Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[marct]

Hello folks,

First off, let me start by saying that attacking Price's credentials and other forms of ad hominen commentary in a public forum is using a tactic that I really "dislike". It is the intellectual equivalent of terrorist tactics designed to destroy the reputation of the person involved and, as a result, to smear their work with the same emotional connotations of "immorality". I will freely admit that such commentary has a cathartic effect when done in private, usually over a few beers, but doing it in public is just not good form; it detracts from the substantive issue of disagreements over the content while, at the same time, reducing the general discussion to something reminiscent of a school yard brawl amongst 5 year olds.

It is also a tactic that I would hope most people who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan would recognize, at least by analogy. In academic terms, David just set up an intellectual IED aimed at the CoG of most academics - their employability in universities and their ability to get research funding. Again, by analogy (which I will admit is always suspect ), engaging in public ad hominem counter-attacks is as productive of the general good as coalition forces placing IEDs in Taliban strongholds or insurgent held areas of Iraq.

The ultimate question, at least regarding the use of public ad hominem attacks, is whether or not "we" are better than "them".

On the copyright issue, the standard for fair use I have been given by my university is 250 words with citation. Higher amounts require permission of the copyright holder, which is frequently not the author. Citation of some type is mandatory, otherwise this constitutes theft of intellectual property. There are, as far as I know, two exceptions to that. The first exception is the "common knowledge" exception where something, such as a generic definition similar to many of those in first year text books, is held "in common" within the discipline. The second exception is parallel evolution of thought where the author reaches a conclusion (or concept or definition) from a different starting point and using different logic than that of the person whose work they supposedly plagiarized. A third, possible exception (I'm not a copyright lawyer by any means!), would be the use of eminent domain over intellectual property.

I can certainly understand the requirement that a field manual be easily readable (which most academic writing isn't). I would be horrified if field manuals were held to academic standards. At the same time, a second publication of the manual by an academic press places the audience focus of the document in question. As Rex notes, there are some citations in the U of C published version, which I applaud, but I believe that the rest of the citations should have been included even if they were stripped out by the original publication committee. The audience for the U of C version is not the military in the field, although I am certain that a significant number of military personelle have purchased it, it is the general public. As Price notes:

"Some view the Manual as containing plans for a new intellectually fueled "smart bomb," and it is being sold to the public as a scholarly based strategic guide to victory in Iraq. In July, this contrivance was bolstered as the University of Chicago Press republished the Manual in a stylish, olive drab, faux-field ready edition, designed to slip into flack jackets or Urban Outfitter accessory bags." (1)

Despite his snide innuendo that it is only of interest to the military and survivalists, he is quite correct that this is a document that is being published for the general public by an academic press. The defense that the University of Chicago press appears to offer as noted by Price (1) is, in many ways valid - it is an historical document and should be published "as released" - to modify the text of an historical document, as Price suggests should have been done, would, in and of itself, constitute an academic abuse that, if any of my students did it, would call for their expulsion.

Given the importance of FM 3-24, I would, however, strongly urge that the authors consider the production of a "critical version" of the FM for publication by the University of Chicago.

Marc

Endnotes:
1. David Price, Pilfered Scholarship Devastates General Petraeus's Counterinsurgency Manual, Counterpunch, October 30th, 20007, available at http://www.counterpunch.com/price10302007.html dl:Nov 2, 2007

[Steve Blair]

As I suggest in my blog response, what they could have done (or could do now) is release the notes as a downloadable supplement. Of course, which citation format would be used? I know that the social sciences model (author last name and date: page number) is considered crap in many historical circles, so I'd suggest they use the full-blown versions (or barring that at least use a parenthetical citation model ["cited text..." author last name date: page number] presented as endnotes). I seriously doubt that there's much preventing this, and it would certainly help derail Price's claims.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

As I suggest in my blog response, what they could have done (or could do now) is release the notes as a downloadable supplement. Of course, which citation format would be used? I know that the social sciences model (author last name and date: page number) is considered crap in many historical circles, so I'd suggest they use the full-blown versions (or barring that at least use a parenthetical citation model ["cited text..." author last name date: page number] presented as endnotes). I seriously doubt that there's much preventing this, and it would certainly help derail Price's claims.

