Hi John,
In a word, "No". I would say that there are inherent "ethical dangers" inherent for an Anthropologist or anyone else for that matter, who has internalized the verstehen methodology acting as a covert operative, but I certainly wold not say that it is "inherently" and absolutely unethical. I would say that the danger of becoming affected by covert actions is much higher than by acting solely as an analyst, but not that it is an absolute, 1:1 equation.
I totally agree, John. Look, one of the reasons why I use this rather oddball definition of morality and ethics is because I act in so many different roles that, after a while, they are like masks in a play. I either am / have been / or have acted as a professional academic, actor, singer, career counsellor, priest, game designer, market researcher and social worker.
Given the disparity of professional roles that both of us have used at one or more times in our lives, I think we can probably both agree that "code of ethics" tend to be limited to singular professions. What is "ethical" for a law enforcement officer may be "unethical" for an academic researcher, and vice versa (one of my students got caught in that particular one). This is why I shifted my definition of "ethics" to "right action in accordance with natural law" (okay, Buddhist, I know, but it was the best model I could come up with).
So, and getting back to your original question, I am more concerned with the effects of action on the, for want of a better term, "spiritual well being" of the individual than I am with the specifics of any particular action per se.
And here is where I find myself in an absolute, categorical disagreement with the position of Gusterson and Price. I would, in all probability, have done exactly the same thing as you. For me, it is not a question of "professional ethics" ("morality" in my terminology), it is a question of true ethics - what must I do, as a competent and self-aware individual in order not to "destroy my soul"?
Maybe I have internalized too many Protestant concepts, despite going to an Ursuline convent for school , but I hold, as a categorical position, that each individual must ultimately stand before their God(s) and account for their actions. One corollary of this is that I, as an individual, cannot rely on the judgement of anyone else to define what I consider to be "ethical". Another corollary of this is that if I do not ask for advice from "those who know", then I am a fool, and the final corollary is, IMHO, best stated by Cromwell - "Brethren, I beseach ye in the bowels of Christ to consider that ye may be wrong"!
In short, I believe that "ethics" are too important to the individual to hand them over to the control of a group.
John, I agree totally with that! Despite my disagreements with David, I certainly would agree that he is acting in a manner that is within the moral boundary of established discourse. Do I consider him to be "unethical"? No, not at all. I truly believe that he is answering a "calling", despite the fact that I disagree with his position. I would never demand that he or Hugh Gusterson accept my position - that, to my mind, would be unethical. I can, and will, however, demand that they grant me the same courtesy.
Marc
Bookmarks