Introduction

It may come as no surprise that knowledge and politics are closely connected. Indeed, with knowledge comes power; and power may in its turn shape what is considered to be knowledge. Foucault is a critical thinker who made some very poignant observations on discourse theory and power structures. He claimed that both are firmly intertwined. Educational institutions are in a sense a very good representation of the connection between power and knowledge. What is part of the national curriculum is therefore highly debated by politicians, because what will be accepted as knowledge by the next generation will either reinforce or shake existing power structures. Not surprisingly, what is part of your country's history (consider Japanese history lessons) or science curriculum (consider the teaching of creationism in the US), is of a great concern to its people and their leaders. 
When we think about knowledge and politics, we may immediately conjure up images of how politicians deal with knowledge and facts, as exemplified by election campaigns and political debates. Politics can be a game of knowledge evasion and the manipulation of facts to win over popular opinion. But does this mean that facts don't matter in politics? With the expansion of the media through the use of modern technologies, we come across a staggering amount of claims made by politicians on a daily basis. In this "post-truth age", it seems increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, news from "fake news", and knowledge from propaganda. Nevertheless, failing to do so can lead to potentially harmful relativist thinking, whereby room is created for unfounded knowledge claims. Trump conveniently brushes off fact as "fake news" when the truth does not suit him, for example. Conway even used terms such as "alternative facts" to disguise lies. A disdain for the factual is arguably as dangerous as dogmatism. Perhaps it is now more important than ever to reflect upon what is true and what not, what constitutes a fact and what is fiction, who possesses and represents knowledge and under what circumstances we should trust expert opinion.
​Sometimes it is not very clear to what extent political ideologies permeate our lives. For example, you may read an article about climate change in the science section of a well-known newspaper. You may trust the knowledge proposed by the article because the argument is well presented and it contains references to research. However, the newspaper itself may be politically coloured or even owned by people with political power and vested interests. It is also important to remember that (scientific) research can be funded by politicians, corporations and ideological groups, albeit indirectly. In addition, some factors that are by and large "beyond our control" (such as culture, upbringing, class and education) can influence our ideological affinities; and we are not always aware of the latter.
It is obvious that politicians are skilful at shaping public opinion and thought. They are often masters at the art of persuasion. They may manipulate their audience and misinform the general public to drive their agenda. Obviously, politicians are not necessarily devious and not all political claims are sinister. When you are very much convinced that your political ideas are correct, you may feel that convincing others is the morally correct thing to do. Nevertheless, it is important to have a good understanding of how knowledge is presented in a political context. A clever use of euphemistic language can downplay things politicians want to hide, whilst emotive discourse might shape voters' opinion. Political propaganda is often one-sided (excludes the middle) and regularly taps into emotions such as fear. This can alter our decision making processes.
The dominant discourse that prevails within a society will also affect what we accept and reject as knowledge. In that sense, those in power may arguably claim ownership of knowledge. Michel Foucault investigated the relationship between knowledge, thought, language and power through an insightful historical analysis. Some of his ideas will discussed further on this web page.

A lesson on Knowledge and Politics by Rob Higson

Download this excellent PowerPoint lesson by BIS teacher Rob Higson on "knowledge and politics".
knowledge_and_politics_-_rob_higson
File Size: 4593 kb
File Type: knowledge and politics - rob higson
Download File

Why should we care?

When we talk about knowledge and politics in TOK, we will consider more than just party politics. Politics can encompass how we consider important current issues and view concepts such as race and gender. Politics can comprise ways of thinking and the textual politics of language and discourse. Dominant groups and those in power may shape and define what we accept and reject as knowledge within a particular community of knowers. Unfortunately, group think and authority worship can be dangerous, as the documentary "Five Steps to Tyranny" highlights. In that sense, we want to encourage independent critical thinking, especially when it comes to issues such as fairness, society, power, values, and law.
A good understanding of the political nature of knowledge may have positive ethical outcomes. For example, if we understand the implications of things such as group think by analysing real life (historical) examples, we may less easily be swayed to accept unethical and biased political claims we encounter in our own lives. In this sense, there is a close connection between ethics, knowledge and politics.
Equally, we have an ethical responsibility to care for what happens in the world around us and to be well-informed before we make political decisions. Sometimes groups of people decide it is time for change. They are not happy with the way things are and may resort to "civil disobedience". In TOK, we could assess the criteria through which judge whether an action should be regarded as justifiable civil disobedience rather than simply discuss "crime", "laws" and "punishment". In this is sense, it is important to remember that simply because something is law, does not make automatically right. Likewise, it is not because something has always been done a certain way that it should necessarily continue that way. 
It may be tempting to conclude that facts don't matter much in politics. Our existing political views are indeed shaped by a range of factors such as the society we live in, our education, wealth, family background etc. However, facts may sometimes change our minds. For example, when we get exposed to facts about climate change, we may change our political affinities. When we see statistics about the Covid-19 Pandemic, may may change the trust in our leaders. When we experience personal, real-life consequences of a government's decisions, we may rethink what we previously believed in.
​A new perspective may trigger much-needed ethical political and social change. Yet, before we ask for change and end up repeating what we reproach previous generations, let's ask ourselves some important questions: On what grounds might an individual believe that they know what is right for others?  In what ways may often deeply held political beliefs and biases affect the acquisition of knowledge? What criteria can we use to decide what makes a society, or nation great?