Personally, I think that is an excellent suggestion and one I would really like to see. Much as it pains me, I would have to agree with an endnote/footnote citation version (footnotes by preference, I hate endnotes ).

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Hi Steve,



Personally, I think that is an excellent suggestion and one I would really like to see. Much as it pains me, I would have to agree with an endnote/footnote citation version (footnotes by preference, I hate endnotes ).

Marc

Agreed. I'm not a big endnote fan, but I prefer either to the parenthetical crap that gets foisted on the reading public at times.

At the VERY LEAST they could have put in a "citations available upon request" notice in the introduction of the UC version. That's not unheard of, either, though these days the download would be much preferred.

[SteveMetz]

Hello folks,

First off, let me start by saying that attacking Price's credentials and other forms of ad hominen commentary in a public forum is using a tactic that I really "dislike". It is the intellectual equivalent of terrorist tactics designed to destroy the reputation of the person involved and, as a result, to smear their work with the same emotional connotations of "immorality". I will freely admit that such commentary has a cathartic effect when done in private, usually over a few beers, but doing it in public is just not good form; it detracts from the substantive issue of disagreements over the content while, at the same time, reducing the general discussion to something reminiscent of a school yard brawl amongst 5 year olds.

It is also a tactic that I would hope most people who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan would recognize, at least by analogy. In academic terms, David just set up an intellectual IED aimed at the CoG of most academics - their employability in universities and their ability to get research funding. Again, by analogy (which I will admit is always suspect ), engaging in public ad hominem counter-attacks is as productive of the general good as coalition forces placing IEDs in Taliban strongholds or insurgent held areas of Iraq.

The ultimate question, at least regarding the use of public ad hominem attacks, is whether or not "we" are better than "them".

On the copyright issue, the standard for fair use I have been given by my university is 250 words with citation. Higher amounts require permission of the copyright holder, which is frequently not the author. Citation of some type is mandatory, otherwise this constitutes theft of intellectual property. There are, as far as I know, two exceptions to that. The first exception is the "common knowledge" exception where something, such as a generic definition similar to many of those in first year text books, is held "in common" within the discipline. The second exception is parallel evolution of thought where the author reaches a conclusion (or concept or definition) from a different starting point and using different logic than that of the person whose work they supposedly plagiarized. A third, possible exception (I'm not a copyright lawyer by any means!), would be the use of eminent domain over intellectual property.

I can certainly understand the requirement that a field manual be easily readable (which most academic writing isn't). I would be horrified if field manuals were held to academic standards. At the same time, a second publication of the manual by an academic press places the audience focus of the document in question. As Rex notes, there are some citations in the U of C published version, which I applaud, but I believe that the rest of the citations should have been included even if they were stripped out by the original publication committee. The audience for the U of C version is not the military in the field, although I am certain that a significant number of military personelle have purchased it, it is the general public. As Price notes:



Despite his snide innuendo that it is only of interest to the military and survivalists, he is quite correct that this is a document that is being published for the general public by an academic press. The defense that the University of Chicago press appears to offer as noted by Price (1) is, in many ways valid - it is an historical document and should be published "as released" - to modify the text of an historical document, as Price suggests should have been done, would, in and of itself, constitute an academic abuse that, if any of my students did it, would call for their expulsion.

Given the importance of FM 3-24, I would, however, strongly urge that the authors consider the production of a "critical version" of the FM for publication by the University of Chicago.

Marc

Endnotes:
1. David Price, Pilfered Scholarship Devastates General Petraeus's Counterinsurgency Manual, Counterpunch, October 30th, 20007, available at http://www.counterpunch.com/price10302007.html dl:Nov 2, 2007

In that case, the culpability lies with the University of Chicago Press, not the authors of the manual. The concern of the authors was saving the lives of soldiers and attaining U.S. national security interests, not meeting scholarly standards.

