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

[Mondor]

120mm,

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


Marc

Sounds like the Camalot project had a few negative consequences.

[marct]

Hi Mondor,

Sounds like the Camalot project had a few negative consequences.

More than a few! Actually, it was one of the projects that destroyed the last vestiges of Anthropology working with the intel / military sector. David Price's articles (referenced in my SWJ article) deal with this in great detail if you are interested.

Marc

[MountainRunner]

Actually, it was one of the projects that destroyed the last vestiges of Anthropology working with the intel / military sector. David Price's articles (referenced in my SWJ article) deal with this in great detail if you are interested.

Marc,
I haven't read David Price's article (or your SWJ article I'm sorry to say, but I'd appreciate a link ), but I'm sure you've read Montgomery McFate's article "Anthropology and Counterinsurgency: The Strange Story of their Curious Relationship"? (available here). McFate mentions an ostracized anthro:

Anthropologist Gerald Hickey explored the indigenous Vietnamese cultural
concept of accommodation. While Taoist roots of the Vietnamese value system stressed individualism, in the Vietnamese worldview, accommodation was
also necessary to restore harmony with the universe. In Washington, D.C., Hickey’s views on accommodation were treated as heresy. In 1967, at the conclusion of Hickey’s brief to a Pentagon audience, Richard Holbrooke said, “What you’re saying, Gerry, is that we’re not going to win a military victory in
Vietnam.” Because it did not conform to the prevailing view of the conflict, Hickey’s message was promptly dismissed...Hickey was awarded the medal for Distinguished Public Service by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Despite his medal (or perhaps because of it), Hickey was not able to get an
academic job when he returned to the United States. He was refused a position at the University of Chicago by fellow anthropologists who objected to his association with RAND. Ironically, Hickey was also forced out of
RAND because it was no longer interested in counterinsurgency.

And then there's a "movement" (?) to continue this institutional culture clash:

The fact that Kilcullen and others are eager to commit social-science knowledge to goals established by the Defense Department and the CIA is indicative of a new anthropology of insurgency. Anthropology under these circumstances appears as just another weapon to be used on the battlefield — not as a tool for building bridges between peoples, much less as a mirror that we might use to reflect upon the nature of our own society.

See Fighting the militarization of anthropology for more on Kilcullen=bad.

[120mm]

And then there's a "movement" (?) to continue this institutional culture clash:

See Fighting the militarization of anthropology for more on Kilcullen=bad.

Wow. I didn't realize that there still were people who believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Fundamental Goodness of Man(tm). Building bridges between societies through communication and understanding? Now I realize that those people study Anthropology....

And they must not have ever raised kids.

[marct]

Hi Folks,

Marc,
I haven't read David Price's article (or your SWJ article I'm sorry to say, but I'd appreciate a link ), but I'm sure you've read Montgomery McFate's article "Anthropology and Counterinsurgency: The Strange Story of their Curious Relationship"?

Actually, the McFate article, and the brouhaha that it sparked, we the tipping point to get me to write my article. It's in the latest SWJ (Vol 7) and also available here.

I have certainly heard of Hickey and his problems . In many ways, that case exemplifies some of the differences in mind set or worldview between Anthropologists and people in the military - that's a generalization, not a prescription . In a lot of ways, Cultural Anthropologists are "closer" in worldview to a weird cross between Intel, PSYOPs and long duree historians - we are cultural technologists who rarely get to experiment and have a very long time horizon (~5 million years or so for many of us).

And then there's a "movement" (?) to continue this institutional culture clash:

See Fighting the militarization of anthropology for more on Kilcullen=bad.

Now that is an interesting article. I read some interviews with him after the AAA resolutions and, while I think his heart may be in the right place,I doubt that his head is. He seems to have abandoned, or at least severely restricted, the long view of time. By concentrating on the anti-torture component he is neglecting the long term effects of either a protracted war, a loss of that war, and, also, the long term effects of trying to control information.

I certainly agree with his anti-torture position - torture just isn't very effective at eliciting information as a recent DIA study showed once again (sorry, can't find the link). Torture used for other purposes, e.g. intimidation, ritual, etc. may be useful in some cultures but not in the Anglo complex where it tends to cause a degradation in the psyche (that's a book in itself, so we'll just leave it there).

The effects of a protracted war should be obvious to anyone who has studied history, which makes me wonder about Gonzalez. Pretty much every society that has become involved in protracted conflict situations has ended up becoming extremely rigid and controlling of its members, the shifting of Rome from a Republic to the Principate in the 1st century bc is a good example of this, or has ended up falling apart (e.g. post-Periclean Athens, especially in the last 10 years of the Peloponnesian War).

What about losing the long war? Some of the more alarmist literature showing up, e.g. While Europe Slept, gives a pretty good example of what could happen. Personally, I think the MB inspired ideology of the irhabists would not only destroy Western civilization but, also, be a disaster for Islam and the species as a whole.

Maybe Gonzalez believes that a quick retreat will ameliorate the effects of a long war and / or a loss. I don't know, and I doubt that we will ever sit down over a couple of beers (probably Perrier for him) and discuss it in a rational manner (we are too polarized to use one of Dalmas' terms ). I would, however, say that when I ead his material and his quotes in various articles, I am reminded of the words of Flanders and Swan:

The Ostrich

Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
Everything must be grand.
Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
As long as I've got me head in the sand.
Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
There's something in what you've said,
But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
I just bury me head.

Oh, Ostrich consider hw the world we know
Is trembling on the brink.
Have you heard the news, may I hear your views,
Will you tell me what you think.
The Ostrich lifted its head from the sand,
About an inch or so;
'You will please excuse, but disturbing news
I have no wish to know.'

Oooh, Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
Everything must be grand.
Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
As long as I've got me head in the sand.
Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
There's something in what you've said,
But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
I just bury me head.

Then I noticed suddenly where we were,
I saw what time it was.
Make haste, I said, It'll be too late,
We must leave this place because....
He stuffed his wingtips into his ears;
He would not hear me speak,
And back in the soft Saharan sand
He plunged his yellow beak.

Oooh, Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
Everything must be grand.
Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
As long as I've got me head in the sand.
Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
There's something in what you've said,
But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
I just bury me....

(BOOM)

From a sheltered oasis a mile away
I observed that dreadful scene.
And a single plume came floating down
Where my Ostrich friend had been.
Because he could not bear the sound
Of these words I had left unsaid;
'Here in this nuclear testing ground
Is no place to bury your head!'

Marc

[MountainRunner]

Marc,
first thanks for reminding me of the J in SWJ and adding to my reading. Second, I came in after the brouhaha over the article apparently. Who & What?