Sense-making from individual to collective
The Role Of Wittgenstein's Language Games
Sense-making, Knowing, and Understanding have a common pattern: they all start as personal or subjective since they all depend on interpretation, which connects new data with existing personal knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and values. But personal knowledge can become public knowledge, and individual sense-making, and understanding become collective sense-making and understanding.
How is this transition from “subjective” to “objective” possible?
Here we will look at the transition from individual to collective sense-making, In my last post on sense-making, we have seen cases where sense-making involves modeling how something like an economy works or involving constructions such as mathematical derivations and mathematical models. In both these cases there is always a language used to express the model or the constructions. This language can be a natural language or mathematics, logic, or some specialized engineering, economic or medical, etc.
Once the language used in individual sense-making is shared and used by a community, it seems natural to assume that the transition from individual to collective is made possible by a common language. This is because the shared language provides a common framework for communicating and exchanging ideas.
However, the transition from individual to collective sense-making is not simply a matter of using a common language. It also requires that the community agree on the meaning of the words used in the language. This can be a challenging task, as different people may have different understandings of the same terms.
For example, the word "love" can mean different things to different people. To some, it may mean a strong emotional attachment, while to others it may mean a commitment to a relationship.
This is where Wittgenstein's language games play a role. Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of a word is determined by its use in a language game. A language game is a social activity in which language is used to achieve a particular goal. For example, the language game of "asking for directions" involves using language to get information about how to get from one place to another.
When people participate in a language game, they are implicitly agreeing on the meaning of the words used in the game.
The Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) is best known for his work on the philosophy of language. In his later work, Wittgenstein argued that language is not a system of symbols that correspond to reality in a one-to-one fashion. Instead, he argued that language is a tool that we use to do things in the world. He called these uses of language "language games."
A language game is a rule-governed activity that involves the use of language. Some examples of language games include giving orders, asking questions, making jokes, telling stories, and playing games. Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of a word or sentence is determined by the role it plays in a language game. For example, the word "water" can have a different meaning depending on whether it is used in a language game of giving orders, asking questions, or describing an object.
Sense-making is the process of creating meaning from our experiences. We constantly make sense of the world around us, both individually and collectively. Language games play an important role in sense-making.
When we engage in a language game, we are participating in a shared activity with others. This activity has its own rules and conventions, which help us to make sense of the situation. For example, when we are playing a game of chess, we are following a set of rules that allow us to communicate with each other and make strategic decisions. The rules of the game help us to make sense of the game and to coordinate our actions with our opponent.
Language games are a way of using language to make sense of our everyday experiences. When we talk to someone, we are participating in a language game that has its own rules and conventions. These rules help us to understand what the other person is saying and to respond in a way that is appropriate to the situation.
Language games are also very important in education, discussions, and presentations. They can be used to introduce technical jargon specific to a domain, as in the following explanation of Fitch Ratings by Investopedia:
In this example, the language game is the explanation of Fitch Ratings. The rules of the game include using technical jargon, such as "credit rating agency" and "debt securities." The conventions of the game include providing clear and concise information and using examples to illustrate the concepts being explained.
Language games can be a powerful tool for communication. They can help us to understand complex concepts, to make sense of our experiences, and to communicate effectively with others.
More sophisticated language games can use metaphors and analogies to make difficult concepts easier to understand. By comparing new concepts to things we already know, we can develop a better understanding of them. Think of examples like
“the mind is a muscle” or
“life is a journey”
Counter arguments
Language plays a significant role in collective sense-making, but there are also counterarguments to this claim.
One counterargument is that not everyone agrees that language is always involved in either individual or collective sense-making. For example, Michael Polanyi's theory of tacit dimension (see Tacit Knowledge) argues that there is a tacit dimension to all knowledge that cannot be made explicit. This tacit dimension is essential to our understanding of the world, but it is difficult to articulate.
The tacit dimension defines limits of language for sense-making.
Nonaka and Takeuchi proposed the SECI model in 1995 to explain how tacit knowledge is converted into organizational knowledge. The model describes four modes of knowledge conversion: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization.
The SECI model is a useful tool for understanding how knowledge is created and shared in organizations. It can help organizations identify and develop strategies for converting tacit knowledge into organizational knowledge.
One of the strongest counterarguments against the use of language mediation in collective sense-making is that it is difficult for people to agree on the same rules of the language game. This is because we all construct meaning from our own experiences, beliefs, and values, which can lead to different perspectives on the same issue.
For example, in a mathematical discussion, there is a clear set of rules that everyone agrees on. However, in a discussion about politics or religion, there is no such clear set of rules. This can make it difficult to have a productive discussion, as people may be talking past each other without even realizing it.
In addition, the rationality of discussions can be questioned when the participants have their own interests. For example, in a business negotiation, each party is likely to have its own agenda, which may lead them to be less than truthful or objective in their discussions.