Experience as a Foundation of Knowledge-Making: What’s in a Name?

Abstract

The concept of ‘experience’ is central to survivor thinking. It has appeared in the last three chapters but not been explicated which I attempt to remedy here. We only know the experience of another in how they express it so I concentrate on verbal expression but it is not the only means. Seeing through the lens of language I begin with what individuals and groups call themselves, something that can encapsulate experience, and the implications of this. As there is so much to say, this will be the content of this chapter and it lays the foundations for the next. There, I move on to more conceptual arguments about ‘experience’ and conclude that it has been positioned as easy to enact, including in involvement spaces. It is also sometimes assumed that the path from ‘experience’ to codified knowledge is smooth and I take a different view. Mainstream knowledge and knowledge from experience inhabit different epistemic spaces. There usually are no references to power or to the values accorded different knowledges when experience is in play in some arguments, whereas it will be argued that interaction between groups can never be equal if one party is seen as epistemically flawed. I conclude with a critique of the concept of ‘experience’ itself, without arguing that it is of no use. The problem is when it carries too much weight, when it tries to deal with that which exceeds it.