Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[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

[goesh]

"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....." (marct)

If anyone can achieve that, most likely it will be the folks of your discipline, given the willingness and ability of your profession to actually live with people they are trying to understand and learn from. I might proffer too that Marct's positive experience with the Institute he is affiliated with comes in part because of the Canadian influence and take on things. The Academics I previously mentioned, about 5-6 in number, show a markedly different perspective and experience in the American academic world. The witchcraft analogy remains valid IMO.

Stan: Purple Haze by Hendrix is getting alot of votes and there is a door prize, a box of 00 10 ga shells

[Stan]

"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....." (marct)

Good luck with that one.

Stan: Purple Haze by Hendrix is getting alot of votes and there is a door prize, a box of 00 10 ga shells

Our PMs did not indicate conducting a poll or subsequent door prize.
Where in God's name are you gettin' this Bravo Sierra from

You should at the very least indicate what meaning Purple Haze really had during the Vietnam era

Back at ya !

BTW, I have a 12 ga. and don't need 10 ga rounds

[marct]

My vote is for "White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane, 1967

[Steve Blair]

My vote is for "White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane, 1967

I tend to prefer the Sanctuary remake of the same song, but that is a good choice. "Paint it Black" might also be worth consideration.

[Stan]

My vote is for "White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane, 1967

Go ask Alice
I think she'll know

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head"

Will the monkey fit in

[marct]

Will the monkey fit in

Hey, backup singers are important !

[wm]

My vote is for "White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane, 1967

If you choose to go with JA, then I suggest "Lather" from the 1968 "Crown of Creation" album The following lyrics are particularly apropos I think.

"Lather was 30 years old today,
They took away all of his toys.
His mother sent newspaper clippings to him
About his old friends who'd stopped being boys."

[marct]

If you choose to go with JA, then I suggest "Lather" from the 1968 "Crown of Creation" album The following lyrics are particularly apropos I think.

That's certainly a valid comment on the lyrics WM. Then again, White Rabbit truly does capture the postmodernist existential angst of performing theoretical praxis in the current regressive, militaristic environment (I can't believe I typed that with a straight face ).

[goesh]

Stan, to mention Viet Nam is to raise some hackles and inhibit objectivity on the part of many social scientists. Well, any metion of armed conflict tends to do that, but, regarding the theme song for brave academics who oppose the game of dirty pool in the ivory tower, I've nominated myself Captain of the Search Committee and as such, I can change and make up rules as I go. Many military personnel can relate to that I'm sure as they seek the middle ground between shock n' awe and self-reliance in Iraq. Purple Haze we will define as that which emenated from the sh**ters as they were being burned, a picture of which, minus the purple haze, Tom has provided in another section of this forum. Some say purple haze is an apt description of my Posts.

[goesh]

By the nominations so far, it appears many inhaled when they experimented with marijuana.

[Stan]

Hey Goesh !
You are showing signs of spending way too much time with the Navy (or as Sam puts it...

Wait for it...


Bath Tub Toys

I've nominated myself Captain of the Search Committee and as such, I can change and make up rules as I go.

[MarkD]

Hi Stan-

Its true, the most current revision of the AAA code of ethics (which is also under revision) is no longer as explicit about secret research. At one point it was a direct breach of ethics.

The rub is the interpretation of the different parts of the code. Most anthropologists would still argue that a person should never do research that cannot be made public to everyone including those the research is about.

Take the "do no harm" related section. Of course, thats a basic *duh* for most people. BUT, what if you are doing research with military teams, say a bomber crew. The objective is to understand how to make them a more effective team to improve accuracy, reduce error and generally bomb the bejesus out of the enemy. For many anthropologists, you are indeed doing harm at that point. Cultural understanding to improve relations for military units is questionable, but sort of OK. Developing a better understanding of Al Queda to locate and bomb them is waaaaaay out of bounds.

Me on the othref hand? I am totally fine with anthro's working in any capacity. Before I was an anthropologist I worked developing training systems for tanks for the army and base interdiction for the air force, among others.

I don't object to a code of ethics of course. One of the most interesting classes I had in grad school was my ethics class. The time to really ponder ethical dilemmas is before they happen, then at least you have some footing when the inevitable unexpected surprise happens.

Here is a post I wrote about my most difficult ethical problem I have encountered. http://www.ethnography.com/2007/03/w...hical-dilemma/