view of knowledge
What Does It Mean to "Know" Something?
Power, Truth, and the Classroom
Before we can teach anything, we need to ask: What does it mean to know something? How is knowledge produced, and who decides what counts as truth?
We can’t talk about knowledge without talking about power.
Knowledge Isn't Neutral
Philosopher Michel Foucault showed us that “knowledge” and “truth” aren’t discovered—they’re constructed through language and discourse at specific moments in history. Discourse doesn’t just mean conversation; it’s the entire framework that defines what can be said, how it can be discussed, and what counts as reasonable or valid on any given topic.
If meaning is constructed through discourse, then nothing exists as “meaningful” outside of it. This doesn’t mean facts don’t exist—it means we should question who gets to decide what those facts mean, what moral weight they carry, and why certain interpretations feel “natural” or “inevitable.”
Truth, Power, and Who Gets to Decide
Foucault argued that what society accepts as “truth” and “knowledge”—especially in how we understand people, culture, and social science—is always entangled with power structures. Knowledge and power are inseparable. Those with power don’t just decide what’s true; they have the capacity to make their version become truth.
As Foucault wrote: “There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time, power relations.”
Power doesn’t just flow top-down. It circulates everywhere, trapping both the oppressor and the oppressed. The same structures that constrain us also produce meaning and pathways to fulfillment. Foucault called this the “capillary effect”—power solidifies in behaviors, bodies, and local relationships, not just in distant authority figures.
Why this matters for teachers
My own experiences across cultures, combined with studying post-colonialism, history, and anthropology, have convinced me: Truth and Knowledge are evolving trajectories with shifting finish lines. There’s no single, fixed “right answer” standing outside of history and power.
This is why I embrace a constructivist understanding of knowledge.
Both Piaget and Vygotsky taught us that real knowledge comes through discovery—cognitive development requires agency in the learner. Where they differ: Piaget emphasized individual construction, while Vygotsky insisted knowledge is built through cultural context and social interaction.
I believe it’s both.
Jerome Bruner adds that knowledge is shaped by our perceptions of the world, which are themselves shaped by cultural experiences and historical backgrounds. Two students from different standpoints can receive the same information and construct entirely different meanings from it.
And that's not a problem to fix—it's reality to acknowledge.
Our Job: Illuminate the Process, Not Police the Meaning
As teachers, our job isn’t to discipline students into accepting one “correct” interpretation. Our job is to:
- Make the construction process visible: Help students see how knowledge is made, not just memorize what others have decided
- Examine whose voices are centered: Ask who gets to speak, who’s quoted in textbooks, whose perspectives are treated as “objective”
- Create space for multiple meanings: Allow students to bring their cultural experiences and standpoints into dialogue with new information
- Question authority: Encourage skepticism about why certain ideas are presented as natural, neutral, or inevitable
When students understand that knowledge is constructed—that it has authors, contexts, and power dynamics behind it—they become critical thinkers rather than passive recipients.
They learn to ask: Who said this? Why? Who benefits? What’s missing? Whose story isn’t being told?