Hi Steve,
Oh, I agree that, on the whole, there is a lot of vocal antipathy from within Anthropology to the military, especially the US military. I read Hugh Gusterson's piece in the latest Annual Review of Anthropology and was pretty peeved with his "conclusions".
What truly bothered me was that this appeared, to me at least, to be the agenda of an activist and not a scientist. Now, I have nothing against people being activists, but I do have a major problem with people passing off activism as science.More empirically, certain subjects are urgently in need of ethnographic study.
Anthropology has much theoretical and empirical work to do to illuminate militarism, the source of so much suffering in the world today. If we sell our skills to the national security state, we will just become part of the problem.
- In war-torn countries: life alongside landmines, the role of diasporic communities in inciting war, the cultural consequences of childhood soldiering, war orphans, the new mercenary companies, suicide bombing, and insurgency, the role of religion in combat, the efficacy of truth and reconciliation commissions, and resource conflicts and war.
- Within the United States: veterans groups; the cultural dynamics of basic training; ROTC; military blogs; the debate on gays and the military; the Senate Armed Services Committee; military contractors and lobbyists; the militarization of public health since 9/11; video games; Hollywood war cultures; and activist campaigns against military recruiting,landmines,and new weapons systems.
In a similar manner, and again speaking personally, I have only a limited interest in public policy, but I happen to have a great interest in the perceptual and symbolic models that shape policy and in how that relates to lived reality (implementation). To me, both of these are scientific issues surrounding how humans construct, negotiate and maintain their "realities". Let me toss out the last part of Hugh's conclusion:
and take this a clause/meme at at time.Anthropology has much theoretical and empirical work to do to illuminate militarism, the source of so much suffering in the world today. If we sell our skills to the national security state, we will just become part of the problem.
I think you get what I mean when I say that this agenda is that of an activist and not a scientist .
- Anthropology has much theoretical and empirical work to do to illuminate militarism, - Totally agree, this is a very valid statement, IMO, on an area of research.
- the source of so much suffering in the world today. - Analog of the "guns kill people" meme; unproven, except in the most obvious sense, and an irrelevant and misleading statement
- If we sell our skills to the national security state, - a) assuming a market exchange relationship, b) assuming that your[our] skills are not already being sold to other actors, c) assuming that "the State" is the sole purchesor of these skills (what about AQ?), d) assuming that "the state" exists in a specific form (i.e. "national security" with implications of X-Files-esque paranoic conspiracy theories).
- we will just become part of the problem. - analog to "if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" meme; unjustified assumption of reality as a series of polar oppositions; uncritical and unthinking in that by denying any relationship of X to Y a strong (negative) relationship between X and Y is created.
On t'other hand, I think that the Minerva consortium, if handled well, has the possibility of actually allowing some of the scientists inside Anthropology to get some good research done. A present, that's only a glimmering hope - we'll just have to wait and see.
Bookmarks