Evan Pike

The Synthesis of Knowledge

"Society values mental labor more highly than manual labor." This is a claim that Ruth Hubbard makes in her essay "Science, Facts, and Feminism." This claim suggests that those who are the thinkers, the innovators, the inventors, and the great minds are highly valued by society; however, those who are the doers, the laborers, the hand-crafters, and the workers are not valued as greatly. Hubbard implies that society regards mental labor as more important than manual labor because it requires more specifically human qualities. Knowledge making is one of these specifically human qualities. Mental laborers and manual laborers are distinguished by this knowledge making process.

For Hubbard’s claim to have meaning, there are assumptions that must underpin the claim. First, society must value labor. Labor must be something usable in society. A distinction between manual labor and mental labor must exist. A line must be drawn as to what makes mental labor mental and manual labor manual. There exists a specifically human quality, like knowledge making, which classifies the mental and manual laborers. Labor must exist in society to place value upon it. One also must assume that the more knowledge making ability one has, the more successful one can potentially be. These assumptions must be accounted for, for the claim to have any validity.

This claim, to me, explains what can be said about the value of knowledge making and experience. Knowledge making is valued greatly by society and society values those who posses this knowledge making ability. Knowledge comes from personal experience and these experiences make that person more intelligent. One makes a decision, and then one learns from the consequences of that decision resulting in more apprehension. An example of building knowledge making is when a small child touches a hot pan on the stove and gets burnt. This child’s knowledge making has increased and the child knows to never touch a pan on the stove without proper protection.

Book knowledge is another important element. This type of knowledge can be defined from what results in a college degree, a doctorate, or just a secondary degree of education. One must have base comprehension of empirical insight. Mental laborers have this intuitive synthesis of knowledge where manual laborers do not posses as much. An example of this book knowledge is taking a course in trigonometry and how it affects future comprehension. With trigonometry learned, mathematical calculus can be more easily learned. Without trigonometry learned, calculus could not be completely understood. This distinguishes the mental and manual laborers.

I agree with Ruth Hubbard’s claim in this essay, but I disagree that manual labor is valued less than mental labor. This claim does not mean that manual labor is of more importance. It is true that manual laborers do not posses the cognizance the mental laborers do. They do not lead our society; however, the manual laborers are an integral element in attaining the truth. Manual labor is the backbone, or the cogs, of getting at the truth. In the introduction about assumptions, James Berlin notes, "…[truth is seen] as arising out of the interaction of the elements of the rhetorical situation: an interaction of subject and object or of subject and audience or even of all the elements — subjects, object, audience, and language — operating simultaneously." There must be this interaction to produce a viable outcome or to get to the truth.

Knowledge making is placed on a pedestal by society because knowledge making get at the truth. Hubbard claims that those who are the leaders in our society are highly regarded, and in our society they are. One example of placing mental labor above manual labor is in music. When one goes to hear Bach’s Symphony Number 5, for example, one goes to hear the music. The director vigorously and vivaciously conducts as the symphony follows the director’s cue on how to interpret the music. As the conductor and musicians work together, the music that is produced is outstanding. The next day in the paper, the director is the one who receives much of the praise and glory. The audience values the director more than the musicians.

The director, in this example, has more knowledge and experience than the instrumentalists do. He earns more, is regarded more highly, and posses a great deal of the knowledge of the music. The musicians physically took the interpretations of the director and produced the wonderful music the audience heard. Even though one is valued more than the other, the interaction between the two produced what can be seen as the truth — the ultimate outcome of the synthesis of knowledge and experience.

It is illustrated in society that mental labor is valued more than manual labor. Knowledge making is what is used to determine who are the mental laborers and who are the manual laborers. The mental laborers are those who propose and formulate a task and the manual laborers are those who get the job done. It is like a scientist and his or her grad students. The scientist is the facilitator and the grad students are the workers. These two classes come together and interact to make what society sees as the truth or what we debate for certainty. From this our truths and our conceptions of truth are formed as these laborers work together.

Analyzing my perspective on what creates knowledge and truth, I see I base much of my assumptions on experience. Most knowledge making comes from what we experience whether it is experience outside a classroom or inside a classroom. I find that knowledge making makes one worthwhile in society, the more knowledge one posses the more value is placed on them. I assume there is this great deal of emphasis on knowledge making and without it one is stranded.

I assume that truth arises from empirical situations and decisions. The example of the child burning his or her hand illustrates an empirical situation where truth is acquired. There must be a synthesis of these laborers to come to a truth. Truth should arise from this hand-in-hand integration. It is then debated and accepted as truth and then debated again. The fundamental truths that have formed over time have come from reanalyzing it. New truths are formulated every day and they come from the joint efforts of knowledge makers and the knowledge creators.