Tangible or Not?

Tangible or Not?

        Canadian anthropologist Julie Cruikshank uses the glacier as medium and example to illustrate how different knowledge takes shape under its specific circumstance. Among the all kinds of knowledge she mentioned, the encounter between the local and colonial knowledge is the earliest and, somewhat, the most confrontational. The most different parts of these two kinds of knowledge lie on the fact that whether the knowledge itself is tangible or not. In addition, tangibility and intangibility are also reflected through the way that knowledge spreads out. While Jean-François de La Pérouse and his crew rely heavily on scientific instruments to study the tangible objects, the Tlingit people depends more on oral tradition to spread the intangible experience through generations. Thus these two totally different ways of gaining the knowledge indicate that intangibility/tangibility formulates the basic layout for knowledge construction: it not only shows how knowledge takes shape but also explains the way that knowledge circulates.

        The Tlingit people construct and spread their local knowledge in a very intangible way. Basically, for the Tlingit, story is an important carrier of the local knowledge and storytelling is an essential way to circulate the local knowledge: “storytelling…is part of everyday life and…provides a framework for understanding historical and contemporary issue” (Cruikshank, 60). For example, one of the most crucial issues for them is to learn how to get well along with the nature. This kind of knowledge can be found in the oral stories The Lowell Glacier, Nàlùdi by Kitty Smith and Lake Arkell Glacier by Annie Ned. It is also interesting to notice that these important stories are spread out orally through different generations. Oral tradition is the Tlingit’s way to indicate the intangibility of their knowledge because it explains how the local knowledge establishes and circulates. The intangible oral story offers the Tlingit the history of the past, the strategy for the present, and the insight into the future, which all these three consist of their local knowledge. Also they deem the oral story as their common sense and as fragments of both their personal and national history. Furthermore, based on the intangible trust among the clan member, the Tlingit never doubt the authenticity of the story they hear from their ancestor. Hence, intangibility constructs the local knowledge of the Tlingit people.

        On the contrary, La Pérouse and his crew construct and spread their colonial knowledge in a very tangible way. They gain the their knowledge through the detailed study of the tangible and collectable items, such as the natural and cultural curiosities. In addition, contrasting to the Tlingit’s observation of the nature and listening for the stories, La Pérouse relies heavily on the use of scientific instrument. According to Cruikshank, La Pérouse brought a chronometer and two compasses for nautical navigation, graphometer for the research of geometry and astronomy, and a double-barreled air pump for the research of natural philosophy. His resentment towards the Tlingit because they take his instrument can, more or less, explain how deeply he depends the scientific instrument: “He remained deeply troubled by the lost astronomical observation taken by the Tlingit on the day of his arrival” (Cruikshank, 146). Moreover, written text is not only an effective way to circulate the knowledge among the expedition but also an indication of the tangibility. “The importance of written instruction was already developing a role in scientific research” (Cruikshank, 145). She then provides the examples that both king and La Pérouse impart their instruction by written text. Thus, tangibility is the characteristic of both the construction and circulation of the colonial knowledge.

        Seemingly, the local knowledge of the Tlingit and the colonial knowledge of the La Pérouse work in such a different way respectively that share almost nothing in common. But actually they share a very important trait: the rationality of their own knowledge. It is important to understand that while La Pérouse regards his colonial knowledge as his science, the Tlingit, likewise, regards their local knowledge as their science. Science here is the way for both of them to express the rationality of their own knowledge. E. E. Evans-Pritchard’s study of poison oracle Benge will provide insight for the discussion of the notion of rationality. According to Evans-Pritchard, rationality satisfied people’s need to explain the happening around them. But this rationality works only in a closed system. Only under its specific cultural context, rationality can function. Once the context is gone or changed, rationality will no longer work and turns into irrationality. This is why La Pérouse finds the Tlingit’s local knowledge ridiculous. Because once Tlingit’s local knowledge loses its specific cultural context, it can no longer explain the happening and turns into irrationality. Likewise, La Pérouse’s colonial knowledge cannot satisfy the Tlingit’s need of explanation, either. Thus even though these two kinds of knowledge cannot be reconciled, they nevertheless all use rationality to explain the world.