This chapter discusses both Searle and Brandom place on the importance of a background against which explanations of rules and meaning or the possession of intentional mental states can be set. It is whether Searle gives us good reasons for thinking that tacit knowledge or knowledge-how must be thought of as comprising a distinct background. Searle's account of the crucial role the Background plays in our individual and collective lives appears to offer a naturalistic model for the intersecting concepts of tacit knowledge and knowing how. To be a credible alternative to the claim that tacit knowledge is personal knowledge-how, however, some concerns must be addressed, the most immediately obvious of which is that it applies only to social/institutional facts. The chapter shows what's wrong both with intel-lectualistic and credible alternative view and with that "certain way" in which the tacit dimension of tacit knowledge is understood.