologies held by this observer will without a doubt have an impact or influence on the outcome or the knowledge obtained. There is no way that that knowledge can be free of these two elements and, therefore, human beings should accept that their ideologies and preconceptions will always play a role in their construction of knowledge.
References
Allen, P 200, What Is Complexity Science? Knowledge of the Limits to Knowledge. Emergence, vol.3 no.1, 24-42
Berger, P & Luckmann, T 1971, The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin Books, Middlesex.
Boghossian, P. A 2006, Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Bloor, D 1996, 'Idealism and the Sociology of Knowledge', Social Studies of Science, vol.26, no.4, pp.839-856.
Clark, C 1981, The Sociology of Knowledge: what it is and what it is not. Oxford Review of Education, vol. 7, no. 2, 145-155.
Cowie, H., & Aalsvoort, G. M 2000, Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge, Oxford, Pergamon.
Deroy, O 2010, Worlds of Truth: A Philosophy of Knowledge. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 26, no.4, pp. 446-448.
http://ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/login?url=http://onlineres.swin.edu.au/1012513.pdf
Giddens, A 2001, Sociology, Polity, Cambridge.
Kammerhofer, J 2012, Positivism, New York, Oxford University Press.
Latour, B & Woolgar, S 1979, Laboratory Life: The social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage, London.
Newman, D 2008, Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life, Pine Forge Press, London.
Rorty, R 1991, Objectivity, relativism, and truth, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