As I've mentioned, in my opinion it was a mistake to publish something that was never intended as a scholarly work with a university press. Knowing most of the authors of the manual, I myself think there are probably better uses of their time than trying to address the complaints of Dr. Price, et. al. As others have noted in this thread, though, his issue was not really the absence of citations. He was just using that as a trojan horse for his personal ideology.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

In that case, the culpability lies with the University of Chicago Press, not the authors of the manual. The concern of the authors was saving the lives of soldiers and attaining U.S. national security interests, not meeting scholarly standards.

I've got to show you how to edit long quotes ! I agree totally that the "flaw", if there is one, does not lie with the authors. I'm not even sure if it lies with U of C press either - an historical document shouldn't be "corrected", so it is, IMO, open to honest debate. I do like the idea of either a "critical edition" or a fully referenced version being made available.

In some ways, it boils down to intended audience. Field manuals are aimed at soldiers - they are written in a specific genre and language style that has to be neat, clean, logically laid out and, above all else, easily translatable into do's and don'ts in the field.

The genres of academic writing don't really fit this bill. In some circles, "applicability" of an article in the non-academic world is a hindrance, and not only in Anthropology! (references provided on request!). One of the (many) conflations I see in the Price article (op. cit) is that he applies scholarly standards from one discipline to a multi-disciplinary work that was not targeted at a scholarly audience. I could as easily criticize his writing for not being accessible to the internet audiences he is writing for because he did not use the culturally appropriate symbolic form of communications - i.e. emoticons - and that would be an equally "valid" critique.

As I've mentioned, in my opinion it was a mistake to publish something that was never intended as a scholarly work with a university press. Knowing most of the authors of the manual, I myself think there are probably better uses of their time than trying to address the complaints of Dr. Price, et. al. As others have noted in this thread, though, his issue was not really the absence of citations. He was just using that as a trojan horse for his personal ideology.

Agreed. Then again, I would like to point out that he is also providing me with invaluable, open source (with full references made ), data for an article I am thinking of writing on the similarities in rhetorical strategies between the current extremist anti-military Anthropologists and Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Spenger (see here). The pattern of social interaction has so many similarities at the rhetorical level that I believe it would be an important piece of research drawing in, as it does, the confluence of rhetoric, professional knowledge and new technologies .

Marc

[selil]

I'm going to piss everybody off....

I think one of the problems is that anthropologists aren't scientists. Well, not bottle and beaker kind. The FM is more like a lab manual than a text book or journal article. Though a lab manual might have some references, the concepts, ideas, and even language found in a chemistry lab manual isn't going to be cited verbatim. Ideas and lanague are going to be reported as actionable items that the student or audience are going to do. Not research. Looking through my technology lab manual for TCP/IP nowhere does it cite Vint Cerf when discussing the principles of TCP/IP. Now grab my text book or any of hundreds of journal articles and there you go... Cited. Even in academia we have different standards. Oh, in the aforementioned lab manual it does have end notes discussing a variety of topics and some things are cited here and there.

[Steve Blair]

No chance of pissing me off, Sam. I think you're right with that one. But I also think that the semi-science communities want to have it both ways (use sloppy/no citing when they feel like it and then whip out the citation stick when they want to whack someone).

As I've said before, I just have a personal interest in being able to track down some of the stuff in 3-24, and I'm lazy enough about it that I'd like the citations. But I can also live with 3-24 without them. It's more of a distillation and handbook than an actual academic text, IMO anyhow.

[SteveMetz]

how edit long authors made boils neat, clean, logically I could not being accessible i.e. emoticons

One interesting side note here is that I instinctively rush to the defense of the doctrine writers and you to the academic world.

I don't mean this as a critique at all, just an observation.

[marct]

Hi Folks,

I'm going to piss everybody off....

