Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[SoupWithAKnife]

The Danger Room over at Wired Magazine tips readers off to a new blog by one Marcus B. Griffin, Ph.D. He's headed to Iraq to develop the Army's Human Terrain System. Some interesting reading, including this post:

Going Native

Going “native” in anthropology is a fairly common strategy to gain a better understanding of the people with whom one is working. I am about a month away from deploying to Baghdad as part of the US Army’s new Human Terrain System and have almost gone completely native.

...

By going native, I am better able to see social life from the viewpoint of the people I am working with. I did this as a child among the Agta of northeastern Luzon, the Philippines by wearing a loincloth. As I got older I wore beads and arm bracelets. Today among soldiers, I am looking and more often acting just like them. There is an old Native American saying not to judge another person’s actions until you have walked two moons in their moccasins. That is what going native is all about: walking in someone else’s shoes in order to know what their life is like and therefore why they do what they do. This is called acquiring an emic point of view.

My apologies if this is a repost, but this blog looks promising.

[Tom Odom]

Welcome and keep posting. Obvoiusly you are --like me--a fan of Nagl's book. Tell us more about yourself at Tell Us About You #2...

I will leave commenting on whether "going native" means that in the world of Anthropology to Marc T. But in the world of the FAO, "going native" means losing your perspective and your usefulness.

Best

Tom

[SoupWithAKnife]

Tom,

Thanks for the welcome. I briefly wrote about myself a couple of months ago here. It's a lightweight bio (given my lack of experience in the "real world") compared to the others, so I hardly blame you for missing it!

I am indeed a fan of LTC Nagl's book, but I regret my choice of username. Rather than a tribute to a great book, it comes off like some kind of rip-off...

Regarding the use of the expression "going native," I'm also interested to see how it hits Marc T. given its negative connotation in the military.

Regards
Cullen

[Tom Odom]

Cullen

Sorry I missed the intro, But also thanks for the bolg contact. I am interested in the subject as are many here,

Best

Tom

[marct]

Hi Cullen and Tom,

I've been reading Marcus' blog and I'm really impressed by it. One the whole I find it quite good and I'm looking forward to more. Of course the fact that Hugh Gusterson is engaging in little snipes at Marcus' posts is another sign, to me at least, that it is good !

As far as "going native" is concerned, Marcus is describing it quite accurately. If you want a more formalized description, it would be building a "persona" (sort of like a split personality) that is "native", but retaining the ability to come out of that persona.

I think it is this final point, being able to come out of that persona, that marks the difference between what Anthropologists and the military mean by "going native". In the MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) literature, this is called "switching", and it's pretty much what good fieldworkers do with the vital exception that we have control over which persona we are using. Think of it as a mental "trick".

Marc

[Ironhorse]

I just took a look at some of the recent entries, and this does bear watching.

But I would have thought the right "native" would be some flavor or Iraqi. Of course which flavor is a debate all of its own. But if his target nativity is just being one of the Joes, that's a different program that the one I thought they were after with the Human Terrain efforts.

I probably need to read more, type less . At least I'm not the only one

[marct]

I just took a look at some of the recent entries, and this does bear watching.

But I would have thought the right "native" would be some flavor or Iraqi. Of course which flavor is a debate all of its own. But if his target nativity is just being one of the Joes, that's a different program that the one I thought they were after with the Human Terrain efforts.

I probably need to read more, type less . At least I'm not the only one

LOLOL

Right now, the "natives" he is working with are US forces - a group that I think we can all agree are rather different from academics . We'll just have to see what he does over in Iraq. From what I have read of the HTS, I find it unlikely that he will have the opportunity to do proper fieldwork with anyone there except, possibly, the IA or IP.

Marc

[Beelzebubalicious]

Hello. I've recently found this forum and it addresses a lot of my interests so I'm jumping in. I'll post a bio.

