Homi Bhaba is a post-colonialist theorist who has written profusely about encounters between cultures, primarily “indigenous” cultures and “colonizing” cultures. He wrote an article entitled “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse,” which has allowed me to contextualize my classmates’ understanding of CoPs and tacit knowledge.
If I recall correctly, this article talks about how that colonial situations often resulted in the “colonized” mimicking their “colonizers,” due to the political and subjugation that took/takes place in colonialism. It argues that despite this game of mimicry between cultures, each civilization remains an “other” because it can perfectly replicate that which another culture originated. Thus, perhaps inherent to this theory is that “becoming an ‘other’” requires being able to perform the role of the “other” perfectly. Otherwise, attempts to mimic the “other” result in something new, a “hybridity” of culture that departs from the original “colonized” culture, and that of the colonialists. In the context of knowledge management in general, the following suggests that there must be relational differences in order for learning or innovation to occur. One learns of one’s differences and one’s identity by contextualizing how an “other” is different.
In one sense, the following could emphasize why lateral as well as vertical peer to peer learning is imperative to the transfer of tacit knowledge. By learning of how others have internalized knowledge, and which external factors have influenced peers to learn of something under a specific scope, then individuals who constitute part of the “other,” might have a better grasp of understanding why and how certain ideas are implemented, in relation to how they usually conduct business.
If KM strategies are built almost exclusively on vertical relationships, then practitioners will not have the occasion to contrast their specialized methodology with that of their counterparts. Peer to peer learning compels compartmentalized groups to study “out-of –specialization” techniques, which might go ignored if one is just learning from a standardized managerial mentor. By the same token, if one applies Bhabha’s theory to CoPs, after being exposed to the “other,” and reapplying the “other’s” behavior, his or her tactics or know-how, then peer-to-peer learning will inevitably result in some kind of knowledge creation. By default, the “other” is incapable of perfecting and performing a counterpart’s exact tactics or behavior. Having been exposed to another culture, or another discipline his or her entire life, the “other” is incapable of mastering the nuances that differentiate him or herself from a counterpart. If this is so, the tacit knowledge transferred in a CoP will result in a sort of hybrid knowledge that is new and innovative: knowledge creation.
This blog entry was originally written for Communities of Practice, a McGill University School of Information Studies course, under Professor Venkatesh.
