What tribal societies can tell us about justice and liberty

[MikeF]

As to this:

Finally, how do you as a field practitioner (as opposed to being a member of the Parisian academy ) separate the true from the false, the accurate from the inaccurate, etc., generated by indigenous narrators and informants; thereby avoiding the "Diamond Trap".

Regards (colonialment)

Mike

Hi Mike. First a dumb question. Is a barsroom a bar? Lol. I've started the conversation on one component of breaking down the facts and truth in this thread on aerial reconnaissance. Additionally, I remembered something that my dad taught me.

Military doctrine defines an aerial reconnaissance as denoting a preliminary survey conducted to gain or collect information. This technique is not solely owned by the military, and I learned of its advantage early on in my youth. My father is a commercial developer. We moved towards new areas of prospective growth. In 1985, during first grade, we moved from Charlotte to Cary in his pursuit of the American Dream. He would rent helicopters to survey potential properties prior to purchase. In his office, I would stare at the overhead images taken during the flight and ask him why he took them.

“Michael, you have to be able to see the land and visualize its use. If I’m going to build a medical park there, then I need to gain a snapshot of its proximity to the city, to the schools, and to the neighborhoods. Additionally, I must try to imagine where the future growth will go. If I don’t look at it from every possible angle, then I could build in the wrong place.”

One key difference to remember with the practisioners is the motive- military, entrepeneur, and anthropologist. One is trying to execute and enforce policy, one strives towards profit, and the final is supposed to observed and analyze.

[jmm99]

As to Barsoom (ain't no second "r" in it), I can be half-assed intelligent about it, having spent the weekend reading a book on myths in American pulp fiction and films - where Barsoom gets a few pages.

Since you attended and excelled at That Place on the Hudson, you probably were more acquainted with Edgar Rice Burroughs' other creation, Tarzan - and when you escaped from the jungle, with whatever bar was nearest the gate.

Given Lagrange's attraction to exotic places, Barsoom may have an entirely different meaning than the one I am positing.

My last question was how does the field practitioner (whatever is being practiced) keep from being conned, flamboozled, etc., when a transient in Barsoom.

Regards

Mike

[marct]

My last question was how does the field practitioner (whatever is being practiced) keep from being conned, flamboozled, etc., when a transient in Barsoom.

Well, as a "classical" anthropologist, i would fall back on tried and true methods - find a Dejah Thoris .

[MikeF]

My last question was how does the field practitioner (whatever is being practiced) keep from being conned, flamboozled, etc., when a transient in Barsoom.

Regards

Mike

And that my dearest friend, is the deepest of questions, a crazy game of poker if you will. I'm going to attempt to explore it soon. As I have no definitive answers as there are none, I will attempt to provide guidance for those that wish to enter into the game .

How do you maneuver and shake in a competing environment when the truth is all so elusive and others have their own desires?

Who's up for game 3? I so enjoy these games .

[Kiwigrunt]

How do you maneuver and shake in a competing environment when the truth is all so elusive and others have their own desires?

That'll work it's way to my quote-list.

[MikeF]

That'll work it's way to my quote-list.

and that gives me encouragement as I have to relive it as I write.

Cheers,

Mike

[Dayuhan]

How do you maneuver and shake in a competing environment when the truth is all so elusive and others have their own desires?

If you've accepted that truth is elusive and others have their own desires you've already taken a huge step in the right direction. Too many of us arrive in Barsoom (or wherever) with the assumption that truth is self-evident, What We Want is so clearly virtuous that everyone else must certainly want it too, and anyone who tells us what we want to hear "gets it" and should be trusted. This is not a combination that favors the attainment of objectives.

There are certainly variants of it that myth that have been popularized extensively in the West, especially of the Shamanic and Eco"friendly" varieties.

