Anthropology (catch all)

[marct]

Hello John,

If you haven't read Marc's article in the new issue of the magazine, I recommend it to you all. As a political scientist with enough courses for a graduate minor in anthropology, I learned much. Marc develops the theme of conflict between card carrying anthropologists and the "military" in a way that demands a dialogue - although how you have a dialogue with those who do not want to talk to you, I don't know.

Thanks for the recommendation . You are quite correct about me trying to develop the theme of a conflict between Anthropology and the "military". My intention was, indeed, to try and lay out where I saw that conflict coming from as well as some of the more extreme versions of it that are surfacing.

I have been concerned by the anti-corporation, anti-military stance within Anthropology for years, now. This is not because I do not believe that there have been corporate or military abuses of power - there have been and there continue to be. Rather, what has bothered me most, is the extreme form of polarization that has happened where any actions by the military and corporations are characterized as "evil". I honestly do not believe that any profitable form of dialog can happen where the "sides" automatically assume evil intentions on the part of the other.

Is a dialog possible? Certainly, but the strategy of setting one up and keeping it going has more in common with a COIN operation than with the more conventional "academic dialog".

The only quarrel I have with Marc is regarding his comments on Project Camelot - a study of political instability in Latin America in the 1960s sponsored by the US Army and conducted by the Special Operations Research Office at American University. The lead investigator was a political scientist, not an anthropologist. My quarrel, then, is that by confining the discussion to anthropolgy Marc doesn't show that the problem extends to nearly all the social sciences to a greater or lesser extent.

John, you are, of course, quite correct in that the problem certainly permeates the entirety of the social sciences. I didn't deal with any of the others for several reasons. First, I know Anthropology best and that is the discipline that has taken the most publicly radical stance. Second, over the past couple of years, the "military" has been identifying Anthropology as a "must recruit" discipline. Third, Anthropology and, to a lessor extent qualitative Sociology, uses a rather unique primary methodology that significantly alters the perception of the user. To my mind, this sets it in opposition to the more "theologically" oriented disciplines - the difference between gnosis and logos as it were.

I would close these comments on two humorous notes:

1. Some have said that the last refuge for Marxist-Leninists is the American university.

True, and the ones who are too radical even for American universities end up in Canada .

2. Several years ago, a retired Army Col and FAO at the Army War College, Don Boose, created what he called the Malinowski Cultural Sensitivity Award. It was based on the fact that cultural anthropoligist Bronislaw Malinowski's 1930s studies of the Trobriand Islanders were marvels of cultural sensitivity. However, when his field notes surfaced some 30 years later in the 1960s, they were scathing and scatological comments on the customs and culture of those same people. In recognition of this human failing Don created the award to be given to that individual who, despite knowing better, makes a truly stupid and culturally insensitive remark. Needless to say, the majority of the recipients have been Army FAOs!

I can think of a few Anthropologists who should receive it .

Marc