Comments on: Anthropological Angst

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:30:47 +0000

Keven:On your first point, you are absolutely correct from the point of view of the army and the Iraquis. But, the anthropologists exclude themselves from being useful where they could help. In my view, actually, the army may not be the best agency to be doing this kind of work anyway.The second point was not intended to have anything to do with secrecy, etc. My point here is that even where there is an internal mechanism for ethical control it is utterly useless. Anthropologist have a lot to say, but little to do with, ethics. I don’t think it is like other professions. Far worse than average, possibly among the worse.I don’t think I get your third point about my third point, but that is probably because I did not make my point clear. My point is that my friend, “James” would never be allowed back into, or anywhere near, the anthropological community, and all anthropologists that I know who know him denounce him as a horrible person, unethical, immoral, and so on.

By: Nomen Nescio

Nomen Nescio — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:05:33 +0000

There are other stories, but you get the point.

i’m starting to get a point about anthropology being a profoundly eff’d up field that’s devolved into being too much politics for the good of its science. am i wrong? because i kindof hope i am…

By: kevin

kevin — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:26:23 +0000

Greg,I am not convinced by your three examples. In the first, I think it is pretty obvious that it doesn’t take an anthropologist to smooth over the situation. It takes anyone with a brain and a clue. My 2 years in the peace corps don’t make me an anthropologist, and it would have been obvious to me that the neighborhood muslims aren’t necessarily going to behave like you expect, and you might have to ask some side-ways questions and read between the lines to figure out what is going on.In the second, I don’t see what that has to do with secrecy or working for the military or a corporation. Its just politics and infighting, which every field has.In the third, I think it is fine, great even, that people with anthropology training work in the CIA. This makes them a former anthropologist. Or, if you prefer, an anthropologist with an agenda. And I don’t see anything wrong with a professional organization trying to draw a distinction between someone using their anthropology training to serves the public and scientific good, and a person using their anthropology training for the good of the CIA or a corporate sponsor or whatever else.

By: the real Napoleon Champagne

the real Napoleon Champagne — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:05:04 +0000

If it is private sector military research,with ‘security concerns’ it should bear a warning label, like a pack of cigarettes. How can one maintain objectivity when the research is subjective, and blatantly heirarchical?re:”Mr. Greer said that the program would not discourage its employees from publishing their findings in scholarly journals. ?There are certainly some restrictions from the security side,? The CIA essentilly said the same thing about project MK Ultra–the training of child prostitutes and spies around the globe; as well as the syphillis studies done on African American soldiers, etc.

By: Colugo

Colugo — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:56:54 +0000

I recall Terence Turner’s role in the ‘Darkness in El Dorado’ mess.We all know about anthropology and the OSS in WWII. Some of the objections being aired now are not so much about anthropology in the military per se as they about the current wars. If more AAA members approved of a particular war (e.g. enemies like Hitler or Milosevic), they would be more comfortable with the situation.At least this issue is about the practice of anthropology. Some AAA statements are not about anthropological ethics, theory, or methods but are just current events opinion pieces.”There was a professional rivalry at work here, and a general distrust by “culturals” of the “bios”.”I have been witness to plenty of that nonsense. Cultural anthropologists’ (the “real” anthropology, in their view) contempt for biological anthropology as if it were weird science masquerading as anthropology. Usually the archaeologists would be allied with the bios and the linguists with the culturals. To be fair, I also saw inter-subfield respect and collaboration.I could write a thinly fictionalized novel about academic anthropology. Perhaps I will.Let’s face it, the various subfields of anthropology will continue to be absorbed into their cognate disciplines and the various “studies” programs. And that does not bode well for the future of the AAA and anthro departments.