While many have tried to silence the past, partly due to their inability to face it and partly due to them deeming it not important (Trouillot 1995:98), the past remains to be inescapably loud and useful in both the production of new knowledge and analyses of interactions. Anthropologists’ earlier efforts to study “the other” have produced academic work that come from a distinct perspective and thus, have produced a distinct type of knowledge. Anthropologists’ efforts to study “themselves,” likewise, have produced academic work that comes from a distinct perspective and have also produced a distinct type of knowledge (White and Tengan 2001). The collaboration of indigenous knowledge with researched knowledge (i.e. the reconciliation and integration of the past with the present) is one of the major themes throughout a few of my readings.
White and Tengan (2001) point out, “disciplinary models and practices – from fieldwork to publication – have worked historically to authorize and reinforce dichotomies that separate native subjects and anthropological agents” (489). Instead of reinforcing these dichotomies, they advocate for and stress the importance and significance of breeding Pacific Islander anthropologists to add to current literature on the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Island. In adopting “decolonizing” approaches to anthropology, indigenous peoples are able to provide an alternative perspective on their identity and are able to bring new, once “silenced” knowledge, to current discussions and knowledge bases.
Similarly, Allen and Hamby (2011) maintain that collaborative research approaches, specifically between museums and Australian Aboriginals, can uncover new pathways to an enhanced knowledge. Instead of asking ourselves what we can tell the Australian Aboriginals about themselves, we should be asking what they could tell us about themselves. As seen in the collaborative efforts between the museum regarding the Douglas Thomson Collection and the Lamalama peoples, the integration of indigenous knowledge with current knowledge enhanced and heightened the integrative knowledge, but it also allowed for a “move[-ment] from [a] site of friction to a site where knowledge emerges and merges and new understandings are created” (Allen and Hamby 2011:210). Collaborative research models are understood to be a process of knowledge production from an integrative perspective. While collaboration and shared knowledge is surely beneficial for both groups in terms of knowledge production, political collaborations in terms of governance remains a problem.
Morphy and Morphy (2013) stress the importance of an understanding of “relative autonomy” in order to develop policies that engage the Yolngu in the process of regional development. Unfortunately, it appears that the dichotomies – as mentioned by White and Tengan – that separate the native subjects from the governmental agents are somewhat clearly defined. Morphy and Morphy (2013) argue that in order to overcome this dichotomy, “it is helpful to understand Aboriginal forms of sociality and their associated value creation processes as relatively autonomous” (185). Perhaps, White and Tengan would suggest that more Australian Aboriginals should be conducting research on “their” people to help elucidate this understanding for their “other”; Allen and Hamby (2011) would certainly not argue against this suggestion as they maintain it would create a “vastly enhanced and reinvigorated knowledge base” (211).
The past has and continues to remain particularly loud in our present. It may be time that we stop trying to silence it and come to terms with what has been done and listen to what it is trying to tell us. As seen through these readings, listening to what we once silenced, has enhanced and has significantly added to our knowledge production practices.