Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[marct]

The show is available in RealMedia format here.

[Beelzebubalicious]

Apparently, Marshall Sahlins has weighed in on Anthropologists in Iraq in an open letter to the NY Times. This, according to Savage Minds...

To the Editor:
The report (Oct.11) of the killing of two Iraqi women by hired guns of the State Department whose mission was “to improve local government and democratic institutions” bears an interesting relation to the story of a few days earlier about the collaboration of anthropologists in just such imperious interventions in other peoples’ existence in the interest of extending American power around the world. It seems only pathetic that some anthropologists would criticize their colleagues’ participation in such adventures on grounds of their own disciplinary self-interest, complaining that now they will not be able to do fieldwork because the local people will suspect them of being spies. What about the victims of these militarily-backed intrusions, designed to prescribe how others should organize their lives at the constant risk of losing them? What is as incredible as it is reprehensible is that anthropologists should be engaged in such projects of cultural domination, that is, as willing collaborators in the forceful imposition of American values and governmental forms on people who have long known how to maintain and cherish their own ways of life.

Of course, these collaborating anthropologists have the sense that they are doing good and being good. I am reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago, I think it was in the Saturday Review of Literature, which shows two hooded executioners leaning on their long-handled axes, and one says to the other: “The way I see it, if I didn’t do this, some sonovabitch would get the job.”

Marshall Sahlins

http://savageminds.org/2007/10/11/ma...gists-in-iraq/

[SteveMetz]

Apparently, Marshall Sahlins has weighed in on Anthropologists in Iraq in an open letter to the NY Times. This, according to Savage Minds...



http://savageminds.org/2007/10/11/ma...gists-in-iraq/

I don't know whether to retch or laugh.

[SteveMetz]

Apparently, Marshall Sahlins has weighed in on Anthropologists in Iraq in an open letter to the NY Times. This, according to Savage Minds...



http://savageminds.org/2007/10/11/ma...gists-in-iraq/

How dare we impose our values on the Iraqi "way of life" like this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgents in Iraq targeted Shiite Muslims on Sunday -- the second day of the Eid al-Fitr festival -- in separate attacks that left at least 24 dead, Iraqi officials said.

Iraqis check out damaged vehicles Sunday in Baghdad where a blast killed at least six people on a minibus.

The deadliest attack happened in Samarra, north of Baghdad, where a car bomb detonated near a mosque in the city's center. The explosion was followed by clashes between gunmen and Iraqi security forces, according to Samarra police.

At least 18 were killed -- 10 civilians and eight security officers -- and 37 were wounded in the blast and gunfight in Samarra, police said.

At least the Times had enough good sense to not public the pinhead's letter. When it comes to the Iraqi conflict, Sahlins knows a lot about James Cook's death.

[SWJED]

Cox and Forkum - But Cross Out Media - Replace With Concerned Anthropologists

[Ken White]

who parroted the accepted wisdom of the "Middle East experts" who predicted the Sunni - Shia divide in Iraq would drive a new Iraq into the arms of Iran.

My argument was the 'divide' was virtually non-existent in Iraq and while it would be exploited -- since the western experts and media were trumpeting the division and folks in that area are not slow -- it would be in the vein of justifying the pay-back that was always going to occur. The only question being when that pay back occurred. Seems to be wearing itself out for the most part, though there'll always be some tension, I suspect that the major violence will dissipate.

I further posited that as one of the worst insults one could accord a Persian was to call him an Arab -- and the Arabs were very much aware of this and returned the favor -- that any significant rapprochement with Iran by the Iraqis was unlikely and if any did occur it would be for short term benefit only. All there are pragmatic and will put aside -- or actively foster -- differences as the situation seems to demand but a couple of thousand years of history are unlikely to be tossed aside.

Absorbing assorted slings and arrows over this, I was amused to see this Article yesterday. While one article does not a sea change make, I suspect that it is indicative of reality -- to include future reality. I particularly enjoyed the last paragraph...

I think all that means that those who wish to help will. For whatever reason others do not wish to help and they are, IMO, of little or no consequence.

