Anthropology (catch all)

[marct]

120mm,

Let me go back, for a sec, to the original question:

Marc, all, is it time for the invention of another field to supplant Anthropology in the field of military matters?

I think that the answer to that is "no"; but with some caveats. First, Anthropology has some excellent tools that can help the military immeasurably in many current situations. Second, the military is already engaged in what be called "direct ethnographic research" already and can benefit both from the analyses we can provide and, possibly more important, from our understanding of how this type of "work" changes perceptions.

I think it is more likely that what is needed is a specific sub-discipline within Anthropology that deals with "military matters" - Brian Selmeski at the Centre for Security, Armed Forces & Society (RMC) calls it "Security Anthropology". At the present time, Anthropology is probably the most interdisciplinary "discipline" around, but there isn't an institutional base for such a sub-discipline, at least in the civilian academic environment (and it seems quite limited in the military academic environment).

This lack of an institutional base creates all sorts of problems. First, it means that there is a great big black hole at the end of graduation - where are you going to get a job? Admittedly, you could go to work for any number of military organizations, but there are very few academic positions available. Where are you going to publish? There are certainly some journals that come to mind - Armed Forces and Society being one - but you really need a lot more to encourage the type of critical debate that produces useful theoretical models. Which brings me to the subject of conferences, as in where are the conferences for Security Anthropologists? Answer, there aren't any.

Without this solid institutional base, you end up with a situation where many of the people who are interested in the area cannot afford to do it full time. Again, lacking that base, you also have the problem that what support does come from the military has a tendency to be focused on very precise "products" rather than on "pure research".

Now, there already exists a network of military Anthropologists, which is the first step towards producing an academic infrastructure. In addition, most of us already speak, if nt exactly the "same" language, then at least recognizable dialectic variants of the "same" language. If we were to try and create a "new" discipline, we would have to go through all of that all over again and, believe me, that would be a real pain .

All of which isn't to say that Anthropology, as presently constituted, is the answer . There is still, IMHO, too much PC induced "morality" <growled with acid dripping from my mouth> that permeates what passes for "professional ethics". Some of the AAA "Ethics" guidelines are, to my mind, poorly worded and appear to be based on a "morality of the day" type of thinking rather than on a set of "first principles" that allow for individual extrapolation to deal with new situations.

For example, Article 2a of the AAA guide says:

Anthropologists should not communicate findings secretly to some and withhold them from others.

and article 3a an 1g state:

Anthropologists should undertake no secret research or any research whose results cannot be freely derived and publicly reported.

In accordance with the Association's general position on clandestine and secret research, no reports should be provided to sponsors that are not also available to the general public and, where practicable, to the population studied.

Now, if we look at this in light of the Human Terrain Teams (HTT) that are being deployed to Iraq soon, we see an interesting problem. If I was a member of one of these teams, I could not identify any individuals involved in any particular terrorist / insurgent network unless I also informed them that they had been identified.

This is exacerbated by article 1a

Where research involves the acquisition of material and information transferred on the assumption of trust between persons, it is axiomatic that the rights, interests, and sensitivities of those studied must be safeguarded.

Notice that there is an inbuilt assumption that I would be receiving the information from the same people I am studying? This assumption creates all sorts of nightmares that could have been avoided by changing "those studied" to "your informants". What if I am studying terrorist / insurgent networks in Iraq and I am getting my information from a variety of sources including both direct observation as wel as people on the ground?

Finally, article 6 states:

In relation with their own government and with host governments, research anthropologists should be honest and candid. They should demand assurance that they will not be required to compromise their professional responsibilities and ethics as a condition of their permission to pursue research. Specifically, no secret research, no secret reports or debriefings of any kind should be agreed to or given. If these matters are clearly understood in advance, serious complications and misunderstandings can generally be avoided.

Now, just to make matters worse (), "advocacy" is not only allowed but encouraged. There is an often unstated assumption that "advocacy" will be for an oppressed group, since that tends to be who we work with (hey, everyone is oppressed, right? ). However, if I choose to work with a seriously oppressed group, let's say US military personnel embedded in Iraq units, I will probably be put onto the wrack.

Now, despite my somewhat acid comments, I actually agree with the vast majority of the first principles that are embodied the AAA code of ethics (surprise!). Where I disagree is with wording and interpretation that assumes I hold both a moral, and economic, position based in academia. I, personally, believe that the MB inspired irhabi, including their AQ descendants, are an incarnation of evil and I feel no ethical compulsion to inform them about any work I may do that will lead to their downfall. And, given their penetration of North American universities, I find that the requirement to inform those I study, should I study them, to be insane. I have certainly done so with the groups I have studied in the past but this groups is, to my mind, diametrically opposed to my own personal understanding of transcendent ethics as, I believe, they have shown time and time again.

After that rambling, tangential, diatribe, let's go back to your original question:

Marc, all, is it time for the invention of another field to supplant Anthropology in the field of military matters?

No. We need to rework the institutional and ethical base of Anthropology to deal with this area.

Marc