It Is Time to Return to Reality-Based Knowledge

Cultural anthropologists travel beyond the classroom to research and compare ideas and practices to those of their own, who are frequently far geographically and culturally indistinguishable. To guarantee or at least increase the likelihood of reining in their own assumptions and expectations in order to comprehend the reality of the world they have entered, they use some straightforward techniques that they dignify with the brand “methodology.” I may return to these reality-oriented “techniques” below. In the meanwhile, an upgrade on our way of knowing. &nbsp,

Over the past generation, our schools and universities have changed their knowledge, teaching, study, and management by reorienting to an ideal-based view. It was assumed that, in most socioeconomic concerns, we had discovered what the difficulties were, and had figured out the alternatives. Inquiry was no longer important, because the comments were known. What was urgently needed was engagement to push the necessary measures forward so that the solutions could be put into practice. &nbsp,

This utopian vision was appealing to some Americans, Canadians, Europeans, and another Europeans. The promised corrections to previous injustices, and the assurances that justice, and, yes, kindness, had information the future working of education, media, company, and political institutions. The promise was that oppressed, excluded, and underserved minority may be treated nicely, even if that meant specific actions and focused interests. &nbsp,

In education, new programs and employees were dedicated to specific populations that claimed interest, and enrollment of students and staff, cash, benefits, were directed on that basis, and also facilities were designed and allocated with those populations in mind. To uphold the principles of this idealistic vision, specific workers were hired. Following the design of the education and services to implement the new objectives, the school system, which had its employees trained in colleges, followed. &nbsp,

This fresh vision, or philosophy, was labelled” cultural justice”, and the specific actions instituted to apply it were “diversity, capital, and inclusion”. The idea that all societies are built on those with electricity oppressing those without power was the main presumption. And that, in Western nations, the differences of authority were based on race, sex and gender, sexuality, and illness, but in special circumstances culture and religion. &nbsp,

The best to be fought for was absolute justice, or capital, the same outcomes in education, business, social status, and social standing. This was to be calculated not among individuals, but among collective, census categories. All differences, or “disparities”, were deemed to be a result of prejudice and discrimination. Only objectively comparable outcomes would demonstrate the existence of” social justice”

This revolutionary idealism that transformed Western institutions eventually sparked two negative reactions: One was that by giving special privileges to minorities, they were viewed as victims and members of other categories of disadvantaged people. As the French diplomat Talleyrand said, “C’est pirequ’un crime ,c’est une faute”:” It’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake”. It was a mistake because the disadvantaged party was the majority of Americans, Canadians, and other Westerners. In a democracy, denying the rights of the majority is sure to lead to a backlash. &nbsp,

The assumption that the new morality,” social justice”, was settled and certain, and that no further exploration and testing of understanding was needed is jejune in the extreme, paralleled only by claims that” the science is settled”, which is a basic misunderstanding, because “science” can never, by its nature, be” settled”. The understanding of” social justice” was not, as claimed, the pinnacle &nbsp, of knowledge, but the negation of knowledge, as was made clear by the vehement opposition to any criticism, the attacks on and cancellation of anyone who disagreed, and the switch in emphasis from research to activism. &nbsp,

In other words, people and ideas were evaluated on the basis of their morality rather than their conformity with or understanding of reality. Several lines of thought contributed to this evaluation. What people believed depended on their social standing, according to the old” sociology of knowledge.” According to the more recent” critical theory” in Europe, established knowledge is always concepts that supported the elites in the power structure. ( The political and academic elites who support” social justice” never adopted this theory as a basis for their own ideas and positions. ) And intellectual relativity followed: since” truth” varied relative to power, there was no real” truth” to be learned. In other words, the search for” truth” was futile at best, while at worst was a support for power ( for the wrong people ). &nbsp,

In this new “moral” vision, the job of education and universities was no longer the search for truth, but the dissemination of the new morality, of” social justice”. Universities were no longer educational institutions, but social movements for moral purity. As a result, they had to erase previous wrong thinking that had been easily corrected by the authors ‘ incorrect race and sex, as well as their creation’s time period. The entire literary and artistic tradition of the West was abrogated because it was immoral, so it was no longer a subject matter and should be defame in good faith. &nbsp,

