384 Knowl. Org. 40(2013)No.6 J. Hansson. The Materiality of Knowledge Organization The Materiality of Knowledge Organization: Epistemology, Metaphors and Society Joacim Hansson Linnaeus University, Department of Library and Information Science, School of Cultural Sciences, 351 95 Växjö (Sweden), <[email protected]> Joacim Hansson is professor of library and information science at Linnaeus University, Växjö Sweden. He has published six books and numerous articles on librarianship and knowledge organization, both in Sweden and internationally. Hansson, Joacim. The Materiality of Knowledge Organization: Epistemology, Metaphors and Society. Knowledge Organization. 40(6), 384-391. 29 references. ABSTRACT: This article discusses the relation between epistemology, social organization and knowledge or- ganization. Three examples are used to show how this relation has proven to be historically stable: 1) the or- ganization of knowledge in 18th century encyclopedias; 2) the problem of bias in the international introduc- tion of DDC in early 20th century libraries in Scandinavia; and 3) the practice of social tagging and folksono- mies in contemporary late capitalist society. By using the concept of ‘materiality’ and the theoretical contribution on the documentality of social objects by Maurizio Ferraris, an understanding of the character of the connection between epistemology and social order in knowl- edge organization systems is achieved. Received and accepted 1 September 2013 1.0 Introduction sumptions in library and information science literature, as found in, for instance, ‘classic’ knowledge organization In his important but largely overlooked essay Information theory (Svenonius 2001; 2004) and domain theory (Hjör- Criticism: Where Is It? Jack Andersen makes a simple, but land 2008). It emphasises the relation between knowledge, epistemologically important, proposition: “Society is the power, and division of labor as the foundation of knowl- basic unit of knowledge organization” (Andersen 2008, edge organization. In its directness, Andersen’s statement 102). Anderson (102-103) goes on to demonstrate how might feel like a truism, but dismissing it as such may be a this works: mistake, not least looking at today’s pervasive information flows and digital document environments. Instead it pre- Social organization GENERATES religion, law, poli- sents us with interesting challenges for knowledge organi- tics, science, economics, education, art, commerce, zation. The reason for this is simply that knowledge can industry, and administration, which GENERATE take many forms. documents and information affiliated with institu- In his deeply influential study Knowledge: Its Creation, Dis- tions that support and maintain social structures, tribution and Economic Significance (1982), Fritz Machlup ac- power & influence, which GENERATES produces counts for five general types that can be considered legiti- and distributes, through a variety of genres: books, mate as the basis of classificatory structures: (1) practical articles, journals, laws, reports, memorandums, ad- knowledge; (2) intellectual knowledge; (3) small-talk and vertisements, newspapers, pamphlets, and different pastime knowledge; (4) spiritual knowledge; (5) unwanted communicative situations, which GENERATE knowledge. When we consider the history of knowledge knowledge organization systems. organization systems, we find an almost exclusive limita- tion to the first two categories; practical knowledge and in- This perspective on the division of knowledge goes far tellectual knowledge. People in general, however, build beyond the traditionally formulated epistemological as- their lives on various combinations of all five categories of Knowl. Org. 40(2013)No.6 385 J. Hansson. The Materiality of Knowledge Organization knowledge, as noted through Machlup’s sociological per- non and Whitford 1994; Trosow 2001), then it is simply a spective. While confining analytic structures in knowledge general turn of belief, which proposes that reality only ex- organization systems to such limitations, we live in a soci- ists in relation to our ability to express it. Such propositions ety (at least in the so called ‘developed’ countries) where may take form as language games, as in Ludwig Wittgen- the current form of capitalism has gone so far that it stein’s Philosophical Investigations (2009a), where the signifi- forces us to rethink much of what we have learned being cance of a terminology is dependent on the context and ‘true’ legitimate knowledge. Furthermore, ‘truth’ is today language use at hand. connected to ‘information,’ which, in turn, is increasingly What Wittgenstein did was to emphasize that the mean- defined by economic value. This development has been— ing of language (thus knowledge) is directly related to its and is—rapid. It triggers a need to question and discuss the potential use. He formulated this idea as an alternative to value of knowledge organization and its underlying epis- his own ‘picture theory’ described in Tractatus Logico- temological assumptions. This article is thought to be a Philosophicus (2009b). The picture theory was based on the part of such a discussion. The main part consists of a dis- Aristotelian notion that knowledge categories are objective cussion around three examples, where social change and and that language mirrors knowledge mimetically by refer- ideological preferences have played a significant role in the ence. The alternative epistemology of Philosophical Investiga- promotion of new forms of knowledge organization sys- tions provided traditional knowledge organization with a tems. The perspective of the analysis is basically materialis- whole new set of problems. Elaine Svenonius refers to it as tic, in a broad, neo-Marxist sense; relations between social a shift from ‘paradigmatic’ to ‘syntagmatic’ relations in the structure, economic power and division of labor govern term structures of classification systems and thesauri: the way in which claims of epistemological legitimacy for “paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, knowledge organization systems are made. Furthermore, definitional, and true in all possible worlds. Syntagmatic re- such factors ultimately determine which claims actually lationships are space-time dependent, aposteriori, empiri- gain legitimacy (Hansson 2006). For such a perspective, the cal, synthetic, and often transient” (Svenonius 2004, 583). quote from Andersen is a good start. Before we arrive at Thus, syntagmatic relationships emerge as they are formu- the examples, though, we need to initiate a brief discussion lated and their significance is socially, ideologically, and on the problem of finding an adequate epistemological po- pragmatically constructed. sition in relation to the organization of knowledge. Today, the value of social constructivism and post- modern views on science are scrutinized and questioned 2.0 Ontology lost? too. Critique comes from various places, but is most prevalent within philosophy itself. But, as contemporary Knowledge organization systems normally presupposes society tends to move away from a moral and epistemo- some kind of ontology, that there is something ‘out there,’ logical common ground, thus allowing several forms of independent of individual conscience and experience, that knowledge to prevail side by side, is it really reasonable to it is possible to know something about and thus to organ- dismiss constructivism and postmodern relativism? The ize. In that sense, most systems are thought to be repro- multitude of legitimate knowledge forms seen today is ducing some sort of structure, which refers to an equiva- more or less randomly connected to different document lent in the world as such. This presupposes a very funda- types in digital environments. Is not postmodern mental assumption; that epistemology is a sort of ‘key’ (post)epistemology and practice the very essence of late with which it is possible to unlock the ontological level of capitalist society? Well, it seems to depend on what we are reality, whether natural, social, or spiritual. The fact is that, talking about—it may be so on a day-to-day sociopolitical turning back to Machlup, only two categories of knowl- level, but not necessarily so when it comes to epistemol- edge make ontological claims: intellectual and spiritual. It is ogy and its consequences for knowledge organization. As also within these that we find struggles of epistemology. postmodernism denounces ontology as such, and in most As bibliographical classification systems in most cases refer cases epistemology too, we face a problem. We need to be to intellectual knowledge, often in the form of disciplinary able to formulate an ontological level independent of rela- divisions in academia (also when it comes to spiritual tivistic approach. Such ontology must encapsulate mate- knowledge; ‘religion’), claims and metaphors of scientific rial, social, and ideal objects. One attempt of promoting knowledge is of interest to discuss. One of the most tradi- such an ontology, especially in relation to social objects is tional claims of scientific knowledge is that of ‘objectivity,’ presented by the Italian philosopher Maurizio Ferraris in The notion of objectivity has, however, been heavily chal- his book Documentality: Why It Is Necessary To Leave Traces lenged now for several decades. If it is not social construc- (2013). Taking the material document as a point of depar- tivism (Berger and Luckmann 1966), neo-pragmatism ture, he