BBC Documentary:
5 steps to Tyranny

"We may think we know right from wrong. But the BBC's Five Steps To Tyranny demonstrates how the most ordinary people are capable of the most monstrous acts. ​" (Tim Radford)
"Five Steps is a politics lesson, conducted by Sheena McDonald and based on a series of academic experiments, some of them so shocking they have never been repeated." (The Guardian)
TEDx talk by Lord Puttnam:
​What makes a nation great? (now on TED.com)
This talk was  originally presented at TEDxYouth@BISHCMC, an event organised by teachers and students of the British International School, HCMC. Lord Puttnam is a multiple (Oscar/Bafta) award winning producer, who has a keen active interest in politics, education and the environment. In this talk he evaluates what makes a nation great; a topic that is arguably more important than ever before.
Learning idea:
Set up a lunchtime lecture club, a speakers' forum or a TEDx event at your school. This allows for the critical engagement with a range of ideas, including those that fall outside the confines of the curriculum.

Knowledge in a post-truth world.

Reflection: What issues does politics raise about the difference between knowledge and opinion? 
Nowadays, we have so much knowledge at our disposal. Knowledge has, in some sense, become very democratic. We can access online newspapers, websites and videos. We can even look up things we heard about and expect to find new information in a few seconds. Some people might find it overwhelming to have so much knowledge at their disposal. After all, we can come across contradictory perspectives and/or evidence in our search for new knowledge. How do we know what is true? How can we decide what we should or should not accept as knowledge? How can we distinguish between fact and non-fact? A few generations ago, things were quite different. You knew what you learned at school, read in a book or were told by someone with authority. However, throughout post-modern times (1980's-1990's), we started to question these absolute truths. We understood that single stories could be dangerous and we started to approach concepts such as "truth" with scepticism and even relativism. Post-modern ideas proposed that we should include a wider range of perspectives, including those of the non-elite and less powerful groups. This idea was very attractive at the time because it led to tolerance and and a greater inclusion of a wealth of ideas. Moving on a few years, came the age of information technology. In addition to our changed post-modern mindset, we also had the Internet at our disposal. With the advent of the Internet came the access to information on a scale that was unheard of before.  Knowledge has become more democratic in two ways: virtually anyone can access it and virtually anyone can disseminate it. On the one hand, this is great. Knowledge has become much less a thing of the elite or the entitled. It is much easier to find knowledge, and in this sense, it feels like we "know more". However, with all this information at our disposal, how do we distinguish between "good" and "bad" knowledge, "fact" and "fabrication", or "reliable" and "unreliable" sources?
This is not easy. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, many people have given up on this quest. Instead, they do not only think that it is impossible to say something with certainty (they refute the notion of facts); they also feel that facts have become somewhat irrelevant. In politics, this phenomenon is called the post-truth: "Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief." (Oxford Dictionary). Although it is very important to be wary of people who claim to have found "the truth" (this can lead to dogma), we should equally be wary of people who claim that the truth does not matter. When we pretend that facts don't exist, or present obvious knowledge as "fake" news, we create room for our own agenda, propaganda and emotionally appealing but sometimes morally incorrect politics. Some politicians take advantage of this situation. ‘In this era of post-truth politics, it's easy to cherry-pick data and come to whatever conclusion you desire’ Oxford Dictionary). 
Reflection: Why do facts sometimes not change our minds?

Political authorities and the creation & distribution of knowledge.