[Shivan]

I was checking out the biographies of "Concerned Anthropologists" and the collective bloggers who run Savage Minds. A few things jump out at me:

(1) Many research esoteric issues like "transformations in anti-witchcraft practices" or "sex and sexuality in American culture." Interesting to some, but IMHO, academic junk written to sate egos and get tenure (which most will not anyway).

(2) Since their research/academic focus may be the U.S. or "exotic" places like Melanesia, field research can hardly be called dangerous (unless, maybe the research is in a NYC gay bar for a study of "sex and sexuality in American culture").

(3) Some biographies indicate a pre-existing bias anyway, i.e., liberal. Cannot expect them to be favorably disposed to the U.S. Many are "bloody furriners" anyway (Helsinki, Oslo, Manchester).

OK. My view of anthropologists in Iraq or Afghanistan is simple.

(A) the anthropologists are not there to show the Army how to kill people, they are there to facilitate, i.e., help understand the cultural environment in which the Army is operating, and minimize the use of kinetic force. The New York Times article of Oct. 5, 2007 that is giving some anthropologists the vapors notes a key point which they have missed: In the area where the anthropologists are deployed, combat ops are down 60%.

(B) The anthropologists with HTS are saving lives, conducting useful and publishable field research that no other anthropologists have access to. They are seeing first hand the changes in Arab and Afghan tribal and Islamic societies as they happen. In the case of Afghanistan, after 30 years of war, much has changed. The anthropologists with the Army are the only ones with access to this treasure trove of ethnographic material.

(C) The "concerned anthropologists" can hold onto their principles, since IMHO, most of their work is boring, and they are in no danger while conducting field research.

(D) Being in the thick of such changes in Iraq/Afghanistan is fun, despite the danger. Beats hanging about a library or interviewing people on the streets of Des Moines.

The "concerned anthropologists" can blather all they like, but no one ever reads their work, and they wind up stuck as assistant or associate faculty in some fifth tier university or community college in the Midwest, making little money and boring the daylights out of stoned u/grads.

Me? I'm off to Afghanistan, and I will write a book about my experiences that will actually be read and contribute the advancement of our knowledge of the people of that land. And I don't care if the liberal faculty hate my guts for it. In fact, so much the better.

Salaam,

SM

[Rex Brynen]

(3) Some biographies indicate a pre-existing bias anyway, i.e., liberal. Cannot expect them to be favorably disposed to the U.S.

I do hope you bring a rather more nuanced view of politics with you to the field in Afghanistan, Shivan

(on behalf of liberal scholars everywhere )

[Beelzebubalicious]

What bothers me more than anything about this is that I see the concerned anthropologists are providing knee-jerk reactions. There is a history there and many people are concerned (or ashamed) about what that means today. Fair enough. Some are applying objectivity and science to study the issue and they should be applauded, but many are just making assumptions.

I often see how people will take one side of an issue and then will systematically only accept information which supports their view while they ignore information which doesn't. In this case, it seems like Sahlins is doing the same. He connects two cases which are not linked to support his argument. He starts by saying that the security contractors worked in Iraq to promote democracy, which is not only wrong, but ridiculous. He then tries to link them to Anthropologists - huh? His logical argument appears to be that security contractors promote western models of democracy in Iraq and Anthropologists also work in Iraq, hence they are also promoting democracy.

He's basically saying that the US shouldn't be there at all and definitely shouldn't be pushing Western models of government on Iraqis who have their own models and traditions. I wonder what he would say to Iraqis who have asked for assistance and support and who volunteer to work with US contractors providing assistance. These people are not blindly pushing a Western democratic model, but working with Iraqis to develop a system of government that will work for them, whether it's Iraqi or other. Sahlins would argue that they think they are doing good, but are really doing harm. So, what's the alternative?

I'd like to see some nuance and objective analysis of these issues instead of knee-jerk reactions. What would be interesting is if one of these concerned anthropologists were to take a position on the "other" side - that is, start with a hypothesis that Anthropology can be beneficial in Iraq and then work on finding evidence to support or reject it (objectively). This is a fair scientific question (hypothesis could be stated better). Would these anthropologists be able to go through this process scientifically? They should be able to and it would be a good exercise to see if they could set aside their political and personal opinions.

