Tacit Knowledge

A representative sentence from Bohm's chapter 6: "So the first point is: is it possible to suspend the action without suppressing it? If you finde it is not possible, then you observe the process of suppression without suppressing the suppression." The prose in these chapters often had me spinning in circles. If I understand, generally, what Bohm is talking about throughout these chapters, than I think this type of circular reasoning, reinforcement, and complicated simplicity forces his reader to enact his strategies for improving the communication gap. This style of writing gave me consistent emotional reactions, ones that I was aware of throughout the chapters.

While I wasn't always sure what was going on in Bohm, I was able to appreciate some his discussion of tacit knowledge. Bohm brings up tacit knowledge to explain the shift from incoherence to coherence (pages 89-91). For this change to take place, Bohm contends, must take place in the space of concrete thought itself. Abstract thought is not enough to take the mind from incoherence to coherence.

His example in this section is a familiar one, once you learn how to ride a bike yaddayaddayadd, but the idea of unconscious knowledge brought up another example in my mind. In 2006, Michael Pollan wrote a book called the Omnivore's Dilemma. Pollan, a journalism professor at UC Berkeley, traces a 'natural history' of three meals through the book, but in his introduction he meditates on a the dilemma facing all omnivoric animals in the world: how do I know what food is? It is truly an amazing thing to watch an animal approach an unknown object, and go through the steps to decide if that object is food or not. Where does this knowledge come from? How are certain omnivores so good at eating things that nourish them and ignoring things that might poison them? I think this is an apt example for a few reasons. First of all, the omnivore's ability to differentiate relies on evolutionary memory as well as learned memory. The second reason is that the tacit knowledge of what to eat impacts the actions of the omnivore as well. I'm not sure exactly how these two are connected, but hopefully rereading and discussing Bohm might make it easier to see.

Food and memory are strongly linked, no question. One reason this could be true is that, once upon a time, we had to make life-and-death decisions about what to eat and what to let be. The stronger our memory functioned in this realm, the more likely we were to learn from our previous mistakes. Perhaps this is less about memory and more about tacit knowledge.

Susan Bordo

Monday's snowy weather didn't prevent a renowned scholar from giving a talk on campus. Susan Bordo holds an endowed chair position at the University of Kentucky, where she is a member of the Women's and Gender Studies and English departments. Affiliations aside, she is one of the foremost Feminist philosophers and is credited with pioneering Body Studies as a discipline. Considering Professor Strickland's research interests, it was no surprise to see her there as well. The talk was called "Beyond Eating Disorders" and explored the intricacies of the relationships between bodies, culture, capitalism, and the historical implications of all of these. It was fascinating, and I'd be happy to talk with you if you want to know more.
The reason I went to this particular talk (besides the catered reception and free wine) was because of the connection between contemporary eating disorders and my interest in the cultural implications of food. I've been working with my students to see the myriad of different ways food impacts their daily lives on all levels of the food chain (production, distribution, consumption, etc). Thinking about eating disorders as a result of the preceding moments on the chain, gives me a much different understanding of those disorders. Part of Bordo's talk was addressing the social stigma that eating disorders are wholly psychological or defects of character, which coalesced nicely with my understanding of the food chain as impacting more than just what's on our plates.
On a side note, I was lucky enough to have attended the 'meet and greet' for students prior to the talk. I say lucky because I was the only person who showed up (besides LuAnn Roth, an English professor who has been coordinating the entire year-long Food & Society series), and had over an hour to talk with Bordo. It was a great opportunity, not only to be able to talk to one of the most distinguished contemporary American feminist philosophers, but to get to hear her take on academics, conferences, and her life as a professor. Her take on academic writing was different than others I have heard, in that she strives to bring her academic prose, her challenging concepts, and her overall message to a level that most (if not all) audiences can appreciate. She told me that one of the most gratifying things that happens to her is when a non-academic, non-college-aged person tells her how much impact her work has had on his/her life. She also teaches a graduate-level course on 'popularizing' esoteric, academic prose to be read by a more general audience. This idea was contrary to what I assumed of academic work, especially that of Philosophers.
Lots of ideas here that play into our discussions of Arguing Differently. Care to comment?