Reflection: What role do political authorities and institutions play in knowledge creation and distribution?
The possession of knowledge can be political. It carries with it moral responsibility as well as power. Indeed, what people accept or reject as knowledge is of great importance to those who are in power. It may come as no surprise that politicians can be very skilful at shaping what will be accepted as knowledge. We can use language to shape thought and "plant" ideas into someone's mind. We can use rhetorical devises and even logical fallacies to present an argument as more valid than it actually is. We can use emotional language to instil fear amongst our potential voters. We can offer false dilemmas and pretend that there is no middle ground (eg Bush's words regarding the "fight against terrorism": "Either you are with us, or you are against us"). We can use propaganda to propagate our ideas. Although propaganda could be used with the best intentions, it is usually simplistic in nature. Through propaganda, we can withhold knowledge from the public and highlight knowledge that suits our political or moral agenda. Obviously, politicians are not necessarily devious and not all propaganda is sinister. When you are very much convinced that your political ideas are correct, you may feel that convincing others is the morally correct thing to do. In this context, however, it is interesting to wonder on what basis politicians can make decisions for larger groups.
At some points in history, during political uprisings for example, groups of people who overtook (dominant) political powers, have aimed to re-write history and eradicate previous knowledge. Instances where libraries were destroyed, textbook were burned or historical artefacts annihilated illustrate this. Knowledge can indeed represent power. The destruction of knowledge linked to previous powers, such as the intellectual elite (eg Khmer Rouge), and even ostracised minorities (eg burning of Jewish books by Nazis) was a way to overturn, oppress or silence discourse. Such examples illustrate, once again, the close connection between knowledge, power and politics.
It is interesting to analyse where our political views come from and how public opinion is shaped. In this sense, it is important to be aware of your own political perspective and where this perspective might come from. Which discourse have you engaged with throughout your life? Which (charismatic) leaders, narratives or cultural artefacts have shaped your views? Imagine that all the statues in your home town had been removed, your library entirely revamped and your online search controlled by a particular political movement. Might you have different political affinities? Why do you willingly engage with some ideas and reject others? What are the underlying assumptions embedded in the political ideologies that you have accepted so far? How does your historical and geographical context shape your political views? All this brings us back to the core theme of knowledge and the knower. 

Reasonable and rational politics?

Politics deals with power and big issues in life, such as values, morality and fairness. We often feel passionate about these things, which means we can be deeply divided about these matters. In that sense, we could wonder how it is possible to rightly impose political and moral rules on other members of a society? This is where the concept of "public reason" might come in. "Public reason requires that the moral or political rules that regulate our common life be, in some sense, justifiable or acceptable to all those persons over whom the rules purport to have authority" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Public reason can be used to assess the political rules within a society and also to offer us standards for our own behaviour. Although this sounds good in theory, in practice, politics does not always operate this way. 
We like to think that reason is at the basis of politics and policy making. After all, reason seems to play an important role in driving moral progress, the improvement of our society's health and education systems, a fairer distribution of wealth and the development justice system that works for the many rather than the few. We also like to think that our political decisions are rational. However, it appears that this is not always the case. For example, (as argued by Jonathan Haidt), large amounts of working class people keep voting for political parties that clearly act against their interests. So why would we make such irrational decisions when it comes to politics? 
Perhaps, in politics (in practice), reason is used to propagate our deeply held beliefs and affinities, rather than being a genuine method to come to rational conclusions. For example, in a debate, you can use reason to convince others of your views and win them over. This does not mean that you have used reason to come closer to the truth regarding your debating motion. In addition, through fallacious reasoning (see below) we can use "emotion in disguise" to appeal to others' existing intuitions and deeply held beliefs. We may present our arguments as if they are based on reason, whereas in fact, they are not.
What is it about politics that inspires illogical error?
What role does reason play in the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in politics?
Is it truly possible to make an objective and rational political decision?
How reasonable are the political arguments we encounter really?

Politics and fallacious reasoning: 

Politicians are often very good at the art of persuasion. Some politicians may tap into your emotions (often fear) to create room for their arguments or agenda. At the same time, they like to present their arguments as reasonable. After all, when something is presented as reasonable, we are more likely to accept it as true. Sometimes, however, politicians resort to what we call "fallacious reasoning" or "logical fallacies". These logical fallacies are incorrect arguments that may look like they were built on the foundations of logic or reasoning, whereas in fact, they are not. Although the clever use of fallacious reasoning may help sway an audience and even "win" a debate, it will most certainly not help you get closer to the truth. It is useful to know about these logical fallacies, because it helps you to distinguish between genuine knowledge and erroneous knowledge claims. This is important in politics, but it may be helpful your personal life as well. 
reason.pptx
File Size: 1787 kb
File Type: pptx
Download File

Lesson idea: "What a year"
On politics, knowledge, perspective, and reason.

