Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[MarkD]

Hi Stan-

Its true, the most current revision of the AAA code of ethics (which is also under revision) is no longer as explicit about secret research. At one point it was a direct breach of ethics.

The rub is the interpretation of the different parts of the code. Most anthropologists would still argue that a person should never do research that cannot be made public to everyone including those the research is about.

Take the "do no harm" related section. Of course, thats a basic *duh* for most people. BUT, what if you are doing research with military teams, say a bomber crew. The objective is to understand how to make them a more effective team to improve accuracy, reduce error and generally bomb the bejesus out of the enemy. For many anthropologists, you are indeed doing harm at that point. Cultural understanding to improve relations for military units is questionable, but sort of OK. Developing a better understanding of Al Queda to locate and bomb them is waaaaaay out of bounds.

Me on the othref hand? I am totally fine with anthro's working in any capacity. Before I was an anthropologist I worked developing training systems for tanks for the army and base interdiction for the air force, among others.

I don't object to a code of ethics of course. One of the most interesting classes I had in grad school was my ethics class. The time to really ponder ethical dilemmas is before they happen, then at least you have some footing when the inevitable unexpected surprise happens.

Here is a post I wrote about my most difficult ethical problem I have encountered. http://www.ethnography.com/2007/03/w...hical-dilemma/

[marct]

Hi Mark,

Its true, the most current revision of the AAA code of ethics (which is also under revision) is no longer as explicit about secret research. At one point it was a direct breach of ethics.

It is also interesting that a number of people still think that it is a part of the code of ethics.

The rub is the interpretation of the different parts of the code. Most anthropologists would still argue that a person should never do research that cannot be made public to everyone including those the research is about.

Yup. Add to that the situation that you may be working with groups where some of your research cannot be made public since it could cause them "harm", and you get an interesting conflict arising.

Take the "do no harm" related section. Of course, thats a basic *duh* for most people. BUT, what if you are doing research with military teams, say a bomber crew. The objective is to understand how to make them a more effective team to improve accuracy, reduce error and generally bomb the bejesus out of the enemy. For many anthropologists, you are indeed doing harm at that point. Cultural understanding to improve relations for military units is questionable, but sort of OK. Developing a better understanding of Al Queda to locate and bomb them is waaaaaay out of bounds.

Is it? Hmmm, I spent a lot of time debating what "do no harm" means with a lot of people I really respect (Jerry Barkow, Charlie Laughlin, Regna Darnell to name just a few). One of the distinctions that has to be made is between "harm" and "hurt". A second distinction that has to be made is if the primary locus of concern is based on our "subject", then does that include harm to those who are not our subjects? A third distinction is when does the primary locus of concern shift from our subjects to other groups?

I don't object to a code of ethics of course. One of the most interesting classes I had in grad school was my ethics class. The time to really ponder ethical dilemmas is before they happen, then at least you have some footing when the inevitable unexpected surprise happens.

I agree that that is exactly the time to ponder them . I do, however, have a problem with codes in general, at least in the sense that they can become substitutes for the individual developing their own codes. I think they are definitely useful in the sense that they provide a framework for discussion and general guidance, but I also find most professional codes quite lacking in that they do not lay out their "first principles" as it were.

Here is a post I wrote about my most difficult ethical problem I have encountered. http://www.ethnography.com/2007/03/w...hical-dilemma/

Interesting problem, and I may just toss it off to my students. BTW, I would have done exactly the same thing as you did.

Marc

[Stan]

Hey Mark,

Hi Stan-

Its true, the most current revision of the AAA code of ethics (which is also under revision) is no longer as explicit about secret research. At one point it was a direct breach of ethics.

The rub is the interpretation of the different parts of the code. Most anthropologists would still argue that a person should never do research that cannot be made public to everyone including those the research is about.

Now you indeed have my curiosity going. Secret research I assume for say the CIA, etc., or for lack of better terms, secret as in corporate world business secrets.

IMO, regardless of how the research ends up being 'classified', if one agrees to those terms from the beginning, I see no moral dilemma. Quite the contrary, if an Anthropologist enters into a binding contract with a company or a USG agency, He/She just jumped into the proverbial code of ethics frying pan

I liked what you said in your first post about being busy and doing something. Seems, your intellectual peers have little better to do that worry about what Mark D. is up to today.

Take the "do no harm" related section. Of course, thats a basic *duh* for most people. BUT, what if you are doing research with military teams, say a bomber crew. The objective is to understand how to make them a more effective team to improve accuracy, reduce error and generally bomb the bejesus out of the enemy. For many anthropologists, you are indeed doing harm at that point. Cultural understanding to improve relations for military units is questionable, but sort of OK. Developing a better understanding of Al Queda to locate and bomb them is waaaaaay out of bounds.

Me on the othref hand? I am totally fine with anthro's working in any capacity. Before I was an anthropologist I worked developing training systems for tanks for the army and base interdiction for the air force, among others.

I don't object to a code of ethics of course. One of the most interesting classes I had in grad school was my ethics class. The time to really ponder ethical dilemmas is before they happen, then at least you have some footing when the inevitable unexpected surprise happens.

I don't know that I ever thought of employing Anthropologists to get our ordnance on target. BTW, I didn’t know you folks could do that

I was thinking more along the lines of a 'Cultural Awareness' advisor - as you pointed out, ponder over some of the unexpected. I tend to call it figuring out what the other’s about to do before he gets there. I know it’s possible as I’m accused of having the ability to do said. During my time in Sub-Sahara, I felt most of our mistakes could be directly attributed to misinterpretations.

Here is a post I wrote about my most difficult ethical problem I have encountered. http://www.ethnography.com/2007/03/w...hical-dilemma/

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

[marct]

Hey 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

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 that ). 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,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Marc

[goesh]

For a second there in reading Marct's last paragraph, I thought he was talking about the pharmaceutical corporations.

[Stan]

Hi Marc !
I had no idea that my last sentence would have mustered such a detailed response

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 that). 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.

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’ . Based on my upbringing, education and experience, I would conclude that most of my professional ethics are little more than broad regulations (one then individually chooses his/her moral high ground within the given parameters).

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.

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 ). 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Damn your good If 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.

I think Shakespeare summed up my own understanding beautifully when he wrote:

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Marc

Marc, you’re a hopeless romantic !

Thanks for insight, Stan

[Stan]

Somewhat related to Mark's Human Terrain from Wired's Danger Room

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."

An excerpt of the pledge can be found at the link.

[Rex Brynen]

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.