Not so long ago we had an addled Teuton wandering around these parts looking for shamans and getting terribly frustrated that nobody knew what the word meant. Just before his disgruntled departure he was heard to pronounce that the religious intermediaries of the local tribes weren't "real shamans" because they don't use hallucinogens. Amazing that the whole Carlos Castaneda thing still holds up. I guess it will as long as folks want to claim that they're getting stoned in pursuit of a higher purpose, which is to say forever.

[MikeF]

If you've accepted that truth is elusive and others have their own desires you've already taken a huge step in the right direction. Too many of us arrive in Barsoom (or wherever) with the assumption that truth is self-evident, What We Want is so clearly virtuous that everyone else must certainly want it too, and anyone who tells us what we want to hear "gets it" and should be trusted. This is not a combination that favors the attainment of objectives.

That needs to be repeated again and again...

Too many of us arrive in Barsoom (or wherever) with the assumption that truth is self-evident, What We Want is so clearly virtuous that everyone else must certainly want it too, and anyone who tells us what we want to hear "gets it" and should be trusted. This is not a combination that favors the attainment of objectives

we start with all things are self-evident...

[Ken White]

barroom...

[MikeF]

If you've accepted that truth is elusive and others have their own desires you've already taken a huge step in the right direction. Too many of us arrive in Barsoom (or wherever) with the assumption that truth is self-evident, What We Want is so clearly virtuous that everyone else must certainly want it too, and anyone who tells us what we want to hear "gets it" and should be trusted. This is not a combination that favors the attainment of objectives.



Not so long ago we had an addled Teuton wandering around these parts looking for shamans and getting terribly frustrated that nobody knew what the word meant. Just before his disgruntled departure he was heard to pronounce that the religious intermediaries of the local tribes weren't "real shamans" because they don't use hallucinogens. Amazing that the whole Carlos Castaneda thing still holds up. I guess it will as long as folks want to claim that they're getting stoned in pursuit of a higher purpose, which is to say forever.

As Dale Carnegie reminds us,

When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.

[Steve Blair]

As Dale Carnegie reminds us,

When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.

Excellent point, Mike. At times I fear we study science and math too much, and ignore the human dimension of every endeavor. Must be my inner history geek coming out again.....

[M-A Lagrange]

While the discussion goes on, I wil try to respond to some ofthe questions my last post raised while I read the rest.

To respond to JMM first question: Wilf’s post I am referring to is on the JDP 3-40 from British Army posted in November 2009, pages 4-29 or 130 on my pdf version.

Secondly, the “traditional societies myth”
Being less a scholar than Marc and mainly a practitioner, I did not refer to the ‘bon sauvage’ (Rousseau) or Adam Kuper (Have to dig that one out cause this rings bell in my mind but could not point out what) but to the myth/assumption that traditional societies are the solution in stabilization ops for justice.
The doc I am referring to (JDT 3-40) states, as all of them, that in post conflict context, to restore/build peace, external forces/powers have to rely on traditional societies, especially for justice implementation at very low/grass root level. This based on the fact that traditional authorities are a form of power which is accepted and respected by all and therefore represents an alternative to modern justice (under construction at that point of time in the given context).
The UK document points out the fact that traditional chiefs had an active role in fuelling the conflict in Sierra Leone by having a partial and discriminative implementation of justice during the conflict. Therefore traditional justice as modern justice replacement/coping mechanism in immediate post conflict operation has been a failure. That because population did not trust traditional authorities anymore.
In addition, I did witness similar failure of traditional societies in Liberia. In Liberia, tradition wants that wars is a social/power elevator. So all exfighters (young men and women) coming back to their villages were considering they should be given social respect and authority according to tradition. But due to the exactions done during the war, communities refused to comply with tradition and refused to reintegrate the youth. But due to their involvement during the war and the fear from them inside communities, justice (modern or traditional) was not implemented.
This just as example to show that traditional societies are not frozen and do change according to communities history.
The myth I am fighting against is that idea that traditional societies are the solution because they are ‘traditional’ meaning untouched and pure compare to the modern societies which bring conflicts. Traditional societies, especially concerning justice, are facing the same problems than “modern societies”. Justice and its implementation are subject to local and personal interests. Traditional laws and judicial mechanisms are as complex as modern ones. It is not because a mechanism is “traditional” that it is the same as the one identifies in a “dreamed golden age” of each and every societies we are dealing with/observing.

