For a second there in reading Marct's last paragraph, I thought he was talking about the pharmaceutical corporations.
Hey Stan,
One of the reasons I call professional codes of ethics "morals" or "moral codes" is because they derive from the group, not the transcendent nature of reality (however any individual views thatOriginally Posted by Stan
Although very interesting, I’m having my own ethically driven thoughts. This one kind of rubs me the wrong way and perhaps clearly reflects my lack of understanding for your field of work. Personally, I may have smuggled in a rope for ‘Jim’ to hang himself with). Mark's example of a dilemna is a pretty classic one in our field simply because it is based on a structural paradox created by the way us Anthropologists operate.
Remember when I was talking about verstehen in my SWJ article? That establishes a "structural" relationship between us and our informants (the people we work with / study). That relationship is defined as one of "trust" and "confidentiality", which is really a misnomer because those are merely necessary characteristics of such a relationship.
The second "structure" that defines the relationship, at least as far as the AAA code of ethics is concerned, is the concept of asymmetric power. There is an axiomatic assumption that the Anthropologist holds greater power than the informant - an assumption that really stems from the early 20th century when it was probably true.
Personally, I believe that it is increasingly less true, and I suspect that anyone who has done fieldwork with modern organizations realizes this. Still and all, it is a "comforting" assumption for some since it reinforces their inherent "superiority" - a (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" if you will for the academic world.
One of the things that I find quite repellent in the current "ethics" debates is the general polarization of those debates and the unwillingness of many to examine the structures that underly the assumptions. For example, Rex noted that his having a "clean" record has enabled him to conduct his research without too much interference (barring the occasional guns being pointed at him). Now, to my mind, a "clean" research record is really no more than keeping your word and doing exactly what you say you will do, including guarantees of confidentiality as requested (and not if your informants request that).
Where we start getting into problematic areas are in some of the other structures. For example, there is an axiomatic assumption that says the data, or at least the analyses, should be published. This puts that material out into the public domain where it now becomes available for use by anyone. But if anyone can use it, then this includes those who can "misuse" it as well. This actually sets up a feedback loop as far as confidentiality is concerned based on the concept of "do no harm" which, in my opinion, means that there should be a very exacting discussion of what "harm" is - something that doesn't happen that often.
I believe that most of the current debate over Anthropologists working with the military actually centers on the nature of this feedback loop and the definition, or lack thereof, of "harm". For me, the dilemna posed by Mark isn't a dilemna at all, but that is because I have spent a lot of time analyzing that feedback loop and trying to work out a definition of harm. In particular, I take individual choice to be both an axiomatic and an operational assumption. Could I have stopped that prisoner from committing suicide with 100% success? Nope, and any efforts to invoke structural conditions to increase a chance of success would have increased his likeliness to want to commit suicide, therefore I would be "harming" him by taking those actions.
But notice that my axiomatic and operational assumption of individual choice is totally counter to the (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" assumption that operates with some of my colleagues. Personally, I find their assumption of a superior power position to be ludicrous since that assumption requires them to posit that it exists in all situations without actually analyzing any specific situation. Furthermore, it places the onus of responsibility on the collective (i.e. the profession) rather than the individual, which I find to be ethically repugnant since it creates an enforced reliance of the individual on the collective and, as a consequence, decreases the growth of the individual.
I think Shakespeare summed up my own understanding beautifully when he wrote:This above all: to thine own self be true,Marc
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Last edited by marct; 09-24-2007 at 03:17 PM. Reason: correcting a spelling error
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
For a second there in reading Marct's last paragraph, I thought he was talking about the pharmaceutical corporations.
Hi Marc !
I had no idea that my last sentence would have mustered such a detailed response
I don’t know that I could conclude that my professional ethics or “moral codes” were derived from a group per se. However, I do know for a fact, they were not derived via meditation with some ‘Krishna fruitcake’
I’ll start by admitting that I didn’t realize the depth and full scope of your field as an Anthropologist. ‘The study of humanity’ as you once put it, obviously carries with it some heavier burdens than say my profession.
