3.5 Practice Theory as a Direction-Finding Beacon
213
include numerous actors, other than the organs of state, such as interest group- and
counter-expertise, NGOs, corporations, the media (Holst 2012) and academics.
By spreading the actor net wider, we need to incorporate other classifications
in the discussion. In this regard, Holst (2012) identifies a cultural epistocracy as a
society that has a considerable respect for knowledge and knowers. Because of this
admiration, many in such a society support the idea that decisions must be based
on sound knowledge and that knowers must play a substantial role in the decisionmaking process. A cultural epistocracy comes in degrees and varies, depending on the
type of knowers, as well as the type of knowledge that society recognises and values.
According to Holst (2012), Norway is less of a cultural epistocracy than France
and Germany, because the latter value academic degrees and merits more than does
the Norwegian society. Different kinds of knowledge, such as moral knowledge,
technical expertise and technocratic knowledge, exist within a cultural epistocracy
(Holst 2012).
In addition, knowers can become governors, either through prescription or recognition. Epistocracies can also be formalised in relation to epistocratic policies and
laws. For instance, a government system that prescribes recruitment requirements,
such as a specific education level and cognitive aptitude for ruling positions in
different institutional arenas, is more formally epistocratic that a system with more
implicit staffing criteria. For example, certain government institutions have manuals
pertaining to the recruitment of public administration staff, and these prescriptions
could pertain to a specific educational background. Then, there are systems where
these requirements act as an assumed framework that is less formalised and epistocratic than the former system. In this regard, the degree of formalisation may
constitute the strengthening of a social epistocracy, since society reproduces certain
knowledgeable leaders based on the recruitment procedures (Holst 2012).
We can also investigate epistocracies from a qualitative perspective. For instance,
political units could recruit knowers based on the theoretical knowledge that they
have acquired by means of an academic degree, or by being appointed as skilled
practitioners. Organs of state can also appoint members of epistocracies because they
have factual knowledge, as well as a specific technical competence or moral expertise,
based on their academic training, or practical skills and experience. In this regard, it
is also important to consider the content of the expert’s expertise (Holst 2012). For
example, a report that is authored by climate change experts on eThekwini’s climate
adaptation strategy will look different from a report authored by political scientists,
because the paradigms and theories of their background knowledge differ.
Benefits, drawbacks and implications
As has already been mentioned, modern societies are large and complex, with the
result that political problems, such as climate change, are multifaceted. According
to Min (2015), it is for this reason that society should appeal to experts for policy
development and evaluations. Efficient instrumental policy development happens
through cost-benefit analyses that are based on positivism, since scientists exclude
any reasonable doubt from the process (Wissenburg 2019). The numbers and equations speak for themselves. Estlund (2003) argued that certain political outcomes or
213
include numerous actors, other than the organs of state, such as interest group- and
counter-expertise, NGOs, corporations, the media (Holst 2012) and academics.
By spreading the actor net wider, we need to incorporate other classifications
in the discussion. In this regard, Holst (2012) identifies a cultural epistocracy as a
society that has a considerable respect for knowledge and knowers. Because of this
admiration, many in such a society support the idea that decisions must be based
on sound knowledge and that knowers must play a substantial role in the decisionmaking process. A cultural epistocracy comes in degrees and varies, depending on the
type of knowers, as well as the type of knowledge that society recognises and values.
According to Holst (2012), Norway is less of a cultural epistocracy than France
and Germany, because the latter value academic degrees and merits more than does
the Norwegian society. Different kinds of knowledge, such as moral knowledge,
technical expertise and technocratic knowledge, exist within a cultural epistocracy
(Holst 2012).
In addition, knowers can become governors, either through prescription or recognition. Epistocracies can also be formalised in relation to epistocratic policies and
laws. For instance, a government system that prescribes recruitment requirements,
such as a specific education level and cognitive aptitude for ruling positions in
different institutional arenas, is more formally epistocratic that a system with more
implicit staffing criteria. For example, certain government institutions have manuals
pertaining to the recruitment of public administration staff, and these prescriptions
could pertain to a specific educational background. Then, there are systems where
these requirements act as an assumed framework that is less formalised and epistocratic than the former system. In this regard, the degree of formalisation may
constitute the strengthening of a social epistocracy, since society reproduces certain
knowledgeable leaders based on the recruitment procedures (Holst 2012).
We can also investigate epistocracies from a qualitative perspective. For instance,
political units could recruit knowers based on the theoretical knowledge that they
have acquired by means of an academic degree, or by being appointed as skilled
practitioners. Organs of state can also appoint members of epistocracies because they
have factual knowledge, as well as a specific technical competence or moral expertise,
based on their academic training, or practical skills and experience. In this regard, it
is also important to consider the content of the expert’s expertise (Holst 2012). For
example, a report that is authored by climate change experts on eThekwini’s climate
adaptation strategy will look different from a report authored by political scientists,
because the paradigms and theories of their background knowledge differ.
Benefits, drawbacks and implications
As has already been mentioned, modern societies are large and complex, with the
result that political problems, such as climate change, are multifaceted. According
to Min (2015), it is for this reason that society should appeal to experts for policy
development and evaluations. Efficient instrumental policy development happens
through cost-benefit analyses that are based on positivism, since scientists exclude
any reasonable doubt from the process (Wissenburg 2019). The numbers and equations speak for themselves. Estlund (2003) argued that certain political outcomes or