1. No category

The ethics of knowledge organization and representation
from a Bakhtinian perspective
Aline Elis Arboit
Graduate School of Information Science
São Paulo State University – UNESP (Brazil)
E-mail: [email protected]
José Augusto Guimarães
Graduate School of Information Science
São Paulo State University – UNESP (Brazil)
E-mail: [email protected]
This paper arises from the possibility of a theoretical dialogue between the sociocognitive perspectives of knowledge organization (Beghtol, 2002; 2005; Berman, 1993;
Frohmann, 1994; 2001; 2008; García Gutiiérrez, 2002, 2014; García Gutiérrez &
Martínez-Ávila, 2014; Guimarães et al., 2008; Hjorland, 2002; 2008, a, b; Hjorland &
Albrechtsen, 1995; Hudon, 1997; Olson, 2001; 2002; Olson & Schlegl, 2001) and the
Bakhtinian concepts on “responsible act” and “responsive understanding” as attitudes that
motivate the dialogism that is inherent to language (Bakhtin, 1981; 1986; 1990; 1993;
Voloshinov, 1973). Those questions allow us to recognize the professional that organizes
and represents knowledge (the indexer / classifier) in a certain context as someone who
has an intersubjective conscience that is constantly shaped by the relationships that he/her
establishes with others.
The mentioned indexer´s/classifier´s conscience becomes an unfinished sociocognitive product composed by two axes that are indeed deeply connected: the “self” and
the “other.” Here, the “other´s” images are actively imposed to the “self,” who, on the
other side, does not accept them in a passive way, especially because his/her conscience
is full of perceptions and experiences derived from the relationships established with the
social context. The result is that the external signs need to make sense to the
indexer/classifier, who will absorb and interpret them in his/her way.
The “internal discourse” derived from the responsive act of understanding of the
indexer/classifier makes him/her to act responsibly, especially considering that every
understanding is a response and every response is an act of non-indifference, a sensitive
action related to the “other.”
In this vein, the activities of organization and representation of knowledge act as
discursive spaces of mediation between the dimensions of the “self” (indexer/classifier)
and the “other” (author and users) that leads to the non-neutrality of the indexer/classifier
and whose actions transcend the limits of rationality while reaching a sensitive and ethical
level of action in order to harmonize the different social “voices” (and even the voice of
the “self”).
Those elements allow us to recognize the impossibility of neutrality or impartiality
in organization and representation of knowledge insofar the indexer/classifier also brings
his/her conceptions, idiosyncrasies, prejudices, influences, biases, and it is impossible to
simulate, even for a short moment, the inexistence or disconnection of his/her conscience.
Therefore, the acts of representing and organizing knowledge are deeply affected
by external discourses (from the author and from the user, for instance) and by internal
discourses (the ideological and social voices that are present in the indexer’s/classifier’s
conscience). Those different discourses come together at the moment of representing the
knowledge and act as a response to the dialogues –and conflicts– between the external
and the internal discourses. As a consequence, the indexing/classification codes, terms or
signs assume a dialogical and dynamic representativeness in order to correspond not only
to the contents of the documents but also to dialogue with a diverse user community, by
the recognition of the alterity/otherness of the social actors and the social situations. This
demands that the indexer/classifier transcends his/her identity in order to reach a new
point of view which could be characterizes as what Bakhtin calls a “principle of exotopy.”
Finally, and related to this, it is important to point out the need of an ethical and
democratic attitude of the indexer/classifier, in order to represent the social pluralism and
show a polyphony, that is, an equipollence of social voices in a certain context.
References
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist.
Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas
Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans. Vern W. McGee.
Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1990) Art and Answerability. Ed. Michael Holquist and Vadim
Liapunov. Trans. Vadim Liapunov and Kenneth Brostrom. Austin: University of Texas
Press
Bakhtin, M.M. (1993) Toward a Philosophy of the Act. Ed. Vadim Liapunov and
Michael Holquist. Trans. Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Beghtol, C. A (2002). proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and
organization systems. Journal of Documentation, v. 58, n. 5, p. 507-532.
Beghtol, C. A. (2005). Ethical decision-making for knowledge representation and
organization systems for global use. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, v. 56, n. 9, p. 903-912.
Berman, S. (1993). Prejudices and antipathies: A Tract on the LC Subject Heads
Concerning People. 2. ed. Jefferson; NC; London: McFarland.
Frohmann, B. (1994). Discourse analysis as a research method in library and
information science. Library and Information Science Research, v. 16, p. 119-138.
Frohmann, B. (2001). Discourse and documentation: some implications for pedagogy
and research. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, v. 42, n. 1, p.
12-26.
Frohmann, B. (2008). Subjectivity and information ethics. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, New York, v. 59, n. 2, p. 267-277.
García Gutiérrez, A.A .L. ; Martínez-Ávila, D. M. (2014). Critical Organization of
Knowledge in Mass Media Information Systems, Knowledge organziaiton, v.41, n.3,
pp.. 205-216.
Garcia Gutierrez, A.L. (2002). Knowledge organization from a “culture of the border”:
towards a transcultural ethics of mediation. In: LÓPEZ-HUERTAS, M. J. (Ed.).
Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: integration
of knowledge across boundaries. Würzburg: ERGON, p. 516-522.
García Gutiérrez, A.L..(2014). Declassifying Knowledge Organization. Knowledge
organizaiton, v.41., n.5 pp.393-409
Guimarães, J. A. C. et al. (2008). Ethics in the Knowledge Organization Environment:
an overview of values and problems in the LIS literature. In: Arsenault, C.; Tennis, J. T.
(Ed.). Cultural and Identity in Knowledge Organization. Würzburg: ERGON. p. 340346.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in Information
Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53
(4), p. 257-270.
Hjørland, B. (2008a). Deliberate bias in knowledge organization? In: Arsenault, C.;
Tennis, J. T. (Ed.). Culture and Identity in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the
Tenth International ISKO Conference, Montréal, 5-8 August 2008. Würzburg: ERGON.
p. 256-261.
Hjørland, B. (2008b). What is knowledge organization (KO)? Knowledge Organization,
Würzburg, v. 35, n. 2/3, p. 86-101.
Hjorland, B.; Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science:
Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v.46, n.6,
pp. 400-425.
Hudon, M. (1997). Multilingual thesaurus construction: integrating the views of
different cultures in one gateway to knowledge and concepts. Knowledge Organization,,
v. 24, n. 2, p. 84-91.
Olson, H. A. (2001)Patriarchal structures of subject access and subversive techniques
for change. Canadian Journal for Information and Library Science, v. 26, n. 2/3, p. 1-29.
Olson, H. A. (2002). The power to name. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Olson, H. A.; Schlegl, R. (2001). Standardization, objectivity, and user focus: a metaanalysis of subject access critiques. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, v. 32, n. 2, p.
61-80.
Voloshinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, 48-49, Harvard
University Press.