What is "Common Knowledge"?
Recently a MingPao columnist posted a 1953 Elementary School Common Knowledge Examination. Here are some sample questions from that exam:
1. What kind of country is Sparta and Athens?
2. Describe the origin of the French Revolution.
3. a. Where are the typhoons region? b. How are deserts formed?
4. Try to compare the farm techniques of China and United States.
5. When is the United Nations formed? Where is the headquarter? What should the United Nations do to achieve "globalization"?
6. Why should a government tax its citizens?
7. Use a diagram with words to describe how the tides work.
8. List out all the vitamins and its functions.
My dad and I had an argument about this. He suggested that by reading these exam questions this is just how smart the people back then are. My argument is that this is hardly common knowledge; for me, it is unimaginable that most grade 6 kids would know the answer to these questions. My father then said he has a friend, who is so smart, that by grade 4 he memorized all of China's history. I countered that that is only him: we are talking about "common knowledge" here. I asked him if he knows where Sparta is. He said it's in Africa. I then pointed out that Sparta is definitely not in Africa - if he is a common man, and he doesn't know where Sparta is, then how in the world is that question a "common knowledge"? (And I'm not just picking on the particular; he doesn't know most of the questions apart from the economic ones.) What is "common knowledge" is by definition common among the people within a historical context. "Fire is hot" is common knowledge; "Li Bai is a great poet" is common Chinese knowledge. The eight questions above are basically specialized knowledge. My father argues that all of these questions are discussed everywhere (in newspaper, on the radio, taught in school); if one pays attention to things around him/herself, one would know the answer. This, however, assumes that one's source of knowledge is actually correct and reliable. But given the Hongkong cultural context, why would question #1-4, 7 and 8 be discussed at all in sources, and why would question #5 and 6's answers be reliable (since they are bound to be ideological and therefore manipulative)? Hence how can these be considered as "common knowledge"?
What is the point of all this? The point is one should be careful about using the term "common knowledge" because it is all too easy to take something specialized as "common" and dismiss those who cannot answer "common" questions on the ground of their "ignorance". Somebody who can do very well on Jeopardy isn't exactly someone who is very analytical and smart either. Having these "common" knowledge does not mean a thing: frankly nobody cares the origin of the French Revolution; what matters is that you have things to support what you say. This means not only "what is the origin of the French Revolution?", but also "why is it the origin of the French Revolution?" From that perspective, we can clearly see that this is not "common" knowledge, but something very specialized.
One should always be careful with a term like "common knowledge": to whom is this common? And why are they common? The common implies the uncommon, just as narratives imply silences. So is a question like "how does the devaluation of the Chinese currency affect the economy of HongKong?" common knowledge in the 21st century HongKong context? My dad argues that it is, because it is talked about everywhere, from TV shows, to newspapers and magazine. But I would argue that that is not common knowledge: ask the common housewife, the old man in the park playing chess, the school students, the engineering major, and I suspect that one would find that the majority of the people would not know the answer. (Or perhaps I really lack the imagination of believing that all those people all know the answer; I certainly don't know the answer.) But how easily my dad dismissed me as a stubborn academian when he found out that I have no such "common knowledge". (I gave an answer and he gave me a 6.5 out of 10, whatever that means.) I rebutted back that he thought a large object would fall faster than a smaller one! ("It's common sense!" he said. I proved him wrong on the spot by dropping an orange and a penny.)
It is not common, I must say, for any two people to agree on what exactly is "Common knowledge". And because of that, just as I am a stubboran academican, so my dad is an academically-retarded capitalist.
1. What kind of country is Sparta and Athens?
2. Describe the origin of the French Revolution.
3. a. Where are the typhoons region? b. How are deserts formed?
4. Try to compare the farm techniques of China and United States.
5. When is the United Nations formed? Where is the headquarter? What should the United Nations do to achieve "globalization"?
6. Why should a government tax its citizens?
7. Use a diagram with words to describe how the tides work.
8. List out all the vitamins and its functions.
My dad and I had an argument about this. He suggested that by reading these exam questions this is just how smart the people back then are. My argument is that this is hardly common knowledge; for me, it is unimaginable that most grade 6 kids would know the answer to these questions. My father then said he has a friend, who is so smart, that by grade 4 he memorized all of China's history. I countered that that is only him: we are talking about "common knowledge" here. I asked him if he knows where Sparta is. He said it's in Africa. I then pointed out that Sparta is definitely not in Africa - if he is a common man, and he doesn't know where Sparta is, then how in the world is that question a "common knowledge"? (And I'm not just picking on the particular; he doesn't know most of the questions apart from the economic ones.) What is "common knowledge" is by definition common among the people within a historical context. "Fire is hot" is common knowledge; "Li Bai is a great poet" is common Chinese knowledge. The eight questions above are basically specialized knowledge. My father argues that all of these questions are discussed everywhere (in newspaper, on the radio, taught in school); if one pays attention to things around him/herself, one would know the answer. This, however, assumes that one's source of knowledge is actually correct and reliable. But given the Hongkong cultural context, why would question #1-4, 7 and 8 be discussed at all in sources, and why would question #5 and 6's answers be reliable (since they are bound to be ideological and therefore manipulative)? Hence how can these be considered as "common knowledge"?
What is the point of all this? The point is one should be careful about using the term "common knowledge" because it is all too easy to take something specialized as "common" and dismiss those who cannot answer "common" questions on the ground of their "ignorance". Somebody who can do very well on Jeopardy isn't exactly someone who is very analytical and smart either. Having these "common" knowledge does not mean a thing: frankly nobody cares the origin of the French Revolution; what matters is that you have things to support what you say. This means not only "what is the origin of the French Revolution?", but also "why is it the origin of the French Revolution?" From that perspective, we can clearly see that this is not "common" knowledge, but something very specialized.
One should always be careful with a term like "common knowledge": to whom is this common? And why are they common? The common implies the uncommon, just as narratives imply silences. So is a question like "how does the devaluation of the Chinese currency affect the economy of HongKong?" common knowledge in the 21st century HongKong context? My dad argues that it is, because it is talked about everywhere, from TV shows, to newspapers and magazine. But I would argue that that is not common knowledge: ask the common housewife, the old man in the park playing chess, the school students, the engineering major, and I suspect that one would find that the majority of the people would not know the answer. (Or perhaps I really lack the imagination of believing that all those people all know the answer; I certainly don't know the answer.) But how easily my dad dismissed me as a stubborn academian when he found out that I have no such "common knowledge". (I gave an answer and he gave me a 6.5 out of 10, whatever that means.) I rebutted back that he thought a large object would fall faster than a smaller one! ("It's common sense!" he said. I proved him wrong on the spot by dropping an orange and a penny.)
It is not common, I must say, for any two people to agree on what exactly is "Common knowledge". And because of that, just as I am a stubboran academican, so my dad is an academically-retarded capitalist.
posted by Tristan at 9:24 p.m.
2 Comments:
"ask the common housewife, the old man in the park playing chess, the school students, the engineering major, and I suspect that one would find that the majority of the people would not know the answer."
how little courage/energy we have to "care"... the knowledge might not be common, but the phenomenon is sad.
perhaps a more practical question to ask,
"How much courage do you still got?"
Kenneth
Congratulations on your post and bour blog, Tristan! I found you while searching for SAT reading. This might not be quite what I was looking for, but I am glad I vistited you anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home