Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
the evidence it was based on andculture,conclusions drawn from it. His critiquethesevere on both Mead’s methodologywasintegrity: he painted her as a youngandfundamentally misunderstandingethnographerof the culture she was studying, selectingaspectsthat suited her and generalizing herevidencetoo far. He also claimed that Meadconclusionstricked into believing stories of sexualwasby her female informants, who wereescapadesfact joking. Of course, Margaret Mead was notinto respond.arounddebate raged for years. Some were andTheconvinced by Freeman, and evenremainedrefer to the episode as an exposé andtodaynecessary corrective of the anthropologicalathat cautions us against inflatingrecordreputations of iconic intellectuals. Thetheof anthropology was confronted withfielddisagreements about standards ofdeepthesovereignty of analysis, theevidence,of interpretation and thedisinterestednessof contested methodological rigour andIssuesintegrity are explored in differentprofessionalthroughout this chapter. What iscontextsabout this example is that it draws ourimportantalso to the dynamics of the encountersattentionWestern researchers and colonizedbetweenIndigenous Peoples. This is what makesandepisode relevant today beyond the topic ofthishistory. A lot has been said aboutanthropologicaland Freeman, but what of the SamoansMeadlaunched these anthropologists’ careers?whothe controversy scrutinized what we knowWhilehuman culture and biology, and how weaboutit, the Samoans at the centre were largelyknowanthropological literature is riddled withTheof representation. In some ways it isproblemscentral problem of the discipline. If Meadtheright that culture so powerfully shapeswasthen we must pay special attention tosocieties,cultures of academic and other knowledge-theinstitutions. We see this influenceproducingstudents start sounding like the peoplewhenthat echoing in our voices are theanthropologyof our ancestors. To honour the diversevoicesin which anthropology is being practisedwaysprojects such as the Decanonizingglobally,syllabus offer neglected butanthropologyalternatives to mainstream texts.deservingthis might be of particular interest toWhileof anthropology, the lesson for TOKstudentsterms: site: footnotesblog.SearchDecanonizingcomlearners and knowers, we are personallyAsfor the knowledge we haveresponsibledo not have, as we move on to II.3,andthe acquisition of knowledge in theexploringabout one discipline in the humanThinkthat you study.sciencesWho are the influential thinkers that have1.the discipline?shapedwhether and how yourConsiderof this discipline has beenunderstandingby the particular set of thinkers orshapedyou have been given access to.ideas(a) Do you have a responsibility to seek2.historically underrepresentedoutWhat value, for your own knowledge(b)this discipline, do you see in suchofIf you were to seek out historically underrepresented3.perspectives, where wouldstart, and what questions wouldyouask? youexpand on this issue in III.1 with anWeof who the humans are in theexaminationII. PerspectivesII. Perspectiveshumansciences.For reflectionWho is represented by the humanvalidity of conclusions.sciences?perspectives?left out of the conversation.an exercise?human sciences.they study. It is, after all, one of the lessons of219
we look at the simplifications that areHerenecessary in the teaching of disiplinaryoftento students or the general public.knowledgetheir early encounters with new disciplinesInreceive simplified explanations of thestudentscauses, origins, effects and functionscomplexphenomena and concepts. The idea is thatofextended study, the nuance will appearthroughthe complexity will emerge. This is notandto the human sciences, and we exploreuniquea world without money. How wouldImagineexchange things and get what theyhumansYou might imagine people trading thingsneed?different things: four eggs for a bottle offortwo cows for a horse. Pursue it further andmilk;we find that this system of exchange,quicklybarter, is inefficient and inconvenient;calledexample, when you need to exchange halfforhorse for a donkey, without killing the horse.aor later someone, somewhere, so theSoonergoes, has the idea of money. Given thisstorymoney