Between Connivance and Complicity: How I Learnt to Apply Product
Laurence Goldman, ExxonMobil
As any good hairdresser knows, a little product goes a long way. The peculiar property of the anthropological product is that it’s fundamentally ‘narrowcasted’: it talks mostly ‘about’ rather than ‘to’ its subject communities. And because it is generated largely ‘by’ and ‘for’ its own initiates, making its products accessible and readable long ago became hostage to the academic/corporation gauge of advancement – have lexicon, prolixity and opaqueness will travel. Anthropology is not alone of course in having its own terms of art, being driven by conundrums of its own making, and remaining largely unregulated with respect to ensuring local levels of comprehension of its products. But having some time ago moved over to the dark side of resource development, I’ve been struck by the irony of commerce engaging culture for ‘broadcasting’ agendas. Driven in part by global investment protocols, the green business buck and mitigation of reputation risk by adopting the language of CSR and TBL, does the rapprochement really proclaim an appreciation that anthropology can ‘make a difference’. Or is use of this product no more than a cosmetic fix? In this paper I want to examine what kind of moral turpitude is involved when enlightened hobbyists commission enculturated hacks (a.k.a. anthropologists) to perform the rite of ‘public consultation and disclosure’ for project dissemination to project-affected communities. Darth Vader – formerly Anakin Skywalker.
