Exploring What Lies Beneath
Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian-British chemist and informal philosopher, invites the reader to plumb the depths of how knowing and the related issue of the process and structure of thought happens in our minds and bodies. His book, “The Tacit Dimension,” relays his three-part lecture in three chapters (with some modifications) given in 1962 at Yale University.[1] Polanyi wrote in his introduction: “This book is an interim report on an inquiry started more than twenty years ago…. The Terry Lectures of 1962 thus give a correct summary of my position [on tacit knowing].”[2]
Polanyi, as demonstrated through his thorough index (prepared by his wife), drew from many eclectic sources, ancient to contemporary, over the course of his more than twenty years of inquiry. His motive as a chemist for this philosophical pursuit arose out of his historical context and the Soviet ideology under Stalin he encountered, an ideology “…which denied justification to the pursuit of science.”[3] He reflects on a conversation from 1935: “I was struck by the fact that this denial of the very existence of independent scientific thought came from a socialist theory which derived its tremendous persuasive power from its claim to scientific certainty. The scientific outlook appeared to have produced a mechanical conception of man and history in which there was no place for science itself. This conception denied altogether any intrinsic power to thought and thus denied also any grounds for claiming freedom of thought. I saw also that this self-immolation of the mind was actuated by powerful moral motives. The mechanical course of history was to bring universal justice. Scientific skepticism would trust only material necessity for achieving universal brotherhood. Skepticism and utopianism had thus fused into a new skeptical fanaticism.[4]”
Out of this impetus, Polanyi’s multi-decade philosophical journey began. Understanding this historical context, and the motivation it gave to Polanyi to persevere in his quest, has helped me to more deeply appreciate the structure of his writing and the focus he brings to each section of his lecture and chapters in his book.
Polanyi first describes the nature, structure, and processes of tacit knowing. This chapter is built around his core hypothesis, “we can know more than we can tell [sic].”[5] This is what tacit knowing is. It results from four intersecting aspects that engage the proximal and distal terms of tacit knowing: functional, phenomenal, semantic, and ontological.[6] These four aspects are mediated mostly at a subconscious level through one’s body—both the senses and neurological system. “Our body is the ultimate instrument of all our external knowledge, whether intellectual or practical.” [7]
From this foundation, Polanyi then explores the implications of tacit knowing for developing moral frameworks and for the scientific journey of discovery. Through the process of interiorization or indwelling, Polanyi argues that all knowledge is personal (versus objective) and that they dynamics of tacit knowing allows persons to experience the world as dynamic rather than mechanistic.[8] “…tacit knowing achieves comprehension by indwelling…all knowledge consists of or is rooted in such acts of comprehension.”[9]The details of his argument in Chapter One are fascinating and my margins are filled with ponderings for how his insights relate to my NPO, current political dynamics in the USA, and what Bolsinger noted in our reading from last week (succinctly summarized by Eric Basye): “Leadership is about diagnosing the problem.”[10] Thus, I’ve spent most of my time on this chapter.
In Chapter Two, Polanyi tackles the science of evolution (termed “emergence” by Polanyi)[11] through the lens of tacit knowing. He is especially interested in implications for increasingly complex/comprehensive organisms, writing, “…the structure of tacit knowing determines the structure of comprehensive entities.”[12] In Chapter Three, Polanyi extends his arguments regarding tacit knowing even further, exploring its relevance to the development of moral standards. He writes: “We must ask whether intellectual powers, grounded in tacit knowing and descended from evolutionary emergence, can exercise the kind of responsible judgement which we must claim if we are to attribute a moral sense to man.”[13] He grapples with the relationship between science and religion and offers this closing thought to ponder: “Men need a purpose which bears on eternity. Truth does that; our ideals do it; and this might be enough, if we could ever be satisfied with our manifest moral shortcomings and with a society which has such shortcomings fatally involved in its workings. Perhaps this problem cannot be resolved on secular grounds alone. But its religious solution should become more feasible once religious faith is released from pressure by an absurd vision of the universe, and so there will open up instead a meaningful world which could resound to religion.[14]”
This book is classified as philosophy of science. But I also experienced it as a biography of sorts. His lecture and writing style invited me to enter his journey of discovery as he struggled to respond to and interact with his historical context, his scientific and psychological contemporaries, and the urgent questions he found himself asking. He externalized his interiorization of tacit knowledge and its applications to much larger issues facing our human societies. In this process he gave me room to indwell his insights. I will be pondering them for quite some time as I search for ways to relay them in relevant and accessible language to the participants in my NPO and to others as we all are faced with knowledge and truth challenges in our respective contexts.
[1] Polanyi, Michael (1966), and Amartya Sen. 2009. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, vi-vii.
[2] Ibid., xvii-xviii.
[3] Ibid., 3.
[4] Ibid., 3-4.
[5] Ibid., 4.
[6] Ibid., 13.
[7] Ibid., 15.
[8] Ibid., 16-25.
[9] Ibid., 55.
[10] “Forged in Resistance.” Eric Basye. October 12, 2022. Accessed October 20, 2022. https://blogs.georgefox.edu/dlgp/forged-in-resistance/.
[11] Polanyi, 36-46.
[12] Ibid., 55.
[13] Ibid., 56.
[14] Ibid., 92.
About the Author
Elmarie Parker
10 responses to “Exploring What Lies Beneath”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
EP: You wrote, “Polanyi explores the implications of tacit knowing for developing moral frameworks and for the scientific journey of discovery.” I thought it was interesting that he tries to unravel both moral aspects of the human mind as well as empirical, scientific knowledge. He certainly has a philosophical bent of mind and he successfully tackled both issues. Do you value more this high-minded type of writing, or do you prefer more of Bolsinger’s practical approach?