might even seem inevitable.story,has been a feature of economicsBartersince the advent of the moderntextbooksright up to the present day, usuallydisciplineas the way of things in “simple, earlydescribeduntil someone invented moneyeconomies”1999). We checked a number of IB and(Randalleconomics textbooks and foundundergraduateevery one of them described barter in earlythatsocieties. The story of barter haspre-moderntold and retold for a long time, perhapsbeenit neatly presents pre-money economicbecauseas problematic.exchangesSmith described it as “higgling,Adamswapping, dickering”—so eventuallyhaggling,came along to free us from thesemoneyproblems.this story about barter is a myth.However,example of a barter economy, pure and“Noin Chapter 7, II.5. Unacknowledgedgenetics,uncorrected simplifications can lead toandexample below refers to how, in explainingThecomplex origins of money, textbookstheus to an economic fairy tale of “simplerreferof the past. We invite healthysocieties”whenever simple societies arescepticismas the key to understanding complexpresentedKeep in mind whether there is aphenomena.between simplicity and accuracy, andtrade-offthis may affect the acquisition and transferhowknowledge.ofhas ever been described, let alonesimple,emergence from it of money,” wrotetheHumphrey, anthropology professorCarolineCambridge University, decades ago (1985).atsociologists, anthropologists andNumerouseconomists agree: the ethnographicpoliticaldoes not support the story. When thererecorda record, barter almost exclusively occursisstrangers or enemies (that is, betweenbetweenwho share no relationship); or, later,peoplepeople who were accustomed tobetweenbut could not use it for some reason,moneyas hyperinflation or shortage. What issuchnot only is there no evidence for themore,of barter, there is plenty of evidencemythit. David Graeber, anthropologyagainstat the London School of Economics,professoras follows.writesfact, our standard account of monetary“Inis precisely backwards. We did nothistory8II. PerspectivesII.3 Simplicity and accuracy: Thetextbook problemsignificant problems of knowledge.an example from natural sciences, in Mendel’sBox 8.3: The myth of barter, the inevitability of money and our moral imagination220
- Page 175 and 176: recent human activity called scienc
- Page 177 and 178: II. Perspectivessection explores th
- Page 179 and 180: II. Perspectivessaid to be in crisi
- Page 181 and 182: II. PerspectivesNewton’s theory?
- Page 183 and 184: II. Perspectives19th century reveal
- Page 185 and 186: II. PerspectivesWhat are some scien
- Page 187 and 188: II. Perspectivesof Duesberg’s pap
- Page 189 and 190: II. Perspectivesis a highly simplif
- Page 191 and 192: II. Perspectivesterms: Symphony ofS
- Page 193 and 194: II. Perspectivesorigin story of gen
- Page 195 and 196: II. Perspectivestechnical debates i
- Page 197 and 198: II. Perspectivesfar this section ha
- Page 199 and 200: II. Perspectivesthe kind of problem
- Page 201 and 202: III. Methods and toolsthe scientifi
- Page 203 and 204: III. Methods and toolsunrecognized
- Page 205 and 206: III. Methods and toolshas a number
- Page 207 and 208: III. Methods and toolsthe link to t
- Page 209 and 210: IV. Ethicswas the wartime head of t
- Page 211 and 212: IV. Ethicsan essential, imperfect a
- Page 213 and 214: 8Human scienceschapter is about the
- Page 215 and 216: I. Scopeof an idea or theory coming
- Page 217 and 218: I. Scopecentral cause of the profes
- Page 219 and 220: I. Scopeidea of describing society
- Page 221 and 222: who had been placed at the ‘lower
- Page 223 and 224: explore perspectives on the existen
- Page 225: II. Perspectivesallegations of scie
- Page 229 and 230: II. PerspectivesIII. Methods and to
- Page 231 and 232: III. Methods and toolslack of diver
- Page 233 and 234: III. Methods and toolssensitivity
- Page 235 and 236: III. Methods and toolsMargaret Mead
- Page 237 and 238: III. Methods and toolstheir presenc
- Page 239 and 240: III. Methods and toolstold Mahbub,
- Page 241 and 242: III. Methods and toolsY. Thinley, a
- Page 243 and 244: III. Methods and toolsis the scope
- Page 245 and 246: III. Methods and toolssignificant c
- Page 247 and 248: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethics7 d