! If you would like to develop this lesson into a full unit, check out the full unit plan just underneath this yellow box !
1) Collaborative brainstorming task: what happened during the year?
2) Discussion of how these same events could be presented differently, omitted, highlighted..., depending on one’s political perspective.
3) Tease out TOK concepts and terms to recap the theme of “knowledge and politics”.
4) Divide the class into groups and allocate each group a political persona and/or perspective.
5) Each group creates a speech « in character » with the title « THIS WAS 20...». This exercise forces students to play with facts, statistics, reason (including employing logical fallacies), and language (eg euphemisms vs pejorative language) to present the same (or similar) events from a different perspective, to suit a given political agenda.
6) The speech is presented to a critical audience of « journalists » (i.e. the other students), who ask questions that aim to uncover things such as misleading statistics, partisanship, logical fallacies, etc.
7) After the activity, discuss which TOK concepts and themes were (implicitly) dealt with through the speech/Q&A.

Unit plan: What a year ! 
​ A series of lessons about post-truth politics and the role of reason within political decision making

The unit plan:

tokpoli_unit_lesson_plan.docx
File Size: 87 kb
File Type: docx
Download File

Powerpoints and handouts per lesson:

tokpoli_lesson_1_posttruth.ppt.pptx
File Size: 2756 kb
File Type: pptx
Download File
tokpoli_lesson_1__posttruth_handout.docx.docx
File Size: 829 kb
File Type: docx
Download File
tokpoli_lesson_2_rational_politics.pptx.pptx
File Size: 3969 kb
File Type: pptx
Download File
tokpoli_lesson_2__rational_politics_handout.dock.docx
File Size: 435 kb
File Type: docx
Download File
tokpoli_lessons_3_and_4_what_a_year.pptx
File Size: 229 kb
File Type: pptx
Download File

The normalising power of knowledge

Reflection: in what ways may often deeply held political beliefs and biases affect the acquisition of knowledge?
​And how might the knowledge you possess further shape those beliefs?
Picture
The things you are currently learning at IBDP are generally accepted as knowledge by the majority of experts and educators. This knowledge is considered to be valuable and, generally speaking, (factually) correct.  However, what is accepted as knowledge one day, may be rejected another. Some of the things your grandparents learned at school, for example,  may now be considered erroneous. This could be because new evidence has come to light, but it can also be because we have changed our perspective over time. Knowledge has a certain normative power. When you learn something at school, for example, you will usually consider this to be true. When something is rejected by an institution that represents knowledge (eg. the IB DP curriculum or a good university), we often refute this too.  
To illustrate this further, we can look at the concept of classification. At schools, we learn to classify things. Classifications can be useful, because they create order in what seems to be chaos. Some classifications seem rather obvious (eg shapes in Maths) and some classification criteria stand the test of time. However, when we classify human behaviour and groups of people, the very act of classifying is "political" in nature. This is particularly well illustrated through the history of knowledge surrounding mental health. A prime example is the classification used by the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual of what is "normal" with respect to mental health.'  It may surprise you that homosexuality was only removed from the APA's list of mental illnesses in 1973. Previously, homosexuality was even treated as a crime. The history of the diagnosis and treatment of women's 'hysteria' provides another interesting (and shocking) starting point for further research. Unfortunately, these deeply held beliefs at the basis of misconceptions regarding gender, mental illness and sexuality, have hampered the progression of knowledge in the human sciences. Many of those beliefs were political (in a broad sense). In that respect, the acquisition of knowledge may be hampered by political bias.
The knowledge we possess is often deeply rooted in our language. The language we use to talk about minorities, illness and gender, can further reinforce stereotypes and relationships of authority. Once again, the connection between language, knowledge and (political) power is very clear. The knowledge we possess can further shape the political beliefs and biases that we hold deeply.

