Hey Stan,
Originally Posted by
Stan
Although very interesting, I’m having my own ethically driven thoughts. This one kind of rubs me the wrong way and perhaps clearly reflects my lack of understanding for your field of work. Personally, I may have smuggled in a rope for ‘Jim’ to hang himself with
One of the reasons I call professional codes of ethics "morals" or "moral codes" is because they derive from the group, not the transcendent nature of reality (however any individual views that 
). Mark's example of a dilemna is a pretty classic one in our field simply because it is based on a structural paradox created by the way us Anthropologists operate.
Remember when I was talking about verstehen in my SWJ article? That establishes a "structural" relationship between us and our informants (the people we work with / study). That relationship is defined as one of "trust" and "confidentiality", which is really a misnomer because those are merely necessary characteristics of such a relationship.
The second "structure" that defines the relationship, at least as far as the AAA code of ethics is concerned, is the concept of asymmetric power. There is an axiomatic assumption that the Anthropologist holds greater power than the informant - an assumption that really stems from the early 20th century when it was probably true.
Personally, I believe that it is increasingly less true, and I suspect that anyone who has done fieldwork with modern organizations realizes this. Still and all, it is a "comforting" assumption for some since it reinforces their inherent "superiority" - a (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" if you will for the academic world.
One of the things that I find quite repellent in the current "ethics" debates is the general polarization of those debates and the unwillingness of many to examine the structures that underly the assumptions. For example, Rex noted that his having a "clean" record has enabled him to conduct his research without too much interference (barring the occasional guns being pointed at him 
). Now, to my mind, a "clean" research record is really no more than keeping your word and doing exactly what you say you will do, including guarantees of confidentiality as requested (and not if your informants request that).
Where we start getting into problematic areas are in some of the other structures. For example, there is an axiomatic assumption that says the data, or at least the analyses, should be published. This puts that material out into the public domain where it now becomes available for use by anyone. But if anyone can use it, then this includes those who can "misuse" it as well. This actually sets up a feedback loop as far as confidentiality is concerned based on the concept of "do no harm" which, in my opinion, means that there should be a very exacting discussion of what "harm" is - something that doesn't happen that often.
I believe that most of the current debate over Anthropologists working with the military actually centers on the nature of this feedback loop and the definition, or lack thereof, of "harm". For me, the dilemna posed by Mark isn't a dilemna at all, but that is because I have spent a lot of time analyzing that feedback loop and trying to work out a definition of harm. In particular, I take individual choice to be both an axiomatic and an operational assumption. Could I have stopped that prisoner from committing suicide with 100% success? Nope, and any efforts to invoke structural conditions to increase a chance of success would have increased his likeliness to want to commit suicide, therefore I would be "harming" him by taking those actions.
But notice that my axiomatic and operational assumption of individual choice is totally counter to the (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" assumption that operates with some of my colleagues. Personally, I find their assumption of a superior power position to be ludicrous since that assumption requires them to posit that it exists in all situations without actually analyzing any specific situation. Furthermore, it places the onus of responsibility on the collective (i.e. the profession) rather than the individual, which I find to be ethically repugnant since it creates an enforced reliance of the individual on the collective and, as a consequence, decreases the growth of the individual.
I think Shakespeare summed up my own understanding beautifully when he wrote:This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Marc
Bookmarks