On significant positionalities
(those making a practical difference in one's life and the life of one's consociates)
while conversing among

We/They/They

or (to trace more precisely the network of actants)

US/WE/I/THEY

That is:

US /anthopology's significant others	the other social sciences, educators, policy makers and the media, our parents
WE /'community' of anthropological practice	those certified in doctoral programs in anthropology who are probably members of the AAA and related organizations, and many of whom are faculty
I /you (me)	as author
THEY /the people to be reported upon)	whether far away, down the street, whether familiar or strangers

1. Anthropology as everyday practice (of anthropologists): a structural (semiotic) model of a tripartite conversation (Peirce 1868...; Arensberg 1981 and, by implication, Lave 2011)
   1. Given an assembly (community, cohort, congregation) of anthropologists (in apprenticeship, at a conference, crafting a request for "Permission to Recruit"): "WE"
   2. From the point of view of one of these: "I"
   3. Who is told by US

      ...CHARTER...PERPETUATED AS COLUMBIA COLLEGE BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK...

      (the various agencies of the United States of America through WE as agents, and possibly also critics, of that State) that fuller participation into WE (and continued acknowledgment of its authority, involving maintaining its material survival) involves telling "US" about some people of interest to "I" who are then made of interest to "WE," organized as a polity ("community") of practice that allowed peripheral participation to "I" and say, among other things:
      1. "Write a research proposal!"
   4. On the postulate (assumption) that there the people of interest can be found over some there (on the other side of the globe, down the streets): these are US's, WE's, and now I's "THEY."
   5. that, arguably (say in the first paragraph of the proposal), other people ("US"--- intellectuals, academics, policy makers, administrators, politicians in position of some authority) ignore, or worse.
      1. practically, in this process, "I" makes some "THEY" even if, on the basis of any demographic/identity/life style/socialization classification "I" is very close to "THEY" (and many, under different conversations full participant in "THEY").
   6. "I" is tasked to tell "US"what "THEY" are like and, more importantly, what they enjoy, what they fear, what constrains them---particularly when these constraints come from "US" (systematically as agents of various state institutions)
   7. On the further well documented assumption (earlier extensive research over more than a century) that while "THEY" may not have the vocabulary and discourses "US" will recognize as knowledge, "they" will tell us what "US" need to know—as long as we listen and respect Their way of telling their life.
   8. And then "US" will report and converse with peers---as we are doing today
      1. and possibly move into a fuller position within the "community" (graduate, enter the profession, etc.)
         1. that may lead to new questions about the emerging new normals among WE (and perhaps US): see Varenne on the young teaching the young (2014)
         2. even as this new normal (position) echoes earlier normals that were not particularly successful in making US evolve on some matter relating to "THEY" (see Varenne on "Anthropological impotence" 2016)