In order to establish equity, absolute equality, and the statistical equivalence of all census categories, equal opportunities had to be offered, but that was not sufficient to bring about the desired parities. Consequently, all selection based on merit, on achievement and potential, had to be cancelled, all standards were lowered or cancelled entirely. The end result was a lower level of performance. Reality can be denied and ignored, but it cannot be avoided. &nbsp,

So, how do we return to reality-based knowledge? Let’s turn to anthropologists “in the field” trying to understand what people are doing. Three very simple techniques are necessary: First, the anthropologist talks to people, asking what they are doing and why they are doing it that way. Asking what they want to accomplish. What do people want, and how do they accomplish it? Of course, anthropologists realized that people might be too busy, too impatient, or too prone to playing tricks to answer clearly, fully, and honestly. It helps to talk to a lot of different people, to even out the bumps in responses.

Even so, responding to an anthropologist’s questions is not real life for the respondents. What they say doesn’t really count in their lives. What the respondents find to be true life is what people say to one another in the community, though. Therefore, it is necessary for the anthropologist to observe what people say to one another while engaging in their activities. Although it is likely plenty clear and complete for the speakers and listeners, it may not be true or complete. But it is always significant in people’s everyday lives. Because discussions are ongoing in the community, anthropopologists must pay attention to them. Their work is incomplete if they do not comprehend what is being said and what significance it has for the people themselves. &nbsp,

But, as we all know, words are one kind of action, but there are many other kinds of action. Whatever is said, anthropologists must closely observe what people actually do. As it always does in our own lives, the contrast between what people say and what people do is always significant. Let me illustrate a simple situation: I asked a tribesman from the Dadolzai lineage what happened when members of the tribe got into a fight with one another during my 27-month fieldwork among the Yarahmadzai Baluch in southeast Iran. Because” we are one,” a tactic that tribesmen use to describe their unity, he replied that they didn’t fight. They also say” We are all brothers” .&nbsp,

After a time, I heard that conflicts had broken out between individuals. In one instance, another man took the date palm trunk that one man had cut off. The first man’s kin organized a war party and went to the trunk’s resupply. No fighting was involved, but the war party was ready to fight if necessary. In another instance, a camel from one tribal section ate meat from a palm owned by a tribal tribal resident. They exchanged insults before being hit. This led to further fights between members of the two sections, and eventually war parties, but no mass fights and no serious injuries. In this tribal environment, even a drop of blood is considered a serious injury requiring serious compensation. The tribal chief, Han Mahmud, stepped in and brought about a resolution. &nbsp,

The Baluchi tribes, like the Bedouin in Arabia and beyond, and most tribal peoples, maintain social order through collective responsibility, well illustrated by the motto of the Three Musketeers,” All for one, and one for all”. These tribesmen are organized in patrilineages ranging from small, like the Dadolzai, to large, such as one of the three tribal sections. Who mobilized in a conflict to support a person depends on the person who is the opposing. If they are close in descent, only their small lineages mobilize, if they are distant, then large lineages or sections mobilize. The idea is to always support a distant relative in opposition to a closer one. &nbsp,

In this case, what I was told was true, but incomplete. Absent any internal conflict or in the face of external aggression, the tribe was unified, all brothers from a common ancestor. In a conflict, mobilization was determined by the distance between the opposing parties. By asking, listening, and watching, I was able to learn how the Baluch thought and how they acted. &nbsp,

These straightforward anthropological methods were derived from the Enlightenment tradition of impartial analysis based on evidence, which our universities had practiced before moving on to the morality of a utopian vision. The Enlightenment university’s core function was to ask questions and arrive at contradictory conclusions through evidence, but after recently being institutionalized into imposing morality, challenges to woke truths were viewed as heresy and the heretics were bullied into silence or excommunicated and expelled. &nbsp,

Returning to open-minded, reality-oriented teaching and research is as easy as deciding to do it, to protect it, and to reward it. We can do that, and, in some places ( Republican states in the U. S., but not at all in Canada ), we have already started to do that. By returning to the Enlightenment university’s productive traditions, we can reclaim the accomplishments of our culture and the truth of our research and scholarship, both now and in the future. &nbsp,

Source credit