Contamination-free anthropology is mythological in itself,* It's
a science yet at the same time, to simply have communication
take _place_ means there's some kind of contamination. To
interpret WITHOUT visual presence is contamination because we'll
be taking a series of assumptions with us into it without
subjective input from the observed, contaminating the results
with our bias, however proper they are from our perspective. My
point is: Anthropology is not a lab-friendly field. What might
be considered contamination-free in 1920 anthropology or in 2016
anthropology might be considered disasterously contaminating in
year 2800AD Anthropology as we presumably learn more about the
effects of our actions upon environments. So, we work with
simplifications and do the best that can be done. The trouble
is, simplifications of belief constructs is not an easy task if
one wants to do it properly. Anthropology frequently
misrepresents a people for whatever
their reasons. That happens
in other people fields as well. Sociology, statistics, anything
that takes people and groups them together, and stereotypes
their thinking together, runs to strong risk of
misrepresentation. And - that's just within the fields
themselves. For people OUTSIDE of the fields (not in a science)
or in other fields, I suspect they just don't bother with
questioning the methodologies used. And, increasingly many
people just lump all of it together into a big ball and toss it
in the trash into "Not Applicable" Or get on campaigns to remove
religious things without a proper cost/benefit analysis,
focusing on the hyperbole and drama and getting what I consider
'political' about it all. In any case, I strayed from the OP but
my main point is contamination is unavoidable. Scrutiny of one's
own bias is critical.
