I think the poster above is suggesting something much more nuanced than that. I think they're trying to say that the anthropologists do know what they research, to the best of their abilities. However, I think they're suggesting that anthropology projects are less likely to get funding if the likely reported results would heavily suggest theories that are ultimately critical of whichever seated establishment funded them in the first place.
Think about it this way - would you be willing to pay me 5% of your pay for this month to have me generate a report of your productivity, if you already knew I was highly likely to send a result that suggests your boss might want to fire you? If you were expected to pay me to do such a report for some reason, I think you'd prefer to pay me to report on someone else's productivity instead.
Basically it came down to an attempt at FUD: "Everyone is biased, you can't really trust anyone, therefore I don't need to acknowledge of any of the substantive points you are making."
I'm trying to imagine a good counterargument to anonporridge's actual stated position. If they're fundamentally wrong about violence as the legitimizing factor of authority, then there has to be some more important/more powerful legitimizing factor. Something that trumps violence without using violence or the threat of it.
What works in the place of violence? Escape? Maybe you can have a diaspora society willing to run away and rebuild in any territory it can ever reach and live in. Nullifying defense? Say you have some kind of structure or device that makes you invincible without fighting back and all violence against you is a pointless waste of energy. Then you could just be, and voluntarily agree to some social contract you never use violence to uphold. Love? Maybe all violence could hypothetically be stopped if the violent person's emotions could be negotiated with to circumvent their desires and everyone ends up happy. These all seem totally utopian to depend on 100% purely at a societal level, but these are all nonviolent approaches I know people take to resist violence on a practical 1 to 1 level.
The problem I see in anonporridge's argumentation is that it seems to ignore the question of legitimacy. Using terms like "gangs' implies criminality, right? (not native English speaker, correct me if I am wrong). Not all violence is criminal. Not all violence is perceived as illegitimate. There are scenarios of monopoly on violence I would certainly not label as 'gangs' - obeying the pharaoh because he is believed to be a God, respecting the leader of the tribe because he is the most experienced hunter who can use his knowledge and physical strength to provide food for the tribe...
I think that's a worthwhile concern too. How do we know the current authority is legitimate/illegitimate? What if the pharoah is really not a god but behaving more like a devil? What if the most experienced hunter is stuck in his ways and pushes aside new, innovative methods that are absolutely needed to help the tribe? Their perceived legitimacy is bottlenecked by their efficacy - and the efficacy of a leader seems to be some combination of peaceful trust and violent control.
> How do we know the current authority is legitimate/illegitimate?
That is a very good question and I do not have a good answer. Maybe subjectively... that legitimate power is perceived as justified. I grew up in a communist regime and had the opportunity to experience the difference between obeying rules because you are afraid not to vs obeying rules because they are at least somewhat correlated to what the majority considers to be good. Sure, even in democracy you obey some rules just because you are afraid not to, but you also understand that you live in an imperfect world that is not centered around you and you can accept some level of power you don't perceive as justified as long as it is about something like zoning rules and not your fundamental freedoms.
But it seems highly subjective... maybe if I grew up in ancient Egypt I would believe that the pharaoh has the right do whatever he pleases and who am I to judge whether it is evil or not.
I personally believe in something like the "Divine Right of Kings" or the "Mandate of Heaven". So basically I think the current ruler of a locale, even a drug cartel in its territory considered criminal by a larger government, is on some level be it great or small, the legitimate authority for that time because of providence, and their legitimacy can be fortified by the leader's justice or weakened by a lack thereof. How they treat people irrespective of what the local policy is is one important aspect of justice, and this is why I think democracy can feel like you describe, because the system was at least set up with the intention of serving a majority of the people (gerrymandering not withstanding). Compare that to 20th century attempts to implement communism which claims to enact another aspect of justice (striving for equality for the worker; fairness), and in practice created a system where the state ruled with an unjust level of fear. With those in light I can understand why different people would espouse these systems of government. It's complicated, it's wrapped up in current ideological battles, but I think these philosophical quandries point beyond our millieu, to meanings and maxims that can help us become better people.
Everyone is a slave to their incentives. You have to weed through multiple narratives of different perspectives if you want a chance of piecing together "the truth", whatever that actually means.
I get it; you want to avoid circularity. Unfortunately there's always going to be some in our conjectures, because we're all humans almost always trying to justify some set of implementations of human societies because we like the incentivized benefits of collective organization. People reach for something they think is truer than their own context to guide them. For vanusa, that's the value of knowledge, developed in academic institutions. I don't blame them for that.
I think "the truth" means what brings us simultaneously to the greatest understanding, peace, respect for existence and consciousness, freedom from misery, and victory over cruelty. Anything that, over the long run, takes these away in greater amounts than it gives them back is a falsehood. If truth is not this thing, then why ought we seek it in the first place? I think that's how we can all be less of a slave to our incentives (except the incentive for the truth), even if they are to spread FUD and assert our own objective correctness :>
Think about it this way - would you be willing to pay me 5% of your pay for this month to have me generate a report of your productivity, if you already knew I was highly likely to send a result that suggests your boss might want to fire you? If you were expected to pay me to do such a report for some reason, I think you'd prefer to pay me to report on someone else's productivity instead.