Content area
Full Text
We live in an age where the very foundation of evidence-based research as well as journalism is under serious threat. It matters. I am not suggesting that there is some unalloyed truth “out there” and that a confident rational approach espoused by Enlightenment scholars such as Francis Bacon, deaf to the ways in which knowledge is produced, is within easy reach. The postmodern critique of Western science is an important one and, within anthropology, the powerful critique of the discipline produced by James Clifford and George Marcus’ volume Writing culture (1986) that undermined the methodological confidence of the discipline continues to reverberate. One interpretation of the ontological turn in anthropology is that it is a reaction to these anxieties, as one of its main proponents has suggested (Holbraad 2017). At any rate, the discipline has been pushed to make itself more engaged, relevant, and radical in its understanding of human culture. There is a danger, however, and the danger is that in an admirable attempt to develop new critical methodologies, to provide new perspectives on the myriad ways of living in the world, we actually undermine the foundations of anthropological inquiry and that of social science more broadly. I can see the iconoclastic attraction of this, especially if born of a frustration at seeing subaltern people’s views and interests increasingly trampled by the neoliberal capitalist juggernaut. If this is to be the project then we must be especially careful that our methodologies be robust or we run the risk of undermining the very worldviews we seek to empower and protect. Marisol de la Cadena’s rebuttal of the critical points made by her readers and her sheer avoidance of others, all presented in a language that seeks not to clarify but obscure, with the repetition of phrases that are...