Anyway, how the HTS is operationalized interests me so I'll be following this blog. Marcus seems to have a good attitude and seems quite practical, so I think he'll do well. In any case, it's a learning curve for everyone. I'm civilian, but have had some limited interaction with the military side in different forms. LIke Marcus I'm impressed, but from my little exposure, it's been hard to bridge the gap (language, experience, etc.). I hope he can.

[SWJED]

Anthropologists in Iraq - and Those in America Who Attack Them - Herschel Smith at the Captain's Journal blog.

... These “concerned anthropologists” understand classical conventional warfare, and the difference between it and counterinsurgency operations. There is no mistaking the facts. Because they consider the original invasion to be unwarranted, they will take no part of a successful counterinsurgency. Rather, they will try to bully other anthropologists into the same position with a childish “petition” (as if other Doctors of Philosophy in anthropology are incapable of making their own minds up about what they consider to be ethical use of their knowledge).

In our many articles on the subject, we have cataloged the brutalities perpetrated by the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. The Anbar Province is for all intents and purposes pacified, but seven months ago it was still a restive and savage place with al Qaeda on a campaign of torture in response to the Anbar “awakening.”...

[goesh]

~~ these are the voyages of certain Anthropologists who boldly go where no other Anthropologists will go, into the realms of understanding that involve military forces and indigenous forces, their mission, to faciliate cultural awareness and understanding and the reduction of violence amongst humans, regardless of which political party occupies the White House~~ all I need is a theme song to accompany this and Madonna type themes will be rejected upon receipt - personally I think a Wagnerian type genre should be used

[Stan]

Hmmm, how do I set this laser printer to stun ?

Sarcasm is just one more service we offer here in the Baltics

[wm]

~~ these are the voyages of certain Anthropologists who boldly go where no other Anthropologists will go, into the realms of understanding that involve military forces and indigenous forces, their mission, to faciliate cultural awareness and understanding and the reduction of violence amongst humans, regardless of which political party occupies the White House~~ all I need is a theme song to accompany this and Madonna type themes will be rejected upon receipt - personally I think a Wagnerian type genre should be used

While using Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" has merit, I think Strauss's "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (the 2001 A Space Odyssey theme music) has much to recommend itself as well, especially if you use the visual from 2001 of the primate starting to use the bone as a club as the backdrop for the narration of your proposed script. After all, we are talking about anthropologists aren't we?

[goesh]

Excellent choice, Wm. There was a Jimmi Hendrix nomination which I felt might give 'Nam vets on hand flashbacks so I scratched it. I'm waiting for Stan's theme nomination. What has our world come to when scholars feel they are in the figurative gun sites of colleagues? I recall in one blog a couple years back the author telling me if she ever spoke her true feelings about the war and terrorism, she would be ostracized by most of her colleagues and the one's sympathetic would be afraid to even speak up on her behalf. I vividly recall her words, "I would be sitting alone in the faculty lounge". Weeping Jesus! Have we reached the apex of evolution already? I think Marct was not jesting when he said this petition business causes him think of the witch hunts of medieval times.

[Danny]

goesh,

I seriously doubt that anyone who would be persuaded to serve in this capacity in the first place would be persuaded otherwise by "pressure" from colleagues. The real point of my article was to convey my disgust at the pusillanimous behavior of the mental Pygmies who started the petition. The same cowards who would themselves be persuaded by peer pressure of this sort are the ones who attempt to do it to others. Fortunately, the people they try to bully are of a different lot.

[Rex Brynen]

I think there are two issues here.

The first is the petition, and its explicit assumption that anthropologists supporting COIN in Afghanistan are engaged in a fundamentally immoral activity. Here much depends on one's view of legitimacy (and in both cases, one would have thought that the fact that the missions are endorsed by both the local elected government and the UN Security Council ought to count for something).

