I did not address the issues of "trust, mutual respect and even
friendship." My experience has taught me that these ideals forever suffer
from ambiguity and ambivalence. You treat these ideals as givens. Perhaps
I'm more of a relativist than you are.
Joanna K
----- Original Message -----
From: "milo" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: cultural tourism
> Thank you for your quick response. I agree that people who have
> historically gotten the short end of the stick can be expected to take
> advantage of opportunities such as these when they are offered. My
> concern is about the implications of anthropologists' participation in and
> so tacit support for it. I cannot agree that our data have always been
and,
> by extension, always are commodified. The equation of research
relationships
> based on trust, mutual respect, and even friendship with the genesis of a
> commodity
> dismisses Toennies' distinctions between relations of affection and
relations of
> contract
> much quicker than I'm willing to do. Indeed, that equation, I believe, is
at the
> heart of the
> problem about which I wrote earlier. And it is directly related to the
issue of
> validity.
> What lab sciences with experimental groups and cloned controls expect in
the way
> of validity
> and reliability is not reasonably to be expected in the study of human
groups,
> but invalidity
> is not the only alternative. I believe the high level of confidence
associated
> with the findings
> of anthropologists is explained by our methodologically required close
> associations with the people
> among whom we carry out research. Trust, mutual respect, and friendship
(when
> we are lucky)
> are not the result of commodification, and the knowledge we gain through
those
> relationships, I believe,
> is likely to be closer to the truth than had we bought it under contract.
As
> this subject relates to
> the authenticity debates, commodified data will authentically represent
> something. The question becomes
> "what" under the new social conditions of its production. Perhaps that's
what
> will remain to be studied
> when all is said and done.
> Jane Gibson
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|