The notion of "situated knowledge"

                I was really drawn towards the concept of “situated knowledge” and the Gusterson’s questioning of his objectivity through his ethnographic work at the Livermore lab.  At first, I was also quite hesitant on whether Gusterson was even capable of presenting an unbiased view of his work.  After all, he was previously an antinuclear activist.  The job descriptions of the two seemed to be completely polarized.

                Surprisingly, the author’s brief summaries of his years with Sylvia were quite refreshing.  Not only does he study the necessary essentials of his subject (ie. Work environment, background, race/gender, feminist thoughts, politics, etc.), he is able to create a deep relationship with her in such a way that, by the end, Sylvia is comfortable criticizing his own analyses.  He not only learns about Sylvia and the life of a weapons scientist, but also learns from them allowing himself to grow through the experience.  Although he is inevitably influenced by his past work, it does not hinder or impede his observations.  Quite the contrary, his anthropological accounts note differences between his expectations and observations. 

                Isn’t this anthropology?  We take what we previously know and try to interpret the lives of those unknown “natives” through a lens that both tries to explain, but also understand.  Of course the work Gusterson does is based on so-called “situated knowledge.”  No knowledge is complete; no knowledge is completely true and is always shaped by numerous factors.  So then, what matter is it that the author was an antinuclear activist?  In his introduction of Sylvia, he effectively conveyed many aspects of her life, from the dilemmas of her past to her inspirations and future aspirations.  It fulfills its role: presenting an account of a weapons scientist.