The second issue is the tensions that arise from one's professional responsibility as a social scientist, and one's potential function as a counter-insurgent. Academic social scientists are suppose to live by a series of research ethics that, for example, require disclosure research project to most interviewees, disclosure of data and findings, informed consent, and very stringent safeguards for interviewing involuntary subjects (such as prisoners) or those otherwise unable to give informed consent. HUMINT collection, IO, PSYOPS, etc all work rather differently, as does providing professional advice in these areas. There are some potentially troubling professional and ethical implications of moving back and forth between both worlds.

I suspect most SWJ readers would take it as a given that I shouldn't divulge TS/SCI information in the classroom, even if it assisted in the noble enterprise of teaching. Also problematic, however, would be using data gathered confidentially, for particular academic purposes, and passing it on in rich detail to military/government actors with whom the interviewee would not have willingly shared it. Doing so not only violates professional ethics, but potentially endangers later academic researchers.

Frankly, its probably a good idea that professional organizations (and the military) reflect on this--and how any potential conflicts between the universes be dealt with.

[MarkD]

I just found this site due a link to my site, ethnography.com about the Human Terrain System. As an anthropologist, I am very excited and encouraged by the much more overt and "on the ground" use of anthropologists by military and intelligence communities. This is also a raving big deal to a lot of other anthropologists.

I have more than a couple of rants on my site about the short-sighted nature of my profession in this regard. On the other hand, I am meeting more anthropologists: students and long-term professionals alike, that would love the chance to work with the Human Terrain System program and other military or government agencies. Why? Because more and more anthropologists want to do something thats feels real and has an impact on the world around them and they make their own choices about what that looks like.

The only reason I am a member of the American Anthropology Association is because you are a member when you join to attend the national conference that was in my city last year. I would never sign some wacko pledge about the kind of work or clients I am partnering with. A) I have my own moral compass, thank you, and I don't need my supposed professional association dictating to me my moral choices. B) I am an anthropologist if I work for Habitat for Humanity or the CIA using cultural knowledge to develop propaganda (As an aside, some very famous anthropologists worked with the OSS to create propaganda in WWII and are held in high regard. The difference between what is seen as a morally "clean" war with nationally supported goals, and more ambiguous wars.)

The Anthropologists in academia get in a froth every few years about those of us in the corporate world (I use anthropology to develop corporate strategies for global and regional business units), and those in the government and the military. In fact they see no difference between an anthropologist in the military or business at all. In the past the code of ethics was very clear that the work most of us in business or government did was out of bounds. The result? Umm, we just didn't join the anthropology association. Its not like we missed much.

You'll notice that all these ideas for pledges and resolutions, etc to ban certain kinds of work by social scientists rarely if ever from people with actual experience in the field. Why? Well those of us in the Business/Government/Military end of anthropology are too busy actually DOING things.

[Rex Brynen]

To be frank, I think the witchcraft analogies here are rather overblown. The petition (which I certainly wouldn't sign were I an anthropologist) doesn't suggest any restriction or sanction upon anthropologists who do work with the military--it merely represents a statement by its signatories that they personally won't do so. It is hardly a threat to professional, academic freedom.

Teaching in a department where faculty opinions have run from very conservative to Marxist, I don't think (in general) we're in anyone sights, or hunkered in anyone's bunkers.

Finally, let me once more disengage the politics behind the petition from the very real issue of managing research ethics. While Marc is right that professional ethical standards (and research ethics boards) serve as a kind of ritualized inoculation against criticism, they are also vitally important. Especially for those of us doing research in conflict zones, failure to maintain ethical standards can hurt, even kill, people. Issues of source anonymity are important where research interviewees are at personal risk (I've had three of them assassinated after interviews, although I hasten to add there was no connection!). Credibility is essential, since researchers do their work without PSDs (I've been taken on car rides to unknown destinations by armed insurgents, had guns pointed at me by nervous conscripts, been arrested and shaken down by secret police, had my belongings searched by security services trolling for data on my research contacts more times than I can count, and have even been accused of being a spy once--and it sure helped that my reputation was clean and well documented). I've also had to warn colleagues that their research might put subjects at risk if they fail to maintain interviewee anonymity, or where detainees were involved and might be being abused by their jailers as a consequence of interviews.