I think one of the problems is that anthropologists aren't scientists. Well, not bottle and beaker kind. The FM is more like a lab manual than a text book or journal article.

Hmmm, good point, Sam. And, no, it doesn't piss me off either .

But I also think that the semi-science communities want to have it both ways (use sloppy/no citing when they feel like it and then whip out the citation stick when they want to whack someone).

I'll have to think about that one but, just off the top of my head, would guess that there is no institutional intent to "whack" people. Then again, I always use the "never ascribe to malice what can be covered by stupidity" meme .

One interesting side note here is that I instinctively rush to the defense of the doctrine writers and you to the academic world.

I don't mean this as a critique at all, just an observation.

No, I certainly didn't take it that way at all. As an observation, I think you are probably bang on. On the level of emotional reactions, I find myself slightly more than mildly frustrated with the bureaucratic process of writing and publishing the FM without many of the citations, but certainly not "angry" over it. Sorry, I can't remember who mentioned that the USMC tends to use citations in their manuals, but that, along with the references that were included, seems to establish a precedent for the inclusion of at least some of them.

Where I do get "angry" is with David's rhetoric and logic, and with the effects that seems to be having on at least some parts of the Anthropology-Military dialogue. It frustrates me to see that "terrorist" rhetorical strategy working by inflaming passions in public and emotionally polarizing the entire universe of discourse (no references, DP, it's part of common knowledge).

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I was the one who brought up the citations in USMC manuals, Marc, but that was in direct reference to the Warfighting series (the MCDP 1- series), which are something of a unique case (they're intended more to teach how to think about war as opposed to prescriptive doctrine). Interesting stuff if you feel like a light read.

And with the community comment, I was referring to individuals more than institutions, since I tend to feel that individuals are attracted to institutions that match their own behavior patterns (or will not seriously restrict those behavior patterns). Of course stupidity is always an option as well....

[J Wolfsberger]

Just when I was preparing my own nasty contribution, you had to inject calm and reason into the thread.

In my own experience, if I, or my people, prepare any engineering document, such as a research report, there better be appropriate citations. If we prepare a manual, a) we cut and paste with shameless abandon and b) there are no citations. It’s the difference between a manual and other types of writing. (No one expects citations to scholarly papers on network or information theory in the users’ manual for their cell phone.) In fact, if I caught someone trying to find a way to rewrite things to avoid “plagiarism,” I’d probably chew them out.

Criticizing a manual for being a manual instead of a dissertation strikes me as a bit silly. I think Dr. Price has entered a culture (military and/or technical) of which he has neither knowledge nor appreciation, and imposed his own cultural norms. (Marc, wouldn’t that be a pretty serious violation of his own “cultural” norms?)

The only other point that approached validity was criticizing the HTTs for their research. On that score, I wasn’t aware they were over there to perform research. I wasn’t aware that the war was an experiment. Does he really think it serves anyone’s interest to have troops blunder about in complete ignorance of the culture they’re dealing with?

Overall, Dr. Price’s article didn’t offer anything of value. I’m sorry I wasted my time reading it.

[MattM]

With hindsight, Dr. McFate replies to queries and critiques of the Manual's scholarship seem odd. In response to González's critique in Anthropology Today of the Manual's weak anthropological base, McFate framed the Manual as "military doctrine, not an academic treatise" and inexplicably proclaimed that "doctrine does not have footnotes."

Thus, Dr. Price was aware of the Field Manuals Authors’ stance before he wrote this Counterpunch article.

Dr. Price's premise is that the US Army Field Manual is not up to scholarly standards. He was well aware that the author's did not hold themselves to this set of standards. Yet, it forms the basis for his criticisms.

I did a point by point rebutall of most of Dr. Price's claims. It would not be a good thread read, as it would start above the screen and finish below the screen. Honestly, I don't think the wild claims and disassociated points of Dr. Price's article would pass in a Philosophy 300 class. I am sure he was heralded at happy hour, though.


Note to self: Low standards at St. Martin's University.