Is knowledge (A) power, (B) authority, or (C) economics ? Guess which answer a college student would choose. I have found it increasingly difficult to teach cultural and social sciences in college because students can't apply the knowledge they've learned to the "economy."
But the entire society has been trumpeting the era of the "knowledge-based economy." At the end of last year, President Chen Shui-bian (
I really miss the era when knowledge was power. Not so long ago knowledge was not obtained for any specific or narrow purpose. It was obtained for self-improvement and knowledge accumulated was applied to a broad range of subjects. That's the source of power. In that era, literary knowledge allowed people's imaginations to blossom. Thus, they could create power that moved other people through speech or writing. The social sciences gave people a clear understanding of the core reasons for various social issues and problems, and generated the power to help individuals, families and groups, as well as the power for social reform.
Before human beings entered the era of industry and commerce, knowledge was freely shared. Knowledge had its greatest influence when it was shared in a more unencumbered way. It allowed individuals to gain higher social status and greater recognition. One of the main reasons Taiwan has such a highly developed agricultural industry is that farmers shared their experiments and experiences with others.
Then, suddenly we entered the era of "knowledge is economy." In fact, a few hundred years ago when Western society entered the age of the commercial and industrial society, knowledge was already being used to engage in economic activity and as a foundation for competition. After all, skills, and the knowledge behind them, are the primary conditions for business competition. And as the knowledge was applied to new inventions and profits were made, the idea of "intellectual property rights" and related laws developed.
Knowledge was not a "thing" that was encouraged to be shared anymore. It became private property like natural resources, houses and cars. It was considered to be a tool for making a fortune. Following the "capital-intensive" economic model, a "knowledge-based economy" simply means capitalists are trying to control new skills and products, and turn them into private property before other global competitors do, and to turn more profits on the back of information development and the influence of global capitalism.
It is understandable that Taiwan's business community is spreading the gospel of "knowledge-based economy" because economic pursuits are the raison d'etre of entrepreneurs. When academia begins to dance to the same tune, however, one can't help but worry about the affect on an already overly materialistic world. When college students' aspirations turn from "accomplishing great things" to "making big money," the "knowledge-based economy" legitimizes the pursuit of profits.
Knowledge shouldn't exist to serve the economy. The purpose of acquiring knowledge shouldn't be just for individual economic interest.
What Taiwanese society needs more and what its colleges fail to provide is the knowledge to serve people and society. As for the "knowledge-based economy," we should leave that to the business community.
Chi Chun-chieh is an associate professor at the Institute of Ethnic Relations, National Dong-Hwa University.
Translated by Chen Ya-hui
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS