The preceding observations have attempted to describe a recurring feature of human societies.
Namely, their persistent tendency to convert uncertainty into structured forms of certainty.
Institutions.
Rituals.
Authorities.
Forecasts.
Moral frameworks.
Theories.
Each has been examined in turn.
Each appears to function as a stabilisation of uncertainty into socially usable form.
At this point, it may be appropriate to acknowledge the position from which these observations have been made.
The anthropologist is not external to the species under study.
This has never been the case.
All observation is conducted from within the system of human meaning-making.
All description participates in the practices it describes.
This includes the present account.
The act of identifying patterns of certainty is itself one such pattern.
It is therefore unsurprising that the anthropologist, having described the production of certainty in others, should now recognise its production in their own analysis.
The desire for coherence is not absent from anthropology.
Nor is the desire for explanation.
Nor is the desire for a sufficiently general account that would render the phenomenon intelligible.
These are, themselves, cultural features of the species.
One consequence of this recognition is a certain softening of tone.
Earlier observations may have appeared to suggest that certainty is something imposed upon reality by institutions.
A more careful formulation would be that certainty is one of the ways in which human beings maintain coordinated life in the presence of irreducible uncertainty.
It is not an illusion.
It is a practice.
It is not merely mistaken knowledge.
It is social organisation.
It is not external to life.
It is part of how life proceeds.
The anthropologist therefore revises the initial framing.
The question is not why humans fail to escape uncertainty.
The question is why they repeatedly succeed in living with it.
Through the construction of institutions, languages, roles, procedures, and shared expectations, the species produces temporary stabilisations that allow action to occur.
These stabilisations are then mistaken, at various points, for final descriptions of reality.
They are revised.
They are replaced.
They are re-inhabited.
The cycle continues.
At this point, a further complication arises.
The anthropological description itself risks becoming another stabilisation.
A framework through which uncertainty about certainty is rendered temporarily manageable.
This is not an error.
It is unavoidable.
The observer is always already within the field of observation.
The anthropologist therefore does not conclude with a theory that escapes this condition.
Instead, they note its recurrence.
And include themselves within it.
Field Note 28:
The attempt to describe certainty produces further instances of certainty.
Field Note 29:
There is no position from which certainty can be finally observed without participation.
Field Note 30:
The species includes, among its many practices, the practice of observing its own practices.
Final Field Note:
The species remains uncertain about uncertainty.
—
Postscript (unrecorded in field notebook):
The anthropologist briefly considered whether this final observation undermined the entire study.
They concluded that it did not.
It simply relocated the observer.
No comments:
Post a Comment