Sumber ilustrasi: Magnific
17 Mei 2026 14.59 WIB – Akar
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Desanomia [17.05.2026] Have you ever heard people call others stupid, ignorant, dumb, or similar names? What makes such judgments possible? Is there some special mandate that allows one person to judge another in this way? If there is, why should such a mandate exist? For what purpose must such judgments be made? And if there is no mandate, then why do these judgments still appear? What explains either possibility?
Does it not seem that this issue deserves serious reflection? Ideally, such reflection would take place publicly. But before any ideal process can occur, perhaps it is worthwhile to begin reopening questions about things that have long been treated as ordinary, normal, or even simply “human nature.” What is meant here is the hierarchy of knowledge. Does knowledge itself inherently contain hierarchy from the very beginning?
Have you formed your own reflections on this matter? What shape do they take? The following description is an attempt to open space for reflection. Perhaps it resembles your own thoughts, or perhaps it challenges them. Here is the discussion:
Hierarchy is a layered structure that places things into an order of higher–lower, superior–inferior, center–margin, or primary–secondary. Within a hierarchy, elements do not stand equally beside one another; each occupies a position based on criteria considered legitimate. Those criteria may include power, age, social status, wealth, ability, or authority. A hierarchy, therefore, is not merely difference itself, but difference organized into a structure of value. Some are considered more important, more correct, more worthy of being heard, while others are positioned as followers, recipients, or executors.
Knowledge is the result of the relationship between a subject and the world, when something is recognized, understood, remembered, organized, and used. Knowledge is not merely information; it is also a way of understanding reality. Because of this, knowledge always contains a certain optic: what is considered important to know, how something is explained, who is considered entitled to explain it, and what methods are regarded as legitimate for declaring something true or false. Knowledge is not a neutral object. It is a field in which ways of seeing the world are formed.
The hierarchy of knowledge is a layered structure that regulates kinds of knowledge, sources of knowledge, owners of knowledge, and the legitimacy of knowledge itself. Within such a hierarchy, not all forms of knowing are treated equally. Certain kinds of knowledge are considered scientific, rational, modern, or objective, and therefore placed at the top. Others—traditional, local, intuitive, experiential, or everyday forms of knowing—are often placed beneath them. The hierarchy of knowledge also determines who is called an expert, who is called ordinary, who teaches, who is tested, and who is simply categorized as “uninformed.”
The deeper meaning of the hierarchy of knowledge is that society does not merely organize power over bodies and economies; it also organizes the right to determine what counts as knowledge. In other words, one of humanity’s greatest struggles throughout history has not only been over territory or resources, but over legitimacy itself: the authority to define reality. Once a particular form of knowledge is placed at the top, alternative ways of understanding the world gradually come to be seen as invalid, irrational, or unmodern.
For that reason, the hierarchy of knowledge operates far beyond formal education systems. It shapes people’s confidence in their own ability to think. Someone may understand many things through lived experience, yet still feel “stupid” because their knowledge is not recognized by official institutions. On the other hand, someone else may gain social legitimacy merely through certificates, academic degrees, or technical language, even when their understanding of reality is deeply limited. At this point, the hierarchy of knowledge no longer merely organizes knowledge; it organizes human self-worth.
In the modern world, schools, universities, research institutions, professional certifications, academic journals, and systems of examination function as the primary machinery of the hierarchy of knowledge. All of these institutions operate through logics of selection and classification. There are official curricula, competency standards, educational levels, grade indexes, university rankings, categories of experts and non-experts. Knowledge thus appears not merely as a process of understanding the world, but as a system for distributing legitimacy and social status.
The problem is that the hierarchy of knowledge is often mistaken for truth itself. Yet what stands at the top of a hierarchy is not necessarily what is most true; often it is simply what is most organized, institutionally supported, and capable of maintaining legitimacy. The history of science repeatedly shows that many ideas once dismissed as false later became the foundation of new knowledge. This demonstrates that the hierarchy of knowledge is historical and political, not absolute.
The hierarchy of knowledge also creates a division between “those who know” and “those who do not know.” From this emerges a society accustomed to surrendering judgment about reality to particular authorities. The public gradually loses the courage to think independently because only certain groups are regarded as legitimate voices. As a result, knowledge transforms from a means of liberation into a mechanism of dependence. Human beings are no longer encouraged to understand reality directly; instead, they are taught to trust systems of legitimacy that speak in the name of knowledge.
At a certain level, the hierarchy of knowledge does serve practical functions. Without divisions of expertise, modern life would be difficult to sustain. Not everyone can simultaneously become a doctor, engineer, or mathematician. Yet the problem begins when specialization turns into epistemic monopoly: when knowledge is no longer understood as a shared human endeavor, but as a closed territory accessible only to select groups. At that moment, knowledge becomes a form of power.
Therefore, the central issue of the hierarchy of knowledge is not the existence of differences in human capability, but how those differences are organized and interpreted. If the hierarchy of knowledge causes people to lose the courage to think, lose direct contact with reality, and feel inferior before systems of legitimacy, then hierarchy functions as a mechanism of domination. But if knowledge is understood as an open collective process—where expertise exists without destroying the dignity of others—then knowledge can become the basis of a republic of knowledge: a shared space where human beings enrich one another’s understanding without turning others into inferior subjects.
Ultimately, the hierarchy of knowledge reveals that every society constructs not only economic and political systems, but also an order determining who is considered capable of understanding the world. From this perspective, humanity’s struggle is not merely for wealth or power, but also for the right to understand reality through one’s own mind.
Should things remain this way? What do you think? (njd)
Note: This article was made as part of a dedicated effort to bring everyday life around us to our minds.
