At 11:47 AM 8/11/98 +0000, Jim Craven wrote: >Thanks to Louis for publishing that piece. It reminds me of >journalists who scream "But what about the people's right to know?" >when someone being questioned refuses to answer. Translation: "But >what about MY need for a 'scoop' so that I can get more exposure, so >that I can get name recognition and become a Dan Rather so that I can get preferred access -- snip --- I reply (WS): It is quite obvious that producers of knowledge have personal interests in the commodity their produce, as do the producres of, say, ic--cream. Noone would hold it against Ben & Jerry if they failed to disclose their political views to farmers from whom they buy milk, and who migh find such views objectionable. So why there is so much fuss about the producers of intellectual commodity? Knowledge is a commodity as everything else. It is a manufactured product that uses data only as raw material. The producer has no specific obligation to the source of the raw material, other than those specified by law or a contract. Specifically, public behavior is, by definition, public rather than proprietary. If I observe a cop or a fisherman doing what they would be ordinarily doing in their everyday life - they have no proprietary rights whatsover to how that behavior appears to the outside observers. Since any observation is by its very nature selective (i.e. I perceive ceratin features as more salient than others and ignore still other features altogether) - there is no deception on my part whatsover, if I use my observations of others to write a story I like. Those others may or may not like the story I wrote, just like the dairy farmers may or may not like Ben & Jerry's ice cream. In both cases, the people who supplied raw material to the manufactured product might complain about the 'misuse' of that raw material. They have the right to voice their disappointment. But that does not mean that such disappointment ought to receive an institutional sanction in the form of professional or legal restrictions. Of course, that would be different if I used deception or false pretenses to ask people to behave in a certain way or to obtain information that otherwise would not be given to anyone. Or if I used my authority position to that end. Much of the debate about ethics in sociological/anthroplogical research originates, in my view, in two misperceptions. First is the misguided opinion (aka 'political correctness') that every aspect of human interaction can be regulated by some form of formal authority and formal rules of behavior in order to prevent potential inequalities or abuses. Second is the belief that people own the cultural impressions they give off. Both beliefs are, in my view, dove-tailing with the capitalist drive toward formalization and marketisation of every form of human interaction. Oftentimes, the 'ethics' is used as a disguised ad hominem attack in lieu of ad rem arguments. Best regards, Wojtek Sokolowski