My last note on this subject is that I would like to see if David Price takes up Col. Agoglia's invitation to meet with him and others (McFate, presumably) to discuss these issues in an open and constructive way. Is he serious about understanding this issue? If so, he'll follow up. If not, well, that's sends another message. We'll see....

[marct]

Hi Folks, Savage Minds has (finally) collected their blogs on Anthropology and war together. What bothers me most about this is the inclusion of spying, interrogation and torture in with "war".

[marct]

Hi Beelzebubalicious,

What bothers me more than anything about this is that I see the concerned anthropologists are providing knee-jerk reactions. There is a history there and many people are concerned (or ashamed) about what that means today. Fair enough. Some are applying objectivity and science to study the issue and they should be applauded, but many are just making assumptions.

I think that a large part of the contentiousness of the issue is wrapped up in a very tangled skein of disciplinary history, self-identity and methodology. It is very hard to study "yourselves" in a systematic manner that is not self delusory.

He's basically saying that the US shouldn't be there at all and definitely shouldn't be pushing Western models of government on Iraqis who have their own models and traditions. I wonder what he would say to Iraqis who have asked for assistance and support and who volunteer to work with US contractors providing assistance. These people are not blindly pushing a Western democratic model, but working with Iraqis to develop a system of government that will work for them, whether it's Iraqi or other. Sahlins would argue that they think they are doing good, but are really doing harm. So, what's the alternative?

I would certainly agree with that assessment of what he is saying. In many ways, I happen to agree with some of the underlying reasons for that assessment as well. To take one example, the "imposition of democracy" (actually republicanism, not democracy) on Iraq and Afghanistan is, IMO, bound to be unstable simply because the cultural reconditions for its operation are not there.

Let me expand on this for a bit. These "cultural preconditions" are, really, clusters of perceptions that form part of the "natural attitude" of a population - the often unexamined "biases" of a population. One of the cultural preconditions of any "modern" form of democracy is a strong sense of individualism and a weak definition of "kinship" (i.e. a restrictive definition of family, usually nuclear or, at most, one to two layers out). Another cultural precondition is the strongly held belief that a) there is an individual "right to resist" state action (not a kinship/lineage based one) and b) that this "right" should take place at the level of politics rather than open warfare in almost all cases.

I think that many Anthropologists, including myself, viewed President Bush's stated desire to set up a "democracy" in Iraq as not only an imposition but, also, one that was doomed to failure (the same is not, IMO, true in Afghanistan for a variety of reasons). Will the Iraqis come up with some workable, overtly "democratic" government? I don't know - I think that it's a coin toss right now. But, if they do, it certainly won't be the republican model that was originally trumpeted.

Marc

[marct]

that Anthropologists don't have a sense of humour . One of my ex-students just emailed this to me.

Marc

[Beelzebubalicious]

Thanks Marc. I have spent time around Anthropologists and I have spent time around soldiers. I find that members of the armed forces are much better at self-reflection and analysis. Or at least, seem to be more honest and open about it.

Regarding the imposition of democracy, I agree with what you're saying. There are aspects of democracy that don't fit. That's true of any system, I think. There are a lot of aspects that do, however, or at least while they might run counter to how society operates, would help improve things if implemented. I don't know how many times I've heard people defend their cultural practices by saying, "it's our culture". I'm sorry, but that doesn't always fly. I like to think of cultures as organic - they change. They also have cancerous cells. Sometimes things need to change and sometimes, it's external forces that change things. Some form of government will emerge from Iraq and I'd be willing to bet it's better than what was there during Saddam's era.

[marct]

Savage Minds has a number of recent blog entries...

An excellent article by Strong on the question of IRB (Institutional Review Board) oversight of HTS research. This is a core question for many who work in US universities and Strongs' blog lays out many of the structural conditions surrounding it.

A question from SM to SWJ/SWC - I'll leave it to Bill and Dave to answer .

In a blog entitled Efficacy Issues, Rex examines some of the claims in the current debate. While I, personally, disagree with some of what he says, he has done a very good job of laying some of these claims out in a straight forward manner.