The development of appropriate ethical guidelines for social scientists--or more especially for those social scientists moving between the academic and military worlds--would, I think, be a rather useful thing for all concerned.

[marct]

Hi Rex,

To be frank, I think the witchcraft analogies here are rather overblown. The petition (which I certainly wouldn't sign were I an anthropologist) doesn't suggest any restriction or sanction upon anthropologists who do work with the military--it merely represents a statement by its signatories that they personally won't do so. It is hardly a threat to professional, academic freedom.

Taken in and of itself, I would agree. I do still feel that there are fatal flaws in its wording - for example, it doesn't pledge that the signatories will not be involved as insurgents, just counter-insurgency!

I used the witchcraft analogies partly because I know the dynamics of them so well and they are, quite frankly, somewhat terrifying - at least in terms of social movement dynamics. The first main cycle of witch crazes (~1490's to 1530's) started against the express wishes of the Catholic Church as the result of two psychotics Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger publishing (illegally I might add!) the Malleus Maleficarum or "The Hammer of Witches". Within the space of 10 years, this had completely recreated the popular understanding of "witchcraft" and led to over 1000 deaths.

Now, I truly doubt that anything like that would happen at the immediate moment, but the dynamic is the crucial part - it completely restructured the narrative surrounding "witchcraft", moving it from a form of paganism and "delusion" to a form of Christian Heresy and, hence, the rightful prey of the Inquisition.

Teaching in a department where faculty opinions have run from very conservative to Marxist, I don't think (in general) we're in anyone sights, or hunkered in anyone's bunkers.

Honestly, my department (actually Institute, not department) is strongly on the left. Despite that, there is a fantastic sense of collegiality and absolutely no attacks on anyone at all about their research. I have had colleagues express their concerns to me about my research interests, but it has always been in the form of concern for myself and my career.

Finally, let me once more disengage the politics behind the petition from the very real issue of managing research ethics.

Absolutely! My objections are at the political and ideological (okay, and theoretical) levels.

While Marc is right that professional ethical standards (and research ethics boards) serve as a kind of ritualized inoculation against criticism, they are also vitally important. Especially for those of us doing research in conflict zones, failure to maintain ethical standards can hurt, even kill, people. Issues of source anonymity are important where research interviewees are at personal risk (I've had three of them assassinated after interviews, although I hasten to add there was no connection!). Credibility is essential, since researchers do their work without PSDs (I've been taken on car rides to unknown destinations by armed insurgents, had guns pointed at me by nervous conscripts, been arrested and shaken down by secret police, had my belongings searched by security services trolling for data on my research contacts more times than I can count, and have even been accused of being a spy once--and it sure helped that my reputation was clean and well documented). I've also had to warn colleagues that their research might put subjects at risk if they fail to maintain interviewee anonymity, or where detainees were involved and might be being abused by their jailers as a consequence of interviews.

Absolutely! While I haven't researched in war zones, I have conducted research in situations where any loss of anonymity can have serious personal consequences, including death. I have worked with informants who have had their houses burned down, who have been fired from their jobs and who have had their children taken away from them as a result of their religious beliefs. I have also worked with people who are on the tipping edge of suicide / homicide.

I am a firm believer in "sanitizing" fieldnotes so that any identifying traces are eliminated unless people specifically request and require that I use their names (it's happened, and caused my ethics oversight committees problems ). Like you, Rex, I've also talked with colleagues and students over the absolute importance of anonymity and, also, the potential psychological damage that can happen while engaged in fieldwork. It's also one of the reasons I was so opposed to the original HTT proposal - they were going to keep databases of informants with identifying features in them and turn all of that over to the Iraqi government - I can't thnk of anything mre likely to create a bloodbath!

