Anthropology (catch all)

[Steve Blair]

Very good response, Marc. Now we'll see if they bother to come out and play...

What got to me was their very disingenuous attempt to resurrect the old "ROTC is evil" saw (can we say 1960s?) with the clip of their own article. Personally it doesn't strike me as a bad deal to get your education paid for and then get paid again for four years of work (with higher wages than most of the private sector can pony up), and in many cases ROTC is the only option open to some of our cadets when it comes to financial assistance for school.

I honestly don't think they were interested in responding to your article. That struck me more as the academic version of "Witch! Burn the Witch!" than anything else.

Which of course leads into the almost obligatory "Can she float?" references from Monty Python and the Holy Grail....which in turn leads me to look under desk for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch...

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Very good response, Marc. Now we'll see if they bother to come out and play...

Thanks . I guess we will just have to wait and see.

What got to me was their very disingenuous attempt to resurrect the old "ROTC is evil" saw (can we say 1960s?) with the clip of their own article. Personally it doesn't strike me as a bad deal to get your education paid for and then get paid again for four years of work (with higher wages than most of the private sector can pony up), and in many cases ROTC is the only option open to some of our cadets when it comes to financial assistance for school.

Technically, they are correct about the debt-servitude model. Still and all, that same model is also the basis of capitalism and, unlike almost every other model of human societies (barring some of the Hunter-Gatherer groups), it at least has the "Right of Departure" built in (as in "Take this job and..." ).

On the whole, it doesn't strike me as a bad deal either, especially since there are increasing difficulties for new graduates to actually find jobs. I now that in Canada, for instance, someone with a newly mined 4 year BA will, on average, take about 13 months to find a job that uses any of those skills. Being able to start one without a crushing load of student debt is, to my mind, quite useful.

I honestly don't think they were interested in responding to your article. That struck me more as the academic version of "Witch! Burn the Witch!" than anything else.

And, since I did my MA on modern Witchcraft, you can bet I picked up on that pattern !!

Marc

[marct]

From Special Dispatch—Syria/Reform Project
May 18, 2007
No. 1590

Syrian Liberal Nidhal Na'isa On the West, Pan-Arabism, Islamism, and Al-Jazeera

"In Our Totalitarian Societies... Leaving [the Fold of] Collective Thought is Considered Error, Heresy, and Atheism"

When asked about the phenomenon of increasing religiosity in Syria, Na'isa said that it was part of "the spread of the culture of the herd and 'group' thinking, which means the negation of the individual and the individual's importance in creation, development, and originality."

He continued: "Western civilization was founded on unleashing individual initiative and glorification of individual reason – and not collective reason, which is generally emotive and not of sound judgment.

"In our totalitarian societies, the collective 'I' prevails over the individual 'I,' and all become equals under the podiums of the [Islamic] jurisprudents. Leaving [the fold of] collective thought is considered error, heresy, and atheism..."

[John T. Fishel]

Hi Marc--

Is an antropologist (or other social scientist) who joins the Clandestine Service of his country unethical? Just because I have a PhD doesn't mean that I define myself always and for all time as an academic. Professionally, I have been a military officer, an intelligence officer, an academic, and a consultant - some of those during the same time periods (interesting what a Reserve Officer can do). The ethical issue, for me, is one of role. As a scholarly researcher I have to be open and transparent with both the subjects of my research and my discipline. As an intelligence analyst, I have an obligation to keep secret information that I receive in that form. But what if, in the course of my research, I discover information that would be both useful and of interest to my and the host government - and, it would be helpful to society to see that the governments in question received that information. Should I report it or not? In the real world case - which was the diversion of legal coca into the illegal drug trade - I saw no ethical problem with reporting it so long as I protected my sources, which I did. Some might well disagree with my choice but it seemed the ethical one to me. In other cases, I have used my academic skills to support my other roles but I have not tried to say I was in an academic role at the time, rather I was in one of my other professional roles. For those of us on all sides of this issue who are blogging away, clearly we are using our academic and other training to make points and enter the debate. Are any of us being unethical - including David Price? I think not. And BTW, Price and Gusterson are to be commended for their willingness to join this debate on what to them must seem "hostile ground."

Cheers

John

[Stan]

One might add (based on my 14 years with DIA), that such individuals are not likely candidates for any Intel-related occupation and are soon weeded out.

John has more than adequately covered an obvious blunder (if I may):

In our own article on the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program (PRISP), we are concerned (among other things) by the way in which it
allows intelligence agencies to exploit financially and emotionally vulnerable students, locking them into working for the national security state through a pronounced form of debt bondage.

[Steve Blair]

One might add (based on my 14 years with DIA), that such individuals are not likely candidates for any Intel-related occupation and are soon weeded out.

John has more than adequately covered an obvious blunder (if I may):

In our own article on the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program (PRISP), we are concerned (among other things) by the way in which it
allows intelligence agencies to exploit financially and emotionally vulnerable students, locking them into working for the national security state through a pronounced form of debt bondage.

Doesn't this also apply to students who are locked through academic, financial and occasionally emotional reasons into working for professors who happen to be on their graduate advisory committee?

[Stan]

Evening Steve !
Oh, C'mon already

I read the final hearing after 'my' Canadian/almost U.S. Army candidate/Spy Student code-named 'Greg' revealed the ugly truth about studying under Doctor T.