Justice implementation stays a power tool what ever a society is modern or traditional and stays an evolving complex legal tool and not Justice. The spirit of the law does apply to traditional societies but the policy baseline (democratic, autocratic regime…) might not be the same while the roots (preserving group interests and by extend individuals in power interests) stay the same. (I am not sure I am very clear here).

Now, to come to the question of how to make the difference in the field… Good question. This requires knowledge of the context (Historical, anthropological/ethnographic, political… in UN language it is called a holistic approach), presence in the field (nothing will replace direct proxy contacts) and a good part of luck/nose/stomach/guts feeling.
I do not have any magic formula on this. My personal approach is to play/be the red team as much as I can against main international opinions. And to keep in mind that local population is looking for the same thing than me: an easy life in a nice and cool social and economical environment (well on paper in my personal case). Plus a good doze of political paranoia.
In practice, I never trust what local politician and authorities are telling me; doubt of what the men are telling me and rely a lot on what women are telling me. A good example is a survey I conducted in Bas Congo (DRC) among Angolan refugees in 2007. While men and local chief were telling me that nothing was in place they were abandoned and received nothing from no one… My colleague (a woman) who conducted the same assessment than me but focused only on women came out with a totally different picture: people received aid, land, educational trainings… But most of it was not working because of internal political problems inside the community. (Which I had identified also though focus groups with men but on different issues).
From that point, we were able to rebuild all the history of the community in the past 10 years and match international organization, local authorities, men and women statements. And then come with a comprehensive picture of the actual situation.
Entropy or emotional connection with the community you work on is needed also. You have to be able to read behind the lines in the answers people are giving. To continue with my example, the ones in real needs were individuals who were so much psychologically affected that they said they had no needs, everything were fine. While the one who were well integrated were the ones who said they were missing everything.
Unfortunately for the ones in need, they did not feet in the agency capacities evaluation format so they received very few support while the other, because they were well integrated and less affected, received a lot of support. But there you touch the limits of the exercise. Knowing the truth helps but is not what agencies are looking for; they do look for capacities to implement their projects: the "solutions search problems to solve" approach.

The main issue is the unexpressed needs.
The relation between observer and communities are always false in the sense that communities are assuming that you come with an agenda. So they give you purposely the answers they think will comply with your expectations.
There has been some famous anthropological work on this, mainly based on cannibalism practices. (Marc, I am sorry but I count on you to come with theoretical reference on that one. I have completely forgotten the book and anthropologist names on this).
A great example of this is the CARE assessment done in North Kivu in 2007 among IDPs (CARE DRC; Internal displacement in North Kivu-Hosting, camps and coping mechanisms (CARE DRC, 27 April 2008).).
According to CARE, everything was fine. But, if you read carefully the CARE report, there are 5 lines from an interview with NRC members. The NRC team members' description of the situation is the complete opposite: sexual abuse, trade sex/aid for hosting, employment discrimination,…
CARE observation is correct but NRC testimony was closer to reality (not truth). Truth was in between: yes host population did feel it was an honor to help; yes displaced population felt they were a weight for hosting population and yes hosting populations were harassing IDPs and international NGO and UN agencies were blind to it.
The unexpressed need was the host population need for aid and access denial to it from relief societies. So, as they could not access aid directly, host population took it by force from IDPs.

And finally, yes, I do refer to Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom. I am a big fan… (Call me a geek if you want; no problem with that. But I am no nerd.)
ERB advocacy for US involvement in world war in his moon cycle is one of the less known but one of the most interesting contributions of popular pulp culture to US politic. On this I tried to start a threat on the relation between Science Fiction Culture and military few time ago.