This article claims that anthropologists, who are the natural and proper authorities charged with gatekeeping in this issue, have a different definition of cargo cults from the one of the popular imagination.
But their their definition is just academically abstracted, that's all, so that it applies to as many cargo cults as possible. The "cargo" ingredient in it, still refers to man-made goods coming from somewhere outside the island!
The specific examples of cargo cults given in the article pretty much exactly fit the the popular understanding, and nicely support the cargo cult metaphor.
Cargo culting refers to magical thinking in regard to some man-made artifacts. In computing it refers to the idea that people use processes, or artifacts like code, without understanding them, hoping for some good outcome, or at least the avoidance of a bad outcome. Personality worship is also implicated in cargo culting. Some great programmers decades ago did something this way in a famous system that was successful so we shall do it that way, and be rewarded with a replication of their success.
Those cargo cults which long proceeded WWII and do not revolve around airplanes and white man's goods, still support the metaphor.
And anyway, no one ever said that the metaphor is based on absolutely all cargo cults, or that it has to be. It is inspired by a few specific instances and their specific events.
Maybe anthropologists should use "cargo cult" more specifically and use a different word for cultural phenomenon resembling cargo cults in which some key ingredients are missing. Perhaps a people who only believe that they will be rewarded with cargo in the afterlife, but otherwise don't worship foreign human beings who wants visited the island as gods, and do not try to make imitation cargo for use as props in rituals intended to attract their second coming, should perhaps not be understood as practicing a "cargo cult". Or perhaps a "weak cargo cult".
The power of a word or term rests in its ability to discern. The more meanings you cram into a word, the less it discerns. Say that we agree that everything is a cargo cult. Then what's the point of using those two words instead of just the word "everything"?
There's also the question of origin. Okay so anthropologists have a definition of cargo cult, under which cargo cults can be identified going back hundreds of years. But might it not be that the popular cargo cult came first, and then the academics try to hijack the word for their own use? What's the story here?
People understood fruits and vegetables before science told them that a tomato is a true fruit, whereas an apple isn't. Therefore, science should have used different words for its categorization, rather than coopting farm-to-kitchen terminology.
No, I'm not claiming that anthropologists are the "natural and proper authorities charged with gatekeeping"; that's nonsense. What I'm claiming is that the description of cargo cults that everyone knows is fiction.
That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a useful metaphor or idiom, though. When using the phrase “cargo cult programming”, no one really cares about what actual Polynesians did or didn’t do. One can take it as a fable. The term is used for its quality of being a memorable analogy, similar to “sour grapes”, for example.
It's obviously based on a few anecdotes involving a small number of indigenous groups ... perhaps mainly just one! "Cargo cult" should not be taken as a serious term, on the level of "polytheistic religion" or "agrarian society".
Anthropologists who take "cargo cult" seriously have let themselves be trolled by pop culture.
The popular cargo cult story is a mixture of stuff that happened, stuff that was made up, and focusing on the wrong stuff. It's basically an urban legend at this point of people copying from other people.
It's a bit like saying that Christianity involves handling rattlesnakes and putting nails through your hands in the belief that God will turn your fillings to gold. That kind of misses the point.
The cargo cult metaphor has very little content: there are about two main ingredients in it, based on these features of the anecdote:
1. Foreigners visit island, riding on flying machines, bearing mysterious technology and products.
2. Foreigners disappear.
3. Locals worship foreigners as gods, develop a legend that foreigners will return, and use ad hoc hand-made objects whose shape resembles foreigners' technology to summon them, such as model airplanes made of bamboo, or pretend radios.
It might all be based on a single anecdote, and that is obvious to anyone with two brain cells. There might have been as few as one actual "cargo cult". I don't suspect anyone believes there were anywhere near half a dozen of these, let alone tens or a hundred or more.
A single anecdote is enough for a working metaphor.
The Great Hanoi Rat Massacre was one particular episode in history, in one place in the world. Yet we can bring up that name in any situation where the wrong incentives backfire.
I missed the passage in the article which reveals that many anthropologists don't agree that there's such a thing as a cargo cult. So indeed, maybe all we have is a popular notion, which is obviously inspired by the behavior of a small number of very specific peoples in a narrow window of history of that region.
But their their definition is just academically abstracted, that's all, so that it applies to as many cargo cults as possible. The "cargo" ingredient in it, still refers to man-made goods coming from somewhere outside the island!
The specific examples of cargo cults given in the article pretty much exactly fit the the popular understanding, and nicely support the cargo cult metaphor.
Cargo culting refers to magical thinking in regard to some man-made artifacts. In computing it refers to the idea that people use processes, or artifacts like code, without understanding them, hoping for some good outcome, or at least the avoidance of a bad outcome. Personality worship is also implicated in cargo culting. Some great programmers decades ago did something this way in a famous system that was successful so we shall do it that way, and be rewarded with a replication of their success.
Those cargo cults which long proceeded WWII and do not revolve around airplanes and white man's goods, still support the metaphor.
And anyway, no one ever said that the metaphor is based on absolutely all cargo cults, or that it has to be. It is inspired by a few specific instances and their specific events.
Maybe anthropologists should use "cargo cult" more specifically and use a different word for cultural phenomenon resembling cargo cults in which some key ingredients are missing. Perhaps a people who only believe that they will be rewarded with cargo in the afterlife, but otherwise don't worship foreign human beings who wants visited the island as gods, and do not try to make imitation cargo for use as props in rituals intended to attract their second coming, should perhaps not be understood as practicing a "cargo cult". Or perhaps a "weak cargo cult".
The power of a word or term rests in its ability to discern. The more meanings you cram into a word, the less it discerns. Say that we agree that everything is a cargo cult. Then what's the point of using those two words instead of just the word "everything"?
There's also the question of origin. Okay so anthropologists have a definition of cargo cult, under which cargo cults can be identified going back hundreds of years. But might it not be that the popular cargo cult came first, and then the academics try to hijack the word for their own use? What's the story here?
People understood fruits and vegetables before science told them that a tomato is a true fruit, whereas an apple isn't. Therefore, science should have used different words for its categorization, rather than coopting farm-to-kitchen terminology.