you you mean that sociology and anthropology are about defining other peoples' lived experiences for them, rather than letting them define the experiences themselves, since they -- and not the sociologist/anthropologist -- lived it?

As a sociologist I've been very shocked by how little the field involves the voices of people who live the situations that are studied. In my specialism, the sociological study of disability, the subjects of research have been exploited by researchers for a long time. Eventually they (we!) got sick of it, and emancipatory disability research began to develop - which is characterised by making sure the research participants set the agenda of each research project. Participatory action research is similar. (I've got links to papers on this if anyone's interested.) But overall, disabled people are still 'studied' far more than they get to participate fully in research. The same goes for a lot of other social groups, especially marginalized ones. I don't know much about anthropology, but my impression is that it's similar. But there is another way! It's just less mainstream.

That just the thing: we don't report merely on what someone did/said. We also offer an interpretation of why that someone did/said that.

But why? How is your interpretation of someone else's lived experience *possibly* worth more than their own experience?

Honestly, that strikes me as arrogance.

So when a woman gives birth and finds it the most horrible experience of her life, she finds herself going not against other women's perception of their own experiences, but against the message of what the reality of childbirth is supposed to be.

In skeptical circles, it swings violently in the opposite direction - everybody knows that childbirth is really horrible and painful, so if your experience was in any way positive, you've just been brainwashed by the natural birth movement.

The cult of Mommyhood allows for very little middle ground.

Calli writes better and shorter what I want to say.

And once again, Jessica is right. I think it's the same issue, raised by a collaboration by Steph and me. Great. Just don't leave us in the same room alone for more than a few minutes, or our discussion will create a black hole in the fabric of reality.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but did we came to agreement/consensus/conclusion on the kink discussion?

I can't help but think we could be having this exact same discussion about kink.

I was gonna say that, but I tend to go there so often in conversation, I was reluctant to do so.

My lived experience of what The Boy and I do is that it's exciting and fun and fulfilling and hot. Let me tell you, I've had a shrink tell me that I clearly didn't understand my own thoughts and desires and that *really* I must be self-hating and want to be harmed.

You know? My lived experience trumps someone who DIDN'T LIVE IT trying to tell me my business.

How is your interpretation of someone else's lived experience *possibly* worth more than their own experience?

I don't know that's it's a question of worth as much as finding a way to interpret the process for others who have not gone through it.

Not everyone gets to participate in New Guinean headhunting rituals, after all.

did we came to agreement/consensus/conclusion on the kink discussion?

Uh, what was up for debate? Was it a You Are Fucking SICK -vs.- Hey Do Your Thing debate?

Uh, what was up for debate? Was it a You Are Fucking SICK -vs.- Hey Do Your Thing debate?

No. I think it was more of defining what kink is vs. is not. I believe the conclusion was everyone had their own ideas about that.

I don't know that's it's a question of worth as much as finding a way to interpret the process for others who have not gone through it.

Not everyone gets to participate in New Guinean headhunting rituals, after all.

Okay, but -- I'd trust the description from the New Guinean over a description from someone who watched it and thinks they know what's going on.

If I wanted a description of Monet's water lilies, I'd ask someone who has the power of sight rather than asking someone who is blind.

That just the thing: we don't report merely on what someone did/said. We also offer an interpretation of why that someone did/said that.

But why? How is your interpretation of someone else's lived experience *possibly* worth more than their own experience?

Honestly, that strikes me as arrogance.

OK, let's look at a completely different example. Let's say someone almost dies. Then they say, "I saw a light at the end of a tunnel. Then I saw my dead grandmother, beckoning me. I started to head down the tunnel towards the light when suddenly I felt myself being pulled back into my body."

A scientist might interpret that as an hallucination due to a temporary shortage of oxygen in the brain. Is that arrogant for the scientist to think this? What if the scientist conducts research that shows oxygen deprivation to the brain can cause similar hallucinations? Is that arrogant?

But then again, that's not Sociology in this case....