I’ve noted that most Psychologists (yes, even the Army’s) convey themselves with the very same concept of asymmetric power. This may be merely a broad assumption by the patients, but without being thought of as ‘intellectually superior’, the Psychologist wouldn’t be as capable. As an Army senior instructor, we were presented with theoretical and practical confrontations involving human behavior, and warned that teachers are often looked upon as being intellectually superior. In a nutshell not something to abuse, and don’t let it go to your head!
One of the things that I find quite repellent in the current "ethics" debates is the general polarization of those debates and the unwillingness of many to examine the structures that underly the assumptions. For example, Rex noted that his having a "clean" record has enabled him to conduct his research without too much interference (barring the occasional guns being pointed at him
I was taught such moral ethics as a child and they have served me well in the last 50 years. I can also relate to Rex’s point from say an African’s perspective. Rex’s reputation probably kept the occasional ‘gun-in-the-face’ from ever going bang! My relationship with Africans and now Estonians stems from my understanding and ability to integrate, but not go local. I wasn’t studying them, but needed to understand them in order to get along and do my job more efficiently – even during civil wars and upheavals. That ability probably did save my bacon many times.
That’s a tough one, but I now have a better handle on why such ethical codes are in place. My work in the Army kept most of our information out of the public domain. There were still plenty of other people with access to abuse and misuse the information. Or worse, not use it and ignore it altogether.
Damn your goodIf we could just copy/paste this para on the AAA cite, I’d have far fewer questions regarding the need for an Anthropologist’s code of ethics, or anyone else for that matter.
Marc, you’re a hopeless romantic !
Thanks for insight, Stan
When Anthropologists Go to War (Against the Military)
Somewhat related to Mark's Human Terrain from Wired's Danger Room
An excerpt of the pledge can be found at the link.By Sharon Weinberger, September 19, 2007
A newly formed ad-hoc group called The Network of Concerned Anthropologists is hoping to convince their colleagues to sign a pledge of "non-participation in counter-insurgency." They write: "The War in Iraq has created a dangerous situation not only for the nation but also for the discipline of anthropology. The Department of Defense and allied agencies are mobilizing anthropologists for interventions in the Middle East and beyond. It is likely that larger, more permanent initiatives are in the works."
moral dilemmas
Let me put a few hypothetical moral dilemmas on the table, and see what people think:
1) You study a community as an academic social scientist, and gather considerable information on a not-for-attribution or background-only/not-for-publication basis. In your subsequent thesis/article/book/whatever, you respect this. Later, however, you're approached by the military to assist in their efforts to influence this community. Your unpublished, confidential insights and information on the community would be useful in this regard. Do you share them?
2) You work with the military, and then go on to an academic career. During the former stint, you gather much useful information. However, your "subjects" were hardly in a position of informed consent--you were armed (or travelling with armed people), some of your interviewees were detainees who may have feared punishment for non-cooperation, etc. Do you use the information in your scholarly writings ("data is data"), or does the way in which it was gathered bar its use?
3) Your social scientific knowledge as a scholar is requested by the military to assist in helping a community (whether development efforts, establishing the rule of law, etc.) with whom you've had a privileged, confidential relationship of trust. However, once you've disseminated this information, you have no control over its spread and subsequent use, or misuse, by others (the local security forces, who are known to be hostile to the community). Do you share the information?
4) As a graduate student, you work with a community and gain their trust. Later, you join the military, and are sent to work with the same community--this time in uniform. While your experience will be useful to COIN efforts, you know that your return as a soldier will affect the way other current and future civilian researchers are seen by the locals, and possibly put them at risk. What do you do?
While I can't think of many cases where I've ever been faced with very difficult moral quandaries in the field, I can think of a colleague who, I felt, made some really poor choices in this regard (and no, I won't be posting the details).
There are also a lot or parallels here with issues that arise in military-NGO cooperation, etc.
Last edited by Rex Brynen; 09-25-2007 at 04:25 PM.
Hi Rex,
Those are really good ones. Let me give you my own answers on them.
I would note that the key "hook" in this is the "unpublished" and "confidential" criteria. But there is another, to my mind more important, criterion which is internalized pattern recognition - the internalized models and understandings of that community that allowed you to write your work in the first place.