Emotion and politics

Reflection:  What role does emotion play in the formation of political affinities or voting decisions?
In addition to faulty reasoning, politicians may use emotive and persuasive language to shape and manipulate political views. They may tap into the emotions of their audience/voters to win them over. Emotions are indeed vital to connect with voters, and politicians know this. This emotional connection may shape our political affinities and ultimately affect (voting/political) decisions. Unfortunately, emotions may cloud judgement to such an extent that it is difficult to gain knowledge in an unbiased manner. The latter is particularly relevant in this post-truth age. In this sense, emotions can clearly be an obstacle to knowledge. Emotions influence how we view the world, but are we always aware of how emotions lead us to make political claims? Emotions such as disgust, for example, can influence our ethical and political views in a subtle manner and we are often unaware of this fact (see TED talk Pizarro, below). We obviously do not want our emotions to rule political decisions entirely, however, can emotions perhaps give us political knowledge? And, if so, how do we know?
We all know that emotions influence our judgement, but have you ever thought about how emotions can be an actual source of knowledge as such? Emotions may lead us to knowledge which other methods or tools might not reveal. Emotion lies, together with imagination, at the basis of empathy. It would be very difficult to (try to) understand what others think and feel without being able to rely on emotions. The latter is obviously important in politics. One could argue that emotionally intelligent people are indeed more knowledgeable. So how does this tie in with knowledge and politics? Can we gain better political knowledge and understanding through emotions? Ethics and politics are not the same, but some political judgements may require a type of moral judgement. In that respect, emotions do play a role in the creation of political knowledge. Some research even seems to suggest that emotions, such as anxiety, drive us to find more politically relevant information. This, in its turn (or so the argument goes), could lead us to make more rational decisions. Overall, emotions arguably drive politics at its core, as well as the search for knowledge within politics. In addition, emotions can trigger political change, as well as social and moral progress.
Eventually, we aim for knowledge based politics, in which facts still matter and we have an increased awareness of what shapes the formation of our political affinities or voting decisions. In this sense, a good understanding of yourself, and what shapes your emotions as a knower, is invaluable.
Anxiety shows us that you can prick holes in the myth that emotions are a bad thing in a democracy.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Else Marie Holm

Dominant discourse, language and power

Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Orwell
TOK prompts:
 What are the implications of having, or not having, knowledge?
Who owns knowledge?
As seen previously, language may shape thought. In this sense, the language and concepts used by dominant groups (dominant discourse), may subtly affect what we consider to be knowledge knowledge (dominant cognitive paradigm). The political power of knowledge is therefore deeply rooted in the language we use. We can also use language to reinforce political structures and relationships of authority. When we talk about politics in TOK, we do not strictly refer to party politics.  Politics can also refer to power structures and the relationship between those who have and those who do not have power. Politics can refer to groups that are excluded from power or diminished (and even oppressed). Within each country, school or community you know, you are probably able to name the dominant group(s) and the marginalised ones. You may also be able to identify the dominant cognitive paradigm as opposed to other ways of thinking, which are not usually considered "the norm". To illustrate this, we can look at gender and race. Although progress towards equality has come a long way, we have inherited old ways of thinking in the way we speak and think about gender and race. Our language is still very much influenced by concepts that express discriminatory ideas.  We are not always aware of this fact. These concepts, however, subtly influence our thought and they may reinforce existing "political" power structures. All too often we think in binary oppositions. We oppose West to East, man to woman, reason to emotion, 'developed' to 'primitive'. Whilst doing so, we attach value judgements to each element in the opposite binary pairs; and we usually value our side of the coin that bit more than the other side. We also exclude whatever is in the middle of the continuum and consequently simplify our interpretation of the world or reality. French feminist Cixous claims that this binary thinking finds its origins in patriarchal society. Whatever the cause may be of such thought, it is important to remain open-minded and to steer clear of false dilemmas, which are all too often implicitly embedded in cognitive paradigms of knowledge communities. Painter Magritte [Ceci n'est pas une pipe] makes us question through his art how we tend to forget the differences between representation and reality. We can use language and symbols to 'map' reality. Within our language we use words as 'signifiers' to denote something else ('the signified'). But all too often we blend the "signifier" with the "signified". According to Charles Sanders Peirce, we end up thinking through these signs. Just like we end up thinking through maps. And we forget what is really out there. Baudrillard takes this notion even further with his conception of 'the hyperreal'.
Michel Foucault was very much concerned about the relationship between knowledge, meaning and power. He "adopted the term ‘discourse’ to denote a historically contingent social system that produces knowledge and meaning. He notes that discourse is distinctly material in effect, producing what he calls ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’.1 Discourse is, thus, a way of organising knowledge that structures the constitution of social (and progressively global) relations through the collective understanding of the discursive logic and the acceptance of the discourse as social fact. For Foucault, the logic produced by a discourse is structurally related to the broader episteme (structure of knowledge) of the historical period in which it arises. However, discourses are produced by effects of power within a social order, and this power prescribes particular rules and categories which define the criteria for legitimating knowledge and truth within the discursive order. " (Critical Legal Thinking) The relationship between discourse and knowledge is very powerful. Exploring the relationship between knowledge and politics will inevitably lead to an analysis of how we accept discourse (as fact) and how we may accept or reject knowledge.

