Economic Knowledge and Power

Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 59 (1):171-189 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The main claim of the study is that technocratic public administration based on knowledge as a key element of power, significantly affects the idea of what is objective and what is objectivity. I explore how scientific objectivity as part of a scientific ethos has been evolving on the example of economic knowledge. A key institutional feature of economic knowledge is that it includes in fact two relatively autonomous epistemic cultures: academic one, connected to the production of knowledge in academia and expert-administrative one developing in public and corporate governance systems. The peculiarity of knowledge demanded and functioning in public administration is instrumentality (a possibility to be transformed into technology) and an exeptional focus on quantification. As a result ‘governing by number’ becomes a key social technology and at the same time numbers seem to embody objectivity. I show that economic knowledge in public administration involves an inevitable and deepening ontological gap with ‘objective reality’. The state needs not true but effective knowledge: the task of administrating does not presuppose a realistic representation of the administrated object, but rather seeks to simplify it, to plan it, or even to construct. Thus, unlike scientific knowledge, the objectivity of knowledge in administrative practices has almost nothing to do with the object (in sense of truthfulness, representation). Meanwhile, ongoing need for academic economic knowledge to be used into the state administration and its further development in a fundamentally alien sphere leads to a significant deformation of scientific ethos, which is a crucial regulatory element in the scientific knowledge production. Erosion affects both aspects of objectivity as an ontological principle and as an ‘epistemic virtue’. Against this background, objectivity as an ‘epistemic virtue’ has been transformed into the ‘technique of distancing’ and the principle of technical impersonality, which imply eventually the replacement of the ‘knowledge self’ by a technical system.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,611

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Technoscience: “Where the Danger Is, Grows the Saving Power Also”.Lada V. Shipovalova - 2020 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 57 (1):45-50.
Knowledge as a Public Good and Knowledge as a Commodity.Nico Stehr - 2020 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 57 (4):40-51.
Production of knowledge about the knowledge.Olga Koshovets - 2017 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 52 (2):40-46.
On the power of scientific knowledge.Amanda Machin & Nico Stehr - 2018 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 55 (1):19-22.
The power of scientific knowledge: from research to public policy.Reiner Grundmann - 2012 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Nico Stehr.
The Dynamics of Power and Knowledge in Science.Joseph Rouse - 1991 - Journal of Philosophy 88 (11):658-665.
Knowledge and Mystery.Pierre Darriulat - 2010 - Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 10:10-25.
Economic theory and legal studies: towards the bilateral dialogue.Liana Tukhvatulina - 2017 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 51 (1):240-249.
Naturalized Philosophy of Science and Economic Method.Christoph Luetge - 1998 - The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 37:165-179.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-03-16

Downloads
9 (#1,261,065)

6 months
7 (#441,920)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references