- Page 249 and 250: IV. Ethicschange … brings togethe
- Page 251 and 252: last example brings together ideas
- Page 253 and 254: to show it how it was.” This was
- Page 255 and 256: I. Scope7 raises the question of wh
- Page 257 and 258: I. Scopeis more than a matter of po
- Page 259 and 260: II. Perspectivesqustion w xplord in
- Page 261 and 262: was not alon in rflting dply aoutCa
- Page 263 and 264: II. Perspectiveshistorial ontxt, ut
- Page 265 and 266: of Yugoslavia and th Sovit Union;ra
- Page 267 and 268: II. Perspectivesor indpndnt shools
- Page 269 and 270: III. Methods and toolswith an intrs
- Page 271 and 272: III. Methods and toolshistorian, jo
- Page 273 and 274: III. Methods and toolsinstad of oth
- Page 275 and 276: III. Methods and toolsmonks and lrg
the evidence it was based on and
culture,
conclusions drawn from it. His critique
the
severe on both Mead’s methodology
was
integrity: he painted her as a young
and
fundamentally misunderstanding
ethnographer
of the culture she was studying, selecting
aspects
that suited her and generalizing her
evidence
too far. He also claimed that Mead
conclusions
tricked into believing stories of sexual
was
by her female informants, who were
escapades
fact joking. Of course, Margaret Mead was not
in
to respond.
around
debate raged for years. Some were and
The
convinced by Freeman, and even
remained
refer to the episode as an exposé and
today
necessary corrective of the anthropological
a
that cautions us against inflating
record
reputations of iconic intellectuals. The
the
of anthropology was confronted with
field
disagreements about standards of
deep
thesovereignty of analysis, the
evidence,
of interpretation and the
disinterestedness
of contested methodological rigour and
Issues
integrity are explored in different
professional
throughout this chapter. What is
contexts
about this example is that it draws our
important
also to the dynamics of the encounters
attention
Western researchers and colonized
between
Indigenous Peoples. This is what makes
and
episode relevant today beyond the topic of
this
history. A lot has been said about
anthropological
and Freeman, but what of the Samoans
Mead
launched these anthropologists’ careers?
who
the controversy scrutinized what we know
While
human culture and biology, and how we
about
it, the Samoans at the centre were largely
know
anthropological literature is riddled with
The
of representation. In some ways it is
problems
central problem of the discipline. If Mead
the
right that culture so powerfully shapes
was
then we must pay special attention to
societies,
cultures of academic and other knowledge-
the
institutions. We see this influence
producing
students start sounding like the people
when
that echoing in our voices are the
anthropology
of our ancestors. To honour the diverse
voices
in which anthropology is being practised
ways
projects such as the Decanonizing
globally,
syllabus offer neglected but
anthropology
alternatives to mainstream texts.
deserving
this might be of particular interest to
While
of anthropology, the lesson for TOK
students
terms: site: footnotesblog.
Search
Decanonizing
com
learners and knowers, we are personally
As
for the knowledge we have
responsible
do not have, as we move on to II.3,
and
the acquisition of knowledge in the
exploring
about one discipline in the human
Think
that you study.
sciences
Who are the influential thinkers that have
1.
the discipline?
shaped
whether and how your
Consider
of this discipline has been
understanding
by the particular set of thinkers or
shaped
you have been given access to.
ideas
(a) Do you have a responsibility to seek
2.
historically underrepresented
out
What value, for your own knowledge
(b)
this discipline, do you see in such
of
If you were to seek out historically underrepresented
3.
perspectives, where would
start, and what questions would
you
ask? you
expand on this issue in III.1 with an
We
of who the humans are in the
examination
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
humansciences.
For reflection
Who is represented by the human
validity of conclusions.
sciences?
perspectives?
left out of the conversation.
an exercise?
human sciences.
they study. It is, after all, one of the lessons of
219