Modern Times

Artifact Project

Interview Project

Anthropology of Truths

Part I - Common Knowledge

Part II - Sources

Part III - Cultures of Truths

"The purpose of models or norms is not to explain the world but to perpetuate it." -Levi-Strauss

Since facts do not just appear in the world, but instead are produced in particular places as narratives and then often travel, changing along the way, it is important to reflect on how things that we "know" via narratives are circulated and reproduced. This final part of the Anthropology of Truths project asks you to evaluate the culture of facts and truths as documented by yourself and your peers.

1. First a quick evaluation of the sources you have available: is this a representative sample? Who has managed to get their narratives and facts heard? Why? Is there enough to make a judgment on what your object is? What other sources do you imagine are out there?

2. Gaps and differences, using the sources that you do have: Where are there huge differences between different sources? Can you characterize them (complementary, antagonistic, expert/lay, state/corporate and so on)? How do you explain the differences? Are these differences necessary? Might they be changed (can you imagine consensus, either ideally or actually)?

Use the readings to highlight these issues: Some articles, for instance, locate differences as based in interests (of governments, institutions, companies, activist groups). Others locate differences as based on positions in the world (hierarchical, cultural, gendered). Others posit differences as the result of incomplete information, misinformation, and ignorance. Use some readings to speculate on what might be going on. Feel free to offer more than one explanation, even contradictory ones.

Is there information that does not seem to be available? Why not? Use some readings to speculate on why this might be so. Why hasn’t something been studied? Why aren’t some facts readily available?

3. Thinking about the sources you have in terms of cultural reproduction (the Levi-Strauss quote above), imagine how they are functioning to perpetuate the world, and especially the status of your topic.

Does the situation appear to be stable or is it changing? Are the actors involved well-defined or still under construction? Are groups being maintained via the accounts or are they being constituted? Do you notice things that might be changing the relationships among the various groups and actors? Is credibility relatively stable, even if oppositional? Or are there shifts in alliances among groups and actors going on? Are there clear stakes for each group involved? If it all appears stable, what could you imagine that would destabilize it? What would it take for such a thing to happen?

What other things are being perpetuated as "side-effects" of these sources? Is expertise being undermined or reinforced? Which experts? What about larger cultural formations such as "the state", "government", "science", "medicine", "big business", "religion", "feminism", "popular opinion": are these at issue? Are they changing? Are they being differently related to each other?

Are there specific "cultures" involved? How and how are they being changed? Think of the various readings in Conceiving the New World Order.

For these issues, use a few examples from the readings to illustrate what might be happening. Given that we have limited information at our disposal, feel free to speculate on what you don’t have.

4. Finally, briefly, situate yourself in the field: where are you, with your readings and your positions? Do you have an opinion on the truth or falsity of aspects of your topic? Do you want to see more information? Are you waiting for more info to be generated? Remember that each of these positions, as well as the cynical "One can’t know the truth," are positions held by various groups.