3.3.3.2 One-Way Knowledge Flow Paradigm

What I mean by the one-way knowledge flow paradigm is, simply, the belief that knowledge of what is good for us flows from people who have a high level of formal education, high status in society, (and maybe) long life and professional experience, etc. to those who don’t.

It is important to note that knowledge flow, in this case, as I state elsewhere, will encompass cognitive, emotional, spiritual and physical dimensions of our being.

As an aside, I believe that there is an element of two-way knowledge flow in almost every encounter. Sometimes we are aware that we are garnering knowledge from the other, sometimes we are not aware.

Now to all intents and purposes, most mainstream teaching/learning in our society is one-way.

In the educational paradigm that we are all familiar with, if we are teachers, we are not always aware that we are garnering knowledge – because the paradigm is designed so that the knowledge flow is explicitly one-way.  (If we are open to being aware, there is a better chance that knowledge flow will be two-way).

For example, when I teach my child how to tie his shoelaces I am learning something about my child and also something about myself. The something-about-myself is gleaned from my child’s response to my efforts to teach him. This knowledge is usually transferred and absorbed unconsciously.  (It could be knowledge about my child’s capacity to learn, or my own ability to be patient.  Or it could be about my abilities as a teacher or instructor).

And – this is not an anti one-way knowledge flow rant. In many situations it is of vital importance in our journey through life. The next post will describe conditions for its success.

Many years ago I had a minor operation.

During this operation, I handed over full responsibility for slicing me open and removing a badly functioning part of me to the surgeon and another person who I assumed was his assistant.  Because I was only partially anesthetised I (kind of) knew what was going on, but I had no part in the process, nor could I influence it.  I was amenable to having the operation, did precisely what I was advised to do before and after it, and recovered relatively quickly afterwards.

The medics knew a lot more than me about slicing through flesh, identifying and extracting an organ that was causing my body some problem, and then sewing it all back together.

All the expertise flowed from the surgeon and his small team to me – not only during the operation itself, but also in issuing instructions to me about how to recover afterwards.  When the operation was over I was turfed out of hospital (as one is nowadays) after the very welcome tea and toast and then the responsibility to recover fully was virtually all down to me!

The result of this minor operation was an example of great success in the one-way knowledge flow paradigm of helping and one of the reasons for the success was that I was open and receptive to all the medical advice given to me.

So, one-way knowledge flow makes one major assumption for success.

The assumption is that I, when I am told what is good for me, am receptive to hearing it, accepting it, appreciating its value, and then acting or following through on it.

That is the minimum requirement for success – but to make the most of one-way knowledge flow a further modification is assumed.

That is, that I will graft what I am learning onto other information acquired previously, in a linear or stepped manner, so that I am continually adding to my knowledge, integrating my learning, and increasing my capacity in respect of same.

This is the principal way that most of us learned in school and college, and was certainly the way I learned until my mid-thirties – when I discovered that it could be complemented by what I came to know as experiential learning – that is, learning as much from and by experience as from stepped/linear learning. (In this case, the knowledge flow is more in the emotional dimension than the cognitive).

In my life in general I always was, (and, I think, still am – as evidenced by the example I just gave of my experience in hospital) – a relatively compliant and obedient subject for both receiving knowledge and building on knowledge already known, to increase my overall level in a stepped manner as I described above.

Indeed, this website is probably a result of such receptiveness and acceptance!

Before I go on to discuss people in deep distress, I’d like to suggest that, actually, the majority of us are a bit anti when it comes to one-way knowledge flow but we probably put up with it because firstly we feel that we have no option and secondly the methods by which it has been implemented over countless generations in so many different power structures are honed to the extent that we don’t think about it that much. One-way knowledge flow has survived every type of society; imperialism, feudalism, royalism, fascism, socialism, communism, and democracy.

We probably have this anti feeling because in many cases, we don’t accept that others know better than we do about many aspects of our lives – but we are conditioned into believing that they do.

It is, like gravity and breathing, yet another high impact-low noticeability phenomenon.

The reason I maintain that people don’t embrace it fully is because of the extent of the passive-aggressive type behaviour that we all observe in society such as doing the bare minimum, constantly complaining about things but feeling powerless to do anything, making fraudulent claims, tax dodging, cheating on entitlements and the like.

Of course, not all societies are the same.  That is, there are probably countries where legitimate authority appears to be genuinely accepted, where governments and powerful interests have a social contract with the citizens and encourage citizens to have more influence in decision making about their destiny.

In healing the mind and spirit, it is very tempting for even the most well-meaning, open minded and generous of practitioners to think, when we observe people not managing their day to day lives, doing things that are destructive to themselves, their families and society in general that we (the practitioners) know better.

Our assumption is that such people need help.  Some people know that they need help and they are constantly asking for it.  Others don’t think that they need help but their destructive behaviour is a (usually unconscious) cry for help.  After all, if they knew what was good for them they wouldn’t end up addicts, homeless, committing crimes and going to prison.

So, however benign the process is, we must make decisions for them and instruct them what to do, because we know better.  We have made it in the world.  We have education, jobs, houses, cars, normal lifestyles etc.  And, (most of us feel), we got to where we are now by doing, by and large, what we were (and are) told!

Yes, the method of teaching and learning, where academics design courses and then roll them out in a classroom type environment with the power of decision making as to content, pace etc. within the institution rather than the participants, (i.e. knowledge flowing from the practitioner to the passive recipient) is so common that it is very challenging to think that there could be another way.

But of course, if the one-way knowledge-flow paradigm of learning did work for everyone – no one would be in prison!

This website will argue that there is another way – and that way can be uncovered by genuine encounter and inclusion, where knowledge flow is truly two-way.

While this can be very challenging for the practitioner (as will be evident from the arguments and general discussions later on) it is exciting and invigorating for those willing to embrace it.