Marc was later cleared...he never took a Canadian 'nano' quarter for the Anthro lessons provided

Doesn't this also apply to students who are locked through academic, financial and occasionally emotional reasons into working for professors who happen to be on their graduate advisory committee?

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Doesn't this also apply to students who are locked through academic, financial and occasionally emotional reasons into working for professors who happen to be on their graduate advisory committee?

Yes, it does. Despite Stans' comments about Greg (), the pattern is one of "unequal power relations" - regardless of whether that is with an agency or an individual. The real question, to my mind, is how this relationship is defined: is it one which encourages the student to grow or one that stunts their growth?). To my mind, these unequal relationships will always exist, and to attempt to deny their inevitability is either an exercise in ideological BS or an act that indicates an incipient psychotic break with reality. If absolutely nothing else, there is always the parent-child relationship. I would love to see Hugh and David try to argue that such a "debt bondage" relationship doesn't exist at the parent-child level!

Having said that, I would also recommend that they take a look at the introduction to the second edition of Emile Durkeim's Division of Labor in Society which deals with "intermediate structures" - i.e. organizations that stand between the individual and the state (yes, David, I lecture on Durkheim in my Introduction to Anthropology courses - consider his effects on the thinking of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski, to say nothing of Mary Douglas it is appropriate).

Marc

[marct]

Hi John,

Is an antropologist (or other social scientist) who joins the Clandestine Service of his country unethical?

In a word, "No". I would say that there are inherent "ethical dangers" inherent for an Anthropologist or anyone else for that matter, who has internalized the verstehen methodology acting as a covert operative, but I certainly wold not say that it is "inherently" and absolutely unethical. I would say that the danger of becoming affected by covert actions is much higher than by acting solely as an analyst, but not that it is an absolute, 1:1 equation.

Just because I have a PhD doesn't mean that I define myself always and for all time as an academic. Professionally, I have been a military officer, an intelligence officer, an academic, and a consultant - some of those during the same time periods (interesting what a Reserve Officer can do). The ethical issue, for me, is one of role.

I totally agree, John. Look, one of the reasons why I use this rather oddball definition of morality and ethics is because I act in so many different roles that, after a while, they are like masks in a play. I either am / have been / or have acted as a professional academic, actor, singer, career counsellor, priest, game designer, market researcher and social worker.

Given the disparity of professional roles that both of us have used at one or more times in our lives, I think we can probably both agree that "code of ethics" tend to be limited to singular professions. What is "ethical" for a law enforcement officer may be "unethical" for an academic researcher, and vice versa (one of my students got caught in that particular one). This is why I shifted my definition of "ethics" to "right action in accordance with natural law" (okay, Buddhist, I know, but it was the best model I could come up with).

So, and getting back to your original question, I am more concerned with the effects of action on the, for want of a better term, "spiritual well being" of the individual than I am with the specifics of any particular action per se.

But what if, in the course of my research, I discover information that would be both useful and of interest to my and the host government - and, it would be helpful to society to see that the governments in question received that information. Should I report it or not? In the real world case - which was the diversion of legal coca into the illegal drug trade - I saw no ethical problem with reporting it so long as I protected my sources, which I did. Some might well disagree with my choice but it seemed the ethical one to me.

And here is where I find myself in an absolute, categorical disagreement with the position of Gusterson and Price. I would, in all probability, have done exactly the same thing as you. For me, it is not a question of "professional ethics" ("morality" in my terminology), it is a question of true ethics - what must I do, as a competent and self-aware individual in order not to "destroy my soul"?

Maybe I have internalized too many Protestant concepts, despite going to an Ursuline convent for school , but I hold, as a categorical position, that each individual must ultimately stand before their God(s) and account for their actions. One corollary of this is that I, as an individual, cannot rely on the judgement of anyone else to define what I consider to be "ethical". Another corollary of this is that if I do not ask for advice from "those who know", then I am a fool, and the final corollary is, IMHO, best stated by Cromwell - "Brethren, I beseach ye in the bowels of Christ to consider that ye may be wrong"!

In short, I believe that "ethics" are too important to the individual to hand them over to the control of a group.

In other cases, I have used my academic skills to support my other roles but I have not tried to say I was in an academic role at the time, rather I was in one of my other professional roles. For those of us on all sides of this issue who are blogging away, clearly we are using our academic and other training to make points and enter the debate. Are any of us being unethical - including David Price? I think not. And BTW, Price and Gusterson are to be commended for their willingness to join this debate on what to them must seem "hostile ground."

John, I agree totally with that! Despite my disagreements with David, I certainly would agree that he is acting in a manner that is within the moral boundary of established discourse. Do I consider him to be "unethical"? No, not at all. I truly believe that he is answering a "calling", despite the fact that I disagree with his position. I would never demand that he or Hugh Gusterson accept my position - that, to my mind, would be unethical. I can, and will, however, demand that they grant me the same courtesy.

Marc

[selil]

.....The ethical issue, for me, is one of role. As a scholarly researcher I have to be open and transparent with both the subjects of my research and my discipline......


In other cases, I have used my academic skills to support my other roles but I have not tried to say I was in an academic role at the time, rather I was in one of my other professional roles. ....

It must be a social science thing this open and transparent stuff. In technology if I'm working on the next great thing I patent it, hide it, and only publish about the most general factors of it.... I can't imagine the Manhattan project as open and transparent...