Is there room for doubt in politics?

TOK prompts:
What counts as good evidence for a claim?
​On what grounds might we doubt a claim?

TOK Exhibition Practice:

Reflection: Do museums package past knowledge to serve the needs of contemporary political systems and authorities?
​Learning activity: Choose a museum in your local area and reflect upon the ideological and political knowledge represented by the objects and artefacts of its collections. Select three objects from this museum and consider how these objects may serve the needs of political systems and authorities.
The illustrations above are all related to the Royal Museum of Central Africa in Tervuren, Belgium. King Leopold of Belgium, used to "own" Congo as his private colony. The people of The Congo Free State were cruelly exploited for profit and even mutilated, tortured and murdered in large numbers. Until fairly recently, the Belgian state has not been very upfront about its horrific colonial past. The museum in Tervuren previously featured a statue of King Leopold that presented him as some sort of well doer who brought civilisation to Africa. The more recent revamping of the museum had as aim to show a more critical view of Belgium's colonial past.

Making connections to the core theme, as suggested by the TOK guide

  • Has technology changed how and where our political views are shaped?
  • In a democratic system, do we have an ethical obligation to be knowledgeable about political issues and events?
  • How does the way that we identify with past political events, such as military victories or defeats, shape our perspective?

Possible knowledge questions on Knowledge and Politics

Acknowledgements: these knowledge questions are taken from the TOK Guide, 2022 Speficiation
Scope
  • ​In what ways is factual evidence sometimes used, abused, dismissed and ignored in politics?
  • Is being knowledgeable an important quality in a political leader? 
  • How can we know whether we have sufficient knowledge before voting in an election?
  • If experts set the standards by which their claims are then to be evaluated, is this process undemocratic?
  • How is the discipline of politics distinct from the practice of politics?
  • What role does knowledge play in the formation of political affinities, or voting decisions?
  • What issues does politics raise about the difference between knowledge and opinion? 

​
Perspectives
  • ​What kinds of knowledge inform our political opinions?
  • To what extent are our political views shaped by society, family backgrounds, education or social class?
  • Why do facts sometimes not change our minds?
  • In what ways may often deeply held political beliefs and biases affect the acquisition of knowledge?
  • Is it possible to write about politics in an objective way?
  • Do museums package past knowledge to serve the needs of contemporary political systems and authorities?
  • Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts on a political issue?
  • When exposed to numerous competing ideologies and explanations, what makes an individual settle on a particular framework?
Methods and Tools
  • ​What impact does technology, particularly social media, have on how we acquire and share political knowledge?
  • What role does emotion play in the formation of political affinities or voting decisions?
  • How might emotive language and faulty reasoning be used in politics to try to persuade and manipulate?
  • To what extent can polls provide reliable knowledge and accurate predictions?
  • What role do political authorities and institutions play in knowledge creation and distribution?
  • Why are referendums sometimes regarded as a contentious decision-making tool?
  • In what ways may statistical evidence be used and misused to justify political actions?




​
Ethics​
  • Are political judgements a type of moral judgement?
  • Can knowledge be divorced from the values embedded in the process of creating it?
  • Do political leaders and officials have different ethical obligations and responsibilities compared to members of the general public?
  • When the moral codes of individual nations conflict, can political organisations such as the UN provide universal criteria that transcend them?
  • On what criteria could we judge whether an action should be regarded as justifiable civil disobedience? 
  • On what grounds might an individual believe that they know what is right for others?
  • What new ethical challenges are emerging from the increased use of data analytics in political activity and decision making?
  • Is it ever justifiable for a politician to act without having good grounds or evidence for doing so? Can we know what justice is and what it requires?
Copyright 2019, An Gulinck, All rights reserved.