I tend to view the research writing process as a series of perceptual phase changes, and the part I am talking about here is a series that goes like this:
A roundabout way to answer, but necessary I think. So, the answer, for me at least, would be that I would certainly agree to share the insights I had published but in different forms / genres and using different analogs and communicative genres, but I would not agree to share any confidential information. In essence, I would agree to rewrite my research for the military in a form they could understand and use (within certain limits established by the "harm" constraint), but I would not give any confidential information.
- internalized model of a community process by author / researcher (your "insights")
- attempts to select / find an appropriate communicative form / genre
- attempts to "solidify" the explanations within that form / genre.
- externalization of that model
- drafting of writing
- selection of analogs of communicative genre
- production of writing/product
- re-drafting of product based on communicative venue
- final version of product
- dissemination of product
- individual "understandings" of product
- social / communal constructions surrounding the product (e.g. reviews, citations, word of mouth, etc.)
- individual internalizations of product based on personal experiences / perceptions.
Much trickier in my opinion. I do not agree with the "data is data" argument on the whole for three reasons:
Having said that, now let me start cutting it away.
- coerced data is probably quite biased and, hence, unreliable (empirical argument for rejection);
- coerced data is likely to be data that reflects only one part of extreme reactions and cannot give insights outside of, at best, an extremely limited reaction space within the culture (empirical and theoretical grounds for rejection); and
- coerced data is ethically repugnant to me personally.
The hook here is who the subjects are. If I were focusing on the subjects of interrogation, then the general answer is "no". If I were focusing on the interrogator - detainee interaction, then the answer is "maybe", but only in the abstract interactive sense and only with "observational data".
Let me expand on this concept of "observational data" for a minute, since I think it is a crucial point. Part of the key to the way you have defined this conundrum is "informed consent". I would argue that "data" that is produced for display with no expectation of privacy contains implied informed consent. For example, if someone writes a post on a publicly accessible blog or forum that does not require membership to view, I would consider that posting to be "in the public domain" and containing inherent "informed consent". If it requires membership in order to view it, even if membership can be achieved simply by registering, then I would hold that there is no implication of informed consent. The same is true, in my mind, to social actions and interactions in a public venue (the key here being public venue).
To get back to your example, if I was traveling with a group of soldiers and I saw interactions taking place in a public venue,say a village square, I would consider that to be "open source" and containing implied "informed consent". Interactions that took place in, say, a private home would, in my mind, not be "open source" and, hence, would not contain any consent therefore those observations would not be acceptable for use (the same would hold for private emails, PMs, conversations, etc. - anything with any expectation of privacy).
Again, the key here is what information are we talking about? Honestly, I would need a lot more details to parse this one out. However, on the limited data you've given, I might agree to work with the military but only i the role of an advocate - cultural "translator" if you will - for that community. I would not disseminate or collect any information that could be used by local security forces that they did not already have. I will also freely admit that I would, in all probability, do my best to "shade" my information (via selection and emphasis) to increase the physical security of that community from those security forces.
First of all, let me say that this dilemna must be considered before taking any military oaths.
This is, to my mind, the trickiest dilemna you have tossed out. It also highlights one of the dangers I see with restrictive professional moral codes which is the possibility that the codes will be accepted solely in and of themselves without an examination of the structures underlying those codes, the ethical principles involved and, most importantly, how those principles will be individually internalized. This gets back to what Stan calls my sense of hopeless romanticism
To my mind, the crux of this dilemna resides in my relationship with that community and my current requirements "in uniform". If the two put me into a situation where I felt my relationship with that community was being abused by my current orders, and I felt that the community was not committing "gross harm", I would refuse those orders and take the consequences. If I felt that the community was committing "gross harm", or if I felt that I could act as an effective agent in reducing general harm, I would accept them.