Hi Troy. Thank you for your reflection on my post. Yes, I too found it fascinating the dimensions Polanyi explored. You ask which style of writing I prefer. For me it depends on what I’m working to better understand or stretch myself in…I like Polanyi’s style because he really challenged me to think…every sentence was packed and his use of technical language relevant to a philosophical conversation stretched me into new areas. I’m still pondering what I read from him. It seems to be a book that I’ll continue to learn new insights from each time I go through it. Bolsinger’s approach is useful for the purposes he had in writing it…those type of practical books are much easier for me to read and pick out what’s useful to an issue I’m working with. How about you? What is your preference and why?
Elmarie, thanks for you post. I think if I had read this before I read the book, I would have been better off! I also like that you call his work a “biography of sorts.” Are you already seeing connections from this work that will factor in to you NPO?
Hey Roy…thank you for your comments on my post and for your question. I think for my NPO, Polayni’s work provides additional foundational material to what I’m working on as a developmental leadership journey for young adults. Particularly the way he talks about indwelling as a significant aspect to how knowledge develops–this supports the experiential process I have in mind. In addition, I want to develop my NPO in such a way that I provide both structure and space for my participants to discover ways to language what they are learning/experiencing, to language the ‘dot-connections’ they are making. I have a lot of work ahead of me yet…that’s for sure!
Elmarie: Thank you for this wonderful reflection on Polanyi. You talk of many ponderings, especially in Chapter 1 that relate to our current context and your NPO. Would you mind sharing one of those that is still lingering on your mind over the last few days?
Hey Kayli…thank you for your feedback on my post and for your question. Yes, I am still pondering many things from Polanyi. My book is currently in checked luggage and I’m sitting at the Addis Ababa Airport half-way home to Beirut (I’ll get home by this time tomorrow–Sunday). All that to say, I don’t have my notes or page references with me.
BUT one of my ponderings related to the process Polanyi described, I think towards the end of his first lecture…he was discussing how a mechanistic approach to discovery and/or life tries to break things down into more and more specific parts and thereby misses the whole cloth of which the parts are a piece (that’s my paraphrase). In a sense, the more control and specificity we try to press for, the less we actually understand because we ignore the more organic process of tacit knowing that includes the valuable role played by tradition, ritual, communal understandings, etc. that aren’t always easily expressed as to how or why they came about or why they are important to us…we just know that they are important.
What that section led me to ponder is some of the current political dynamics in the USA. It seems to me that the Trump administration pushed to concretize the tacit knowledge that has been a part of American political life over the decades…traditions and practices that have emerged over time. Repeatedly the viewpoint expressed (mostly through deed and then eventually words, though often multiple, conflicting rationales were given) was–if it isn’t written down in specific, enforceable, legal form then it isn’t applicable to us (for example, the practice of the President-elect making public their taxes or the push that was made to use the electoral college process in a way antithetical to decades of practice).
Polayni’s insights helped me to understand some of what I haven’t had words to express. I found hope in how he continued his argument…that even if such mechanistic approaches break down the original fabric, the nature of how tacit knowing influences us will push us to externalize what has been tacit in order to strengthen what is important in that tacit knowledge and a new dimension of our tacit knowing will develop. This is my best attempt at paraphrasing his thoughts without the book in front of me :).
I see this at work in the House as they put forward proposals to clarify the role of the VP in the electoral college process, as an example. Of course the debate continues over the value of the electoral college at all.
So, the shape of US democratic processes may in fact be in a season of change. I think some of the tensions happening in the USA today is a result of our collective tacit knowing about our democratic processes and cultural understandings of what it means to be ‘American’ getting pushed on by various forces at work in our society (the Trump Administration being just one manifestation of one dimension of those forces). In some ways, we haven’t really had to think deeply as a nation about any of this since the 1960s (and that period covered only some aspects of our culture, history, and democratic processes). So, 50 years on from then, maybe it’s time for another period of wrestling, reflection, reformation, etc.
I’d value your interaction with what I’ve shared here through my travel fog…hoping what I’ve written makes some sense :). How did you understand that part of Polanyi’s work?
Elmarie, well done. Thank you for reminding me of this concept: “Leadership is about diagnosing the problem.” That really is a key component to finding solutions… and then, if what he says is true, the truth is there, just waiting to be discovered. I would have to agree with this assessment. Additionally, it seems like a positive approach to tackling challenging situations. Understand the problem so as to find a solution.
As you think about where you live and work, how would you most succinctly summarize the “problem(s)” that needs to be addressed, as you see it?
Hi Eric…thanks so much for your interaction with my post, and for your question. In Lebanon these days the main problem that needs to be addressed is corruption. Some in a position to address this issue are trying to institute transparency/accountability processes…I continue to pray for their courage and effectiveness. In my NPO part of what I’ll address is the development of courage and perseverance to address this issue (among others) as up and coming leaders in Lebanon and the region.
Elmaire,
Thanks for a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I could really relate to your closing statement, “we all are faced with knowledge and truth challenges in our respective contexts.” The more knowledge I seem to acquire the more I realize I do not know. I am curious, do you have a sense as to the possibility of us verbalizing our hidden knowledge in such a way that it is comprehendible to others? Is there a process by which this could be enhanced?
Elmarie, what are dangers in science shaping moral standards? How might Polanyi deal with divergent biases that can come from people who may share the same experience?