Patrician/ Colonial Views – Social Fields of Study
It’s important to review who you consider a credible theorist and why before you take them too seriously. It helps if the theorist is someone other fields also see as credible, not just their own.
- But how did this one arrive at their theory? By what method?
- Was it field work? These days, was it computer simulations? Did they sit back and read other people’s work?
- If they did work on a location, did they visit? If on a people, did they meet with a member? Were they embedded for awhile?
- Was their view one where they demeaned the people? Compared them to their own? Or saw them as something unique, worthy of respect?
- Most cultures have been ‘found’ now, so did they show the transition between pre-contact ways and afterwards?
- Was their discussion a fair one? Did they see them as a whole society? With laws and governance? With healing rituals and systems? With prayers and temple organizations? With ways of teaching the children about their language and culture?
- Did they show the gender roles?
- Did they expect them to change to adapt to the world as it is? Or find their own path?
There is certainly a degree of patricianism in most studies’ theorists. But some are just not worthy of further review. IMO. Do we look at them as so tainted we can’t learn anything from them? Or edit out what is detritus and keep the good?
I think it’s an ongoing process.