The truth commission for the Sami people has responded to my criticism of the scientific anthology that it has submitted to the government (DN Debatt 26/9). The anthology has formed an important knowledge base for the commission's final report. The commission admits that the non-reindeer-herding Sami are underrepresented in the anthology, but ignores my concrete examples of factual errors and scientific quality deficiencies.
The commission explains the one-sided reindeer husbandry focus of the anthology by the fact that previous research has done the same, a circumstance that was not unknown when the commission began its work. With just over SEK 40 million at its disposal, the commission should have prioritized and, if necessary, initiated research on the Sami people, whose history has so far received limited attention. The Commission has reproduced the one-sidedness it wanted to counteract.
It is also likely that the many Sámi who lived out their lives as employees in the healthcare, forestry and mining industries or in the engineering industry somewhere in Sweden, have or have had a somewhat different opinion of the Swedish state's policy in the near future but also in the past. The anthology would then not only have given a broader picture of how the Swedish state's policy affected the Sami in Sweden, it probably would have also been somewhat brighter.
The question is what such a view of knowledge means for the possibility of critically testing scientific claims
The Commission calls for "more ways to conduct research" but at the same time assures that scientific requirements must not be disregarded. Broadening the research with new perspectives and experiences is welcome. But when the validity of claims is determined by who makes them, rather than what evidence exists, methodological diversity has turned into knowledge relativism. In the anthology, for example, an author introduces himself with the words "I am knowledge". The question is what such a view of knowledge means for the possibility of critically testing scientific claims. This should be of particular concern to a truth commission. Its mission is to clarify what actually happened.
If the validity of knowledge is determined by who speaks, the state's historiography can never be wrong, only different. The demands for reparation for historical wrongs assume that these can be substantiated and that the conclusions hold up to independent scrutiny. The Sami have more to gain from common scientific knowledge requirements than from exceptions to them.
The problem is further highlighted in the commission's final report (submitted on September 30), where the state is asked to ensure that knowledge production that affects the Sami - and then we must consider that the Sami are present in all possible contexts in Sweden - must be done with Sami competence and Sami influence. Making use of Sami experiences is one thing. But where is the line drawn between influence over the conditions of the research and influence over which questions may be asked and which conclusions are legitimate? A truth commission must itself live up to the demands on objectivity, openness and critical scrutiny that it places on the historiography it wishes to reconsider.
In conclusion, it is gratifying that the Truth Commission welcomes criticism and wants to see continued discussion. They write in the reply: "Knowledge grows through conversation, testing and sometimes also through criticism." I can only agree. More discussion, criticism and free search for knowledge.
