Paper short abstract:

This paper argues that if anthropology is to speak truth to the human condition in all its diversity and circumstances, it must also render its truths and insights accessible to others, including those who are the subjects of its analyses.

Paper long abstract:

AASNet, the internet discussion forum auspiced by the Australian Anthropological Society, was recently stirred from its habitual torpor by a lively debate on anthropological writing practices. While some argued for the use of accessible language, others were of the view that the complexity of the phenomena which are anthropology's concern requires an equivalent complexity in its theories and language. Yet much of the debate, on both sides, proceeded on the implicit assumption that our audience is ourselves and others of our ilk. But if anthropology is to speak truth to the human condition in all its diversity and circumstances, I argue, we must also render our truths and insights accessible to others, including those who are the subjects of our analyses. From this perspective, the languages, mediums, strategies and circumstances of communication of anthropological insights assume a critical importance.

In making this argument, I present three short case studies from my own anthropological practice outside the academy illustrating issues of language, audience, and engagement. These concerned the incorporation into legislation of measures to deal with high levels of alcohol consumption in a remote Aboriginal community, developing a participatory process to ascertain if there can be 'informed consent' around a particular development proposal on Aboriginal lands, and lastly examining implicit assumptions of causality in government programs designed to address high levels of domestic violence in some Aboriginal communities.