Next, Jonathan Marks responds to both the Marshal Sahlins letter and the Diane Rehm show discussion. While more of a personal / textual analysis, e does raise some interesting points concerning what is being said in public about the HTS.

Finally, there is an interesting discussion (at least in some ways) about the US Army's international promotion of the HTS.

[marct]

Hi Janice,

Have you seen the Human Terrain and the IRB Puzzle blog at Savage Minds? If not, you should take a look at it. Strong has done an excellent job of laying out some of the key issues from one side of the problem.

Marc

[Beelzebubalicious]

I've tried to read this blog, but I just don't see much of value. The IRB discussion is interesting, but much of this is just rhetoric and big words. There isn't much analysis, partly b/c few of these folks seem to have much direct relevant experience with the subject matter. I'm not talking anthropology, but war.

They act high and mighty about the military trying to learn about culture and use anthropology to do it and they ridicule people like Marcus Griffin b/c his statements are simplistic. One of the problems I have with anthropology is that it's too damn difficult and confusing for its own good sometimes. None of this is any good if nobody understands it.

[marct]

I've tried to read this blog, but I just don't see much of value. The IRB discussion is interesting, but much of this is just rhetoric and big words. There isn't much analysis, partly b/c few of these folks seem to have much direct relevant experience with the subject matter. I'm not talking anthropology, but war.

Hmmm, if I wre to use an analogy, the IRB discussion is pretty much one on the technical aspects of American Anthropology's ROE with the HTS. The rest of the posts, while interesting to me (mainly as data points in the debate I'll admit), really aren't as substantive as the IRB one.

On the point of subject matter, that is really the crucial one: what is the "subject matter" of the HTS? Is it "the military"? Is it the Afghans/Iraqi's? For us, it's a crucial distinction because it controls our ROE.

They act high and mighty about the military trying to learn about culture and use anthropology to do it and they ridicule people like Marcus Griffin b/c his statements are simplistic. One of the problems I have with anthropology is that it's too damn difficult and confusing for its own good sometimes.

Of curse they do! Come on, do you know of any in-group that doesn't use this tactic, including the military ?

None of this is any good if nobody understands it.

Wrong. It all depends on how you define "good". It is a very good tactic if you are trying to maintain in-group cohesion. It is also a very good tactic if you are trying to obscure the pragmatic, applied value of your knowledge, skills and training. Always remember that some people understand it and that very understanding is a marker of potential in-group status.

If, on the other hand, you define "good" as being along the lines of reducing civilian casualties in a combat/COIN zone, increasing the effectiveness of COIN operations, and increasing the likelihood of successful states developing in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you are quite correct .

[Mark O'Neill]

You know, the more I read these threads I increasingly suspect that it is one of the great regrets of a lot of military guys that is that it is anthropologists , rather then some truly interesting folks (such as master brewers), provide a useful insight to COIN ops....

Deep down in some place we really do not like to acknowledge (or really understand) we love anthropologists and your lengthy expositions.... really........

[marct]

You know, the more I read these threads I increasingly suspect that it is one of the great regrets of a lot of military guys that is that it is anthropologists , rather then some truly interesting folks (such as master brewers), provide a useful insight to COIN ops....

Who says that master brewers couldn't provide excellent insight into COIN ops ?!?! Leave us not forget that the first beer was produced in Iraq about 5,000 years ago (and recreated in a California brewery in the 1990's no less!) Even better, it doesn't fall under the injunctions of the Prophet since it is made from dates!

Deep down in some place we really do not like to acknowledge (or really understand) we love anthropologists and your lengthy expositions.... really........

Aw, you guys just like seeing somebody else twisting in the wind - and with less reason .

[Mark O'Neill]

Even better, it doesn't fall under the injunctions of the Prophet since it is made from dates!
.

I'm with the prophet on this one- if it is made from dates it definitely does not count as beer in any Pub I have ever been in. Just like some of my Sub-saharan mates who insist that millet beer is 'kosher'..... bleeeh

Cheers (even whilst gagging at the thought of date beer),

Mark