(KNW1a) Sociology of Knowledge I: Social Processes of Knowledge

The sociology of knowledge explores the creation and representation of reality and social life, including organizational, practical, historical, cultural, and embodied knowledge, as well as beliefs, myths, facts, customs, routines, identities, and more. This session explores the processes through which knowledge, knowing and not-knowing are created and experienced. Papers focus on the interactions, mediums, and community structures which shape knowledge and its legitimacy, including the role of emotions, recognition of experience, and the perceived status and relevance of knowledge actors. Tags: Communautés, Connaissances, Culture, Théorie

Organizers: Lily Ivanova, University of British Columbia, Anastasia Kulpa, University of Alberta/Concordia University of Edmonton, Alvin Yang, York University

Presentations

nob doran, University of New Brunswick

Learning from 5 year old Joanne: Linguistic lessons for theorists, methodologists and activists

This paper (an extract from `doran, nob {forthcoming} “Codifying Parrhesian Bodies”, Oxford: Routledge’) examines the contributions to social science that can be gained by synthesizing the Millerian approach to ‘Femenist Discourse analysis’ with the Foucauldian perspective on ‘power’, and applying it to the ‘ordinary language’ of underdogs, like 5 year old Joanne. Specifically, it will allow us to see the importance, in mundane interaction, of having a ‘macro cultural discourse’ with which to resist a ‘dominant discourse’. These insights are then used to inform current debates about standpoint theory and qualitative methodology (Smith and Griffin 2022), reflexivity (Onishenko, Doran, Torres and Nyaga 2023) and social/theoretical activism (Collins 2019). The paper finishes by suggesting the need to go beyond Miller’s ‘standpoint’ of the strategic ‘Underdog’; and  proposes, instead, Foucault’s final concept of ‘parrhesia’ (Doran 2015, 2023) so as to forge a “parrhesian underdog standpoint”.

Charlotte Nell, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena

The referee's fear of the 'VAR' - A micro-analysis of the transformation of the praxis of refereeing

In this paper, we examine the use of the VAR (video-assistant-referee) in German soccer from a sociological-phenomenological perspective. We analyze the transformation of the praxis of refereeing before the background of broader social processes of digitalization and parametrization. Despite the argument that soccer is a game that transcends the workings of everyday life, we nonetheless argue that through an analysis of the transformation of the role and function of the referee, a logic of “parametric optimization” that is paradigmatic for late-modern culture can be uncovered. In a first step, we analyze the tasks of an idealtypically constructed “On-Field-Referee” who in his role resembles that of a “hermeneutic conductor”. From this sociology of knowledge perspective, the soccer match is considered a complex ‘situation’ where the field referee must deal with a variety of tasks but is also confronted with blind spots in his judgmental capacity. In contrast to the “hermeneutic conductor”, we will reconstruct the VAR’s role that resembles that of a “parametric accountant”. From a phenomenological perspective, this change reflects a transformation of “situations” into “constellations”, followed by an overemphasis on meticulous rule compliance. This, we argue, ultimately turns the decision-making process into a black box. In this way, the VAR not only delegitimizes the on-field referee but contributes to a process of “structured irresponsibility” on the pitch. The process of parametrization described here is, however, not only restricted to the soccer pitch. The gradual transformation of ‘situations’ into ‘constellations’ rather can be considered as symptomatic of late-modern culture altogether. Hence, the “parametric optimization” follows a logic that aims to guide the moral judgments of the referee by empirical and measurable experience alone. The question of what is right, nonetheless entails an ethical dimension that cannot be answered based on empirical data alone but requires moral judgment. The moral judgment of the “On-Field-referee” however becomes delegitimized and discouraged in the process of digitalization. The analysis presented here of the figure of the referee hence reflects changes in the understanding of the meaning of ‘impartiality’, ‘neutrality’, and objectivity under the conditions of ‘constellationism’. Finally, it is possible to use this framework to look more precisely at the emotional aspects of the game in the fan area. Soccer is a good example of how "negative" emotions such as anger or hatred can occur alongside positive emotions. In our presentation, we argue that changes in emotional reactions can be observed depending on the altered role of the referee. Initially, it may appear that the aggressive emotion of hate, directed towards the On-Field-Referee in the event of an (apparent) incorrect decision, transforms into a less controlled and situational emotion of anger with the implementation of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR). This transformation at first seems to lead to a form of "protection" of the On-Field Referee. However, it can be argued that other emotions such as despite or disgust prevail and invectivities persist or even intensify. Consequently, the focus of anger during a game (no longer) revolves around a specific referee in a given situation but is rather transformed into a general disposition of anger towards any referee who now is perceived merely as a "function" within a broader VAR-network. This new quality of anger even holds a unifying potential of forging new alliances between opposing fan bases, previously inconceivable, albeit at the cost of the legitimacy and safety of the referee – who systematically and regardless of their performance runs the risk of becoming the most hated person in the stadium.

---

Non-presenting author: Diana Lindner, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena

J Overholser, University of Calgary

Exploring the Social Construction and Public Perceptions of Expertise Through the Lens of Fandom

What is considered “expertise” in contemporary western society? Who is able to claim the status of “expert” and how do they do so? How do traditional “experts” maintain positions of authority in a time when there is growing distrust of formal institutions of knowledge and power? Exploring these questions, we argue in our paper that fandom studies offer a conceptual framework and empirically driven insights that help inform directions for researching the social construction and public perceptions of expertise. Expertise, especially the legitimacy and credibility of expert knowledge, has faced growing challenges in recent years. The increasing erosion of what we consider traditional notions of expertise has become more prevalent under what some dub a post-truth era replete with misinformation, disinformation, and uncertainties regarding what constitute basic facts and scientific knowledge. Furthermore, historical distrust of formal institutions of knowledge and power, especially by various marginalized communities continues to grow and add to these challenges. These challenges impact all areas of life from politics to social movements and activism, to popular culture and more. Yet especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have particularly impacted and been exacerbated regarding medical expertise, e.g., the professional knowledge and guidance provided by physicians, epidemiologists, and other specialists on disease and contagion. In our presentation, we will provide a brief overview of fandom studies and outline the basis of our arguments for the relevancy of fandom studies for examining the social construction and public perceptions of expertise. To illustrate how a fandom studies framework can be used to analyze the construction and perception of expertise, we will use a case study comparing two prominent claims-makers, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, over medical knowledge and advice. The first half of the case study will analyze Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has served as the Chief Medical Advisor under the Biden administration, and during the Trump administration as the lead of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. We frame Fauci as a traditional elite medical expert and one who faced challenges in the present climate with retaining legitimacy in the eyes of some audiences. In contrast, the second half of the case study looks at Dr. Joseph Mercola, one of the recently identified ‘disinformation dozen’ accused of peddling ‘fake news’ regarding the coronavirus, mask mandates, and so forth. Mercola, we argue, made use of his charismatic persona in linking up to online fandoms to develop a position of authority as an opinion leader. Rather than take up a normative framework demonstrating one ‘side’ to be right over the other, we instead will show how experts who are unable to secure and maintain a ‘fan base’ or a similar connection to the public using online tools and strategies identified within fandom studies, will suffer from a lack of relevance (i.e., credibility and legitimacy). This analysis holds key implications for sociologists themselves, including a discussion of to what extent are sociologists, who wish to gain traction for their research and be recognized as experts themselves, behooved to cultivate and maintain their own fandoms?

---

Non-presenting author: Michael Adorja, University of Calgary