His career includes a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in 2001 at St Hugh's College, Oxford, a position in the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Manchester, where he was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Cultural Theory Institute (September 2003). From 2004-2007 he acted as Media and Public Relations Officer at the
Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and the Commonwealth, during which he was Book Reviews Editor for Critique of Anthropology (2004-2006). In 2009 he became the Dean at Spain's School for Industrial Organisation in Madrid (2009). As of June 2009 he has been the Senior Scientist at Spain's National Research Council (CSIC).
His books are "Culture and Well-Being: Anthropological Approaches to Freedom and Political Ethics" (2008) and "Anthropology of Organisations" (2007). Other publications include:
2010. 'The political proportions of public knowledge.' Journal of Cultural Economy, Vol. 3: 1, pp. 69-84.
2009. 'Managing the social/knowledge equation.' Cambridge Anthropology. Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 66-90. Special issue in honour of Marilyn Strathern, eds. Ashley Lebner and Sabine A. Deiringer.
2005. ‘Changing scales and the scales of change: ethnography and political economy in Antofagasta, Chile.’ Critique of Anthropology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 155-174
To see a complete list of Alberto's publications, please visit his publications page.
After reading Alberto's paper again, I made my own experiment. I wanted to know if a lens as an optical device is a good metaphor for constructing knowledge. It is a fact that a device, abstract or otherwise, is used in experimentation and intellectualization. In microbiology, a microscope is used to study the microscopic. In philosophy, one has to ground himself in a certain theoretical perspective in coming up with a set of reasons. The process of seeing I call intellectual optics in analysis is undeniably important in our interpretation and understanding of just about anything.
I used a magnifying glass over a newspaper. The lens magnified and minimized depending on the side I used. When I exposed it to the sun, the magnifying side only discolored the paper while the minimizing side burnt it. The metaphorical conclusion I got from the experiment was that there are four possible cases that can happen in using an optical device, again, abstract or otherwise, in analyzing, intellectualizing or theorizing. It can magnify knowledge, minimize it, mask it, or destroy it.
The question is: In which case does anamorphosis belong? Does it magnify, minimize, mask, or destroy knowledge?
Thanks Alberto, I have very much enjoyed reading the paper and your elaboration here.
Thank you everyone for taking the time to read the paper and engage very productively in discussion. It has been my first online seminar and I hope it will not be my last. It has been very rewarding and I am most appreciative of everyone's contribution and interaction. Thanks again.