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....

Was it a You Are Fucking SICK -vs.- Hey Do Your Thing debate?

I think it was a "what is kink" debate, maybe?

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.

In the context of childbirth, I'd also add finding a way to interpret the process for others who may make a choice on whether to go through it some day.

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.

Ah. Well, on that, people can have whatever ideas they want to.

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.

I'd trust the N.G.'s description of their experience and what it entails for them. But, I'd also reframe it in my head for a reaction from my own likes/dislikes/biases/etc. Just because the experience is [fill-in-the-blank] for one person, doesn't mean it's that way for everyone. I wouldn't tell the N.G. he's wrong, but I could say it wouldn't be the same for me.

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?

I would find it arrogant for the scientist to tell the person who almost died that they could not possibly have experienced what they claim to have experienced.

In the context of childbirth, I'd also add finding a way to interpret the process for others who may make a choice on whether to go through it some day.

Again, I'd ask the woman who gave birth instead of someone who had never gone through it.

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

Heh. I agree. I've heard the 'I know best *because I am trained*' story - in a way designed to silence me - from everyone from psychiatrists to social workers. It's nearly impossible to fight back against that one.

I am being dragged away from the computer by The Girl after a slightly scary meltdown (it was me what melted down, not the computer), which is annoying as this is a great discussion. Back later.

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

I never said my or any other interpenetration was better. It's simply that's more convincing, and explains better, for me, "reality". Everyone could and should use the interpretation which stands for him/her.

I don't know much about anthropology, but my impression is that it's similar.

From my experience, it's different there. Then again, theoretical writing (which was always more interesting for me) doesn't usually use emancipatory or participatory methods. But it's always interesting to take ideas from there into the field and see if they worth anything. That's what I did with the papers on the factual value of media photography. The conclusions surprised me.

I wouldn't tell the N.G. he's wrong, but I could say it wouldn't be the same for me.

I have no problem with this -- your example, the N.G. person tells you about it, and then you decide it isn't FOR YOU.

My problem would be if the N.G. person told you about it, you decided to not do it because it's just not for you, and then you tell other people what the N.G. hunting experience is like, based on your conclusion that it's not for you.

So, if someone who has never given birth thinks childbirth can't be beautiful, despite being described as such by women who actually gave birth, then I'm going to have a problem with that.

I would find it arrogant for the scientist to tell the person who almost died that they could not possibly have experienced what they claim to have experienced.

OK, I'd agree with that.