They key, as I see it, is in the communication to the community of the role of a researcher, and that understanding is not based on what we say, although that is part of it, but on what we do. I remember having a discussion years ago at a CASCA meeting on how Americanist Anthropologists have unconsciously patterned ourselves on the "Twisted Hairs" - storytellers and shamans who were members of all tribes but, at the same time, members of none. After that discussion, I really started noticing some very interesting patterns within the discipline (or, at least, in the lineage I was part of); most importantly the feeling that Anthropologists were "betwixt and between", not really members of our own cultures but not really members of the cultures we studied. Basically, a feeling that we are constantly in a liminal space.
All of that tangent is a roundabout way of saying that I believe that ethical decisions should be guided by precedent and codes but are, ultimately, decided by individuals based on specific situations.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Challenging questions to say the least....
1.) It is not always easy to distinguish what is Public knowledge and observation and what is not. Certainly many religious ceremonies and interfamilial dynamics would be confidential but then, Anthros may be excluded from the latter from the get-go. I know in muslim Bush villages in W. Africa, nobody would bat an eye if an outsider were to kick a dog that was in the way and being a nuisance but to boot a goat would be a different matter, and that is Public, observable knowledge with no confidentiality attachments to it. Some cultural boundaries are best defined by their exclusionary mechanisms which are often overt in nature. To answer the direct question, IMO it would be an individual choice but ideally would be made without concern for any censure from colleagues who see little merit to military endeavors, and with full disclosure from the Military as to exactly what they intend to do with the data.
2.) Data is data, having been observed and recorded with all pertinent conditions duly noted. It's an issue of contamination/purity that can't be answered.
3.) You really know how to knock on people's noggins, don't you? Hmmmm, that's what Advisors, peers, spouses, friends and ju-jus are for.
4.) Request a transfer for exactly those reasons.
Rex and MarcT,
I think that much of this discussion could be forestalled were we to have some clearly understood underlying theory or theories of moral value and obligation upon which to base our moral reasoning here. For example, were I a good utilitarian like Spock in Star Trek II,then I could probably make a fairly strong case that would allow me to make use of the data in your second example. But I could make an equally strong case against using that data were I a non-consequentialist of a Kantian stripe.Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
Kirk: ...the needs of the few.
Spock: ...Or the one. I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution?
What is really at issue here is more of a question of what is that makes an anthropolgist an anthropologist. Or to use an Aristotlean phrasing, what are the virtues of an anthropologist? I suspect that were the profession to have uniformity in the answer to that question (which it clearly does not given the debate with the AAA), then these cases would be fairly easily resolved, from a professional standpoint. However, the rub comes in when you recognize that not only are you an anthropologist, but you are also a Canadian, a college professor, a parent (perhaps), etc. etc. Each of these roles also carries with it its own archetype with its own virtues. This is what I take away from MarcT''sAs long as we are able to describe differently who and what we are in various contexts, we will have these struggles. So the search for verstehen and a consistent weltenschaaung will continue. Let's just not take the Bernard Williams stance found in Moral Luck as a justification for being outside the bounds of moral culpability. To do so would, IMHO, be to act using the worst form of existential mauvaise foi/bad faith. Martin Luther at the door of Worms cathedral is a better role model, I think.coerced data is ethically repugnant to me personally
Prime Directives
The struggles lie, I think, not only in complex, varied, and sometimes potential contradictory underpinnings, but also in the unknowability of "consequence" and the difficulting in measuring (and, indeed, the incommensurability) of the benefits and hurts involved.
An essential step, as you suggest, is to grapple with the problem. Indeed, the greatest moral and practical danger (whether as scholars, aid workers, or the military) lurks when we avoid grappling, or wish it away, in the name of getting the job done (Interestingly, this was Kirk's solution to the Kobayashi Maru test--I'll admit to being far better on Roddenberry than Kant).
A second useful step is to have to convincingly articulate your moral reasoning to others, whether research ethics boards, or the chain of command.
Hi WM,
I certainly agree that that is a first step; a least in the sense used by St. Paul in his observation that "I had not known sin except through the law" (Romans 7:7).
Personally, I wouldn't use that way of getting there (I always preffered Xenophon's Socrates to Aristotle
I agree completely.