The development of appropriate ethical guidelines for social scientists--or more especially for those social scientists moving between the academic and military worlds--would, I think, be a rather useful thing for all concerned.

Definitely, and I am all in favour of it. The AAA has struck a committee to do exactly that (I was interviewed by Laura McNamara for it) and I am very hopeful that they will come up with a good set of guidelines. BTW, Laura has been posting at Savage Minds on some of the issues being raised by Gusterson and Price. Her posts are well worth looking at and reading one, in particular, was what sparked my thinking to the analogy of the witch trials.

Rex, I am in full support of having a set of open and transparent research guidelines that are understood by all stakeholders and that have some teeth in them. What I am opposed to is the construction of a set of guidelines that are based on political ideology and are only enforceable by the development of a "thought police". I want to make it clear that I do NOT believe that this is the intention behind Hugh Gusterson and David Prices' stance - I think they are truly concerned over what might happen. I do, however, believe that they are jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on an ideological stance and that they are setting in motion forces that could lead to the marginalization of Anthropology. I also find the implications of their position to be ethically repugnant in that they are attempting to exert a moral force to withhold information and expertise that could save lives.

Marc

[marct]

I've been following this for several days now on a confidential list serve I'm on, as you might imagine, and I am somewhat encouraged by the reactions I have seen from some of my fellow Anthropologists - mainly from those who refuse to sign the "pledge" for reasons of principle.

I also think that the "pledge" itself contains certain contradictory assumptions that are, to my mind, indicative of an ideological stance that I consider to be unethical. In particular, the "pledge" states

we pledge not to undertake research or other activities in support of counter-insurgency work in Iraq or in related theaters in the “war on terror,” and we appeal to colleagues everywhere to make the same commitment

Nowhere in all of the discussions surrounding this issue have I found any interest or concern with studying all of the roots behind the current conflicts - it is all focused on studying how the West is to blame. To me, this is a theoretically and ethically debunk position.

On the theoretical level, it reverts to a crude "Us" (the West) vs. "Them" (all others) typology where the potential for action is a priori assigned solely to "Us". By denying that "They" can commit action (only reaction) the "pledge" is an insult to "Them" implying, in no uncertain terms, that "They" are incapable of making any meaningful action, and hence having a responsibility for that action.

Furthermore, I find this position to be useless in any scientific sense. The dichotomy underlying their position means that they cannot examine any of the roots of violence (including torture, death squads, terror attacks using car bomb and gas tankers) without concluding that it is simply a reaction to Western aggression. Possibly we should be thankful that they pledge themselves not to "undertake research or other activities in support of counter-insurgency work in Iraq or in related theaters in the “war on terror” " since we already know what their results would be.

On the ethical level, by denying the potential of meaningful action to "Them", I believe that they are denying a core quality of what makes people "human". In effect, they are using the same arguments as the worst of the Colonialists did but to a different purpose. Rather than having even a thin veneer of justification for that ideological position, say an "attempt to 'civilize'" the "savages", they are using the pain and suffering of all involved in the current conflicts to justify an imposition of what I can only call thought control upon their own discipline and, by extension, on the Academy and the populace. If I were to translate how I see this "pledge" into terms most people on the SWC will easily understand, I view this as the middle-to-end of a Stage 1, Classic Maoist insurgency conducted not with guns, but with ideas.

Marc

[goesh]

I am reminded too of the communist witch hunt of the McCarthy era in which a goodly number of artists refused to cave in to the blackballing and intimidation. More recently, there was the attempt to boycott Israeli scholars and intellectuals in England.

"On the theoretical level, it reverts to a crude "Us" (the West) vs. "Them" (all others) typology where the potential for action is a priori assigned solely to "Us". (Marct)

Well said, Sir! Once I get a theme song and ship, I'm nominating you to be the Captain as you are in the forefront of the charge against ignorance and bullying by people who should know better. Stan will have to salute you then.