I am a practical anthropologist. This may conjure Singapore's ex-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's realist ideology. Lee did not adopt beliefs of the western worlds. Rather, he picked the ones that work. For instance, in the creation of Singapore Airlines, he spelled out clearly that it has to be "competitive and self-supporting; it would close down if it incurred loses." Lee was not going to create a "flag carrier" like other countries did (Lee. 2000).

When practical people are working on something, they wanted the work to serve a useful purpose. This, I must emphasize, is quite distinct from "truth." Something being true or false, are dependent upon the histories of distinct groups of people (Rabinow, 1986). So in the U.S., I would cry out copyrights when someone stole my idea. In Singapore or China, I may only be called stupidity for my own idea to leak out. Both are "truths" of the different societies. Rorty (in Rabinow, 1986, pp239) wanted to tear down the beliefs that that is only one "truth" in this world, and establish "free communication, civilized conversation, as the ultimate goal."

However, according to Rorty, we would have created a large number of opinions that we have to take as truth. Should we then accept every ethnographic opinions as "truth"? I think this would have been disastrous.

Rather, Foucault (in Rabinow, 1986, pp240) proposed that "Truth... (1) is a system of ordered procedures... (2) linked in a circular relation with systems of power... (3) a condition of the formation and development of capitalism. Foucualt's mentioning lowered my anxiety but not all. In Foucault, I only believe in one thing, that every social groups is a unique system. Every human-formed groups are collaborative in nature, that is why we come together. For example, to defend ourselves, to take care of the weak, to compete with other groups. But Foucault's focus on behavior and power is very narrow. There are technology, production means, knowledge, supply chain, and many "engines" of society missing here, that ultimately influence how we live our lives. But these are beyond the current discussion.

I believed that systems of collaboration can be unearthed in anthropological studies. And they are the most objective forms of data. For example, we have uncovered that Chinese are less creative than the U.S., in WoW modding, partly because they were late into Internet gaming and modding. All anthropologists should agree on this! unless they can prove my counting wrong. But Rabinow pointed out that some anthropologists are trying to shift discourse rather than working on commo-ness - "not seeking to invent a new synthesis, but to strengthen differences." He also noted that this is due to the politics of faculties within anthropology. As a mere PhD student, I would stay out of this discussion. So lets talk about my own stance - practical anthropology.

When we say practical, our work has to benefit someone. I believed that when we take money from someone to do our work, we need to benefit in a reciprocating way. So since I took money from the U.S. who sponsored my fellowship, I need to find a way to repay - in my writings. U.S. has strong concern about its leadership in knowledge production is becoming shaken by the rise of China (The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, 2005). However, if you gave careful readings of texts explaining the rise of Chinese innovativeness, a lot of the argument spanned around patents, number of University graduates, and strength in mathematics and science. I wished to position our data on China and the U.S. by telling the story of how, the two social systems of collaborations and particular histories, affected creativity much more than individual capabilities. The challenge for the U.S. is to strengthen and enhance its modding culture, which has already rested on good foundations of many years of collaborative norms.

I would argue that a practical stance to anthropology does not entail more differences. As I mentioned, regardless of how you wrote your ethnography, that is to benefit which audience, the data should be incontestible. Just like while atomic energy can be used in multiple ways, how it is harness is essentially the same. And that -- is science.

Practical approaches to anthropology is merely an extension of science. Now that you know how a group of people work, how do you want to use this knowledge? It is different from an "interest." Some might say that they have "interest" in feminist theories, power, or meaning. I don't care about any of these. I am practical. I want to know how it works. And how it can be used.

=========================

Lee Kuan Yew, 2000. From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000. Harper Collins.
Paul Rabinow, 1986, “Representations Are Social Facts: Modernity and Post-Modernity in Anthropology,” in Clifford and Marcus (eds.), Writing Culture, op. cit., pp. 234-261
The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, 2005. The Knowledge Economy: Is the United State Loosing Its Competitive Edge? www.futureofinnovation.org