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
The unpredictability of the future is Kant's point in his example sometimes described as the case of the enquiring murder. Would that we had the fictional panopticon that SGM Grumpy mentioned in an earlier post to this thread! I find a resort to such fictions (or archangels in the case of R.M. Hare) a telling argument against consequentialist ethical theories.
I find it a telling point that we always come back, in these debates, to some form of transcendental justification, be it archangels, panopticons or least likely consequences. I think there is a danger of hubris in all of these debates, whether it appears in the (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" form I mentioned earlier or in my own individualist stance. I certainly agree with Rex about the importance of the struggle. I do get worried, also, about the effects of stopping that struggle since any resolution, I wold hold, is only temporary and contingent on the time and space in which it is achieved.
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Army Enlists Anthropology in War Zones
From the New York Times, "American paratroopers are fielding what they consider a crucial new weapon in counterinsurgency operations here: a soft-spoken civilian anthropologist named Tracy. "
A good news story and something that the everyday soldier can now extensively learn from and relate to. More importantly IMO, this experience will change the all too often imagined generalizations our young soldiers tend to employ in order to conceal their general lack of cultural understanding.
There are of course some naysayers still aroundHer team’s ability to understand subtle points of tribal relations — in one case spotting a land dispute that allowed the Taliban to bully parts of a major tribe — has won the praise of officers who say they are seeing concrete results.
Col. Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division said that the unit’s combat operations had been reduced by 60 percent since the scientists arrived in February, and that the soldiers were now able to focus more on improving security, health care and education for the population..
Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq.
Last edited by Stan; 10-05-2007 at 01:35 PM.
There ain't nothing wrong with an armed Peace Corps, never was. This flexibility/adaptation is quite remarkable and proves the tenet that talent and ability trumps rank when circumstances demand it. It must irk some traditionalists to have an Anthro saddled up with the troops. What's next? Former Hippies who've pulled the trigger volunteering and wearing bell bottoms on the streets??
http://www.acclaimstockphotography.c...0309-2625.html
Last edited by goesh; 10-05-2007 at 12:38 PM. Reason: sling a rifle on this dude's back if you want
Peace Corps with Guns
Chosen Soldier: The Making of a Special Forces Warrior
Apparently, the author is quoted as saying the green berets are "peace corps with guns". He "explains that Green Berets not only fight, they teach: living in the world's hot spots, they speak the language, win the trust of the locals, and train and fight alongside them to defeat a common enemy." according to the Publisher's Weekly Editorial Review.
Perhaps a better reference is the FAO. In my limited knowledge, seems like the DOD is trying to scale up the program (more career options, interagency positings, etc.), but where is it going?
Hey Beelz !
Good question. I've been around both in Sub-Sahara (actually, Tom was both). Depends on the SF unit and tasking. Ours worked well both in Africa (cheap mercenaries and training, class 101) and later in Eastern Europe (humanitarian demining, PSYOPs and a smigin of CA). I have/had no complaints.
If I was authorized to decide, which I am not, I'd choose answer 'D', all of the above (an armed FAO)
Now that I'm beggin', could I have an armed Anthropologist too ?
Regards, Stan
Last edited by Stan; 10-05-2007 at 04:07 PM.
From the strategy of shock and awe and high tech wizardry which had human Intel playing 2cd fiddle, to the current adaptation in but a couple of years speaks volumes to the talent, insight and determination of seasoned NCOs and the 0-1 to 0-6 Officer Corps who are in-the-sand in real time, and has naught to do with freakin' Admin weenies, manuals, theory, talking heads and public opinion. There, Stan, that's my field note and observation for the day.
And well said, Goesh.
I attribute my still being alive to several 'boots on the ground' officers and NCOs.
The first, my anti-terrorism and firearms instructor (then an SF E6) at Bragg, and later a whole host of combat arms and combat support folks.
Then, of course, there's Tom
Just though you might find this intersting...
http://concerned.anthropologist.googlepages.com/home
"Nous somme d'une race qui ne sait pas mourir...'- Hemon
You just had to get it in first, didn't you, Yannick?
Stan, this is right up your alley... Don't bust a gut laughing too hard
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks