The Democracy of Knowledge

The previous blog received some interesting comments, with it being correctly stated that our society seems to have evolved even past the concept of a knowledge society into one where there is significant importance that will be placed on  "being Actionable"  (Nav Nathoo - Facebook, December 3, 2013).
This is a great point and very true. Gaining information is simple, converting that information to knowledge is expected of all people, now we need to move forward into the realm of using knowledge... right!?

It's true that some societies in the world are at that point and soon enough the same shall be expected of all societies, however what we see at a micro level and what is expected at the macro level are very different things and I feel that there are specific reasons for this in today's context.

We live in a world where, increasingly, acceptance means approval. These are not the same things by any means. We must accept everyone, because regardless of where individuals are at in terms of physical ability, cognitive ability, social/economic means, personal fulfillment or any host of descriptors for human endeavor, each of us is where we are due to a sometimes skewed mix of circumstances, personal striving and societal expectations. However, I see an alarming trend today in society where things are being brought to the "lowest common denominator."

In striving to be inclusive of all peoples we seem to be forgetting that all people are not the exact same. Increasingly, having a "good education" refers to a degree where courses are taught that are the exact same as hundreds of other courses throughout the world (or in some cases, of inferior quality). I feel this is because we have a misguided interpretation of a "good society," and of pluralism. Pluralism (the ideology corresponding to acceptance of diversity) by it's very nature assumes that people are different. We are not the same, and should not be seen as such. We have different paths, different educational aims and different abilities. These differences, when viewed as a strength are what give pluralism it's ability to change the world.

We judge individuals based on tests that are flawed by their very nature, to encourage some people to pursue educational endeavors that may or may not be right for them or what society truly needs. This reduction to bringing knowledge to the level of the masses is good in many ways. We want an educated society, we want all individuals to understand everything they possibly can understand and engage with in a meaningful manner, but is this what is good?

Is it our goal to create a society, or societies with individuals who are "jack-of-all-trades, master of none"? Is this even something that society can or should play a role in governing?

On a societal level, we are already at the level of the "wisdom society," but are we doing it in a way that will lead to what Plato called, the "good society"?