Anthropology is not mere observation, said Cifford Geertz, one of the last century's greatest ethnographers. It is something more complex: “an interpretation of interpretations”. Because every culture – he argued – already bears a specific vision of reality, of its own weltanshauung made of languages, traditions, but above all made of values. Therefore, observing is not enough; we need to understand, engage on the front line, knowing our gaze is not neutral.

But what's the point in reflecting on this gaze today, in a world where anthropology seems to be the picturesque remains of a little dusty past? First of all, the point is that the anthropological method is back being topical. Just think of netnography, a method of interpreting web interactions, trying to fill the gap between quantitative and qualitative analysis of the social universe.

There's more: if nowadays communication means moving on the convergence between extremely different cultures and languages, it can be very useful to remember how hard is understanding “the other” – even when the other is simply one's own past. As Juri Lotman, another great mind of the XX century, used to say, it is useful to find the “creole language” between communities never “this far, this close”.

Hence the ability of anthropology to tell unknown or forgotten stories through pictures and protagonists voices, becomes a means to trace the fundamental rules of living (together) and the essential role of communication in its broader sense, within this return to the origins process. In the belief that looking at our past, through its traces left in the present, is the best way to understand and build the future together.