One of the most important things I've learned over the years
is how to be a skeptic. Of everything.
Personally, I think it comes from spending the majority of my high school years
watching Daria, but regardless of
origin, it's definitely something that comes in handy from time to time. There
are a lot of things people don't think to question. And I don't mean that in a
weird, condescending, "people are sheep!!" kind of way, but there are
just some things that we are often taught to rely on as objective fact. This
includes science and textbooks.
Which, the problem is that science-- as far as I know,
anyway-- is done by people. Textbooks are most likely written by people. And
all people have biases that they can unconsciously imbue into their work, which
many of us then accept as fact without question. For example, you may have
heard of doctors diagnosing women who demonstrated certain traits-- usually
those regarded as "unfeminine"-- with a variety of mental illnesses
(the most infamous of these being hysteria). The "rest cure"
(domestic work, among other things) was often prescribed as treatment, with
disastrous results.
Or, there's also an extensive history of scientific racism.
Or the fact that the DSM, the bible of psychiatry, listed homosexuality as a
mental illness for decades.
The majority of these examples happened in the past, but
unfortunately there's still many traces of those beliefs because they were
thought of as fact for literal centuries.
I bring this up mainly because my archaeology textbook is a fantastic example of this. Archaeology is technically an anthropology
class-- and in my cultural anthro class, one of the most significant things we
learned is the sociocultural implications of being an anthropologist. The idea
is, when studying other cultures, to rid yourself of ethnocentric views. Otherwise
you end up with incredibly biased observations and that can lead to the
misrepresentation of an entire culture. For example: as a result of bias, the
roles of women in different cultures have rarely been studied in anthropology.
We know NOTHING about them!
So, on to my archaeology textbook. The author talks about the
history of archaeology-- which for a while involves a lot of treasure hunting,
tomb raiding (and not the video game kind), outright stealing, etc.-- with a
tone of glowing nostalgia, and uses a lot of euphemisms and weird
justifications for violent European imperialism. Which, alright then. And then he goes
on to talk about the subdivisions of archaeological theory and expresses a lot
of distaste for the archaeologists who focus their research on, well, those who
historically haven't been researched
(such as women, ethnic minorities, those who live in what we define as developing
countries, etc.).
And I mean, when you think about it, how often do you hear
about people who belong to those groups in lessons? They all existed at
probably any given point in human history, but in retrospect, it's pretty rare
that we ever learned about them.
The author discredits that subdivision as some sort of radical
sect of archaeology, something that shouldn't be taken seriously, and my
problem with it isn't necessarily that he thinks
that, but that this is assigned reading for a large class of students--
many of whom are women and/or ethnic
minorities, and who may have families that came from developing countries-- who
have been taught to regard this as solid fact. The implication of the author's
statements is that there are people who aren't worth studying, who don't
deserve a place in history, and I worry that some students may internalize that
message as an objective truth.
In case that sounds like an extreme statement, I'll try to
put it in perspective: were I an archaeologist, I actually would love to investigate women's roles in
history and in different cultures-- partially because I am a woman, and I've never been taught much about them outside of typical domestic (or, like I mentioned, clinically insane) roles. But to be told that my interest in those
things is radical/not worth researching/etc. can be more than a little discouraging. And that's as someone who has become very aware that not every word in a textbook is an undeniable fact.
tl;dr I get kind of passionate about bias, and textbooks can
be pretty weird about things sometimes.
Stay skeptical,
Caitlin.
Caitlin.
No comments:
Post a Comment