Another Loopy Anthropologist

[Gian P Gentile]

selil may be right, he may be a "putz." But I read the article, and as abrasive as it was it did bring up some points that merit serious discussion on this blog; e.g., the theoretical underpinnings to political power and military structure; the link between the military, the political, and academic departments.



gentile

[Ken White]

commenter rather than the comment. Mayhap beyond close. Your point may be germane but it could've been better stated, I think.

Disregard all before "huh" due to timely edit

[Tom Odom]

commenter rather than the comment. Mayhap beyond close. Your point may be germane but it could've been better stated, I think.

Agreed and I deleted the second half. Probably get to read about it on another blog...

[SteveMetz]

selil may be right, he may be a "putz." But I read the article, and as abrasive as it was it did bring up some points that merit serious discussion on this blog; e.g., the theoretical underpinnings to political power and military structure; the link between the military, the political, and academic departments.



gentile

True. I guess it just set me off because of the arrogant tone--"I'd wave a few citations at the War College students and make them see the error of their ways." I also got a whiff of the notion that anyone who sees military power differently than Prof McKenna is either brainwashed or bought.

Brian McKenna

Brian McKenna was born and raised in Philadelphia, Pa., where he received a B.A. in communication arts and an M.A. in anthropology from Temple University. While in Philadelphia, he worked to shape public policy as a health analyst for the United Way's Community Services Planning Council and began a side career as a freelance journalist (City Paper, New York Guardian, University City Review). Before leaving Philadelphia for Michigan in 1991 to pursue his Ph.D. at MSU in medical anthropology, he taught political science and did a stint as development specialist for NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross. McKenna completed his Ph.D. in 1998 and has coordinated a groundbreaking study on Lansing-area environmental health for the Ingham County Health Department for the past three years. His study on our water will be published this summer (2001). He also taught a graduate class at MSU last fall titled, Anthropology, Health and the Environment.

[selil]

Interesting anecdote is that one of the Michigan universities sociology program is known as the Michigan Mafia. Home of Tilly. From what I've seen they are horribly leftist, and extremely antagonistic and virulently anti "breakdown theorist". As a group from what I've read they basically use academic assassination to get their point across as part of the "resource mobilization" theory. Not sure it is the same University but seems like the same tactics.

I have now exhausted the three brain cells I saved from my doctoral sociology course excursions last semester.. May all three RIP.

[SteveMetz]

Interesting anecdote is that one of the Michigan universities sociology program is known as the Michigan Mafia. Home of Tilly. From what I've seen they are horribly leftist, and extremely antagonistic and virulently anti "breakdown theorist". As a group from what I've read they basically use academic assassination to get their point across as part of the "resource mobilization" theory. Not sure it is the same University but seems like the same tactics.

I have now exhausted the three brain cells I saved from my doctoral sociology course excursions last semester.. May all three RIP.

I have no problem with ardent leftists. Heck some of my favorite fellow graduate students and professors considered themselves Trotskyites. I admire their passion and, coming from a blue collar Appalachian background, understand their anger. It just gets my dander up when someone suggests that anyone who thinks differently is misguided or nefarious, or both.

[selil]

It just gets my dander up when someone suggests that anyone who thinks differently is misguided or nefarious, or both.

That has been one of my issues too. One of my sociology professors was a break down theorist so we read several dozen papers looking at resource mobilization versus breakdown. The RM group were nasty, vindictive, and generally wrote with an evil zeal that was distasteful. The one sided nature of the nastiness was pretty obvious and not apparently selection bias.

Then I read a round robin slug fest between Anderson and LaQuant and whether "Code of the street" was an ethnography. It became apparent to me that on the other side of the science, way over there, they had a lot to say but most of it was pretty mean and useless to me. The ideas were intriguing. There was a massive amount of value to my research and opening new perspectives on how technology interacts to support some of my theoretical base. The packaging though could be pretty petty.

There is an Army Major hiding in the background of SWJ/C that took the one class with me. He has a LOT more perspective on the topic than I do since it was his core discipline. I though was left with a feeling that the social/anthropological sciences are pretty nasty to each other.

[SteveMetz]

I though was left with a feeling that the social/anthropological sciences are pretty nasty to each other.

Kissinger nailed it when he said, "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." I've seen blood spilled over whose parking place was six steps closer to the building or whose office was ten square feet bigger.

[marct]

I really think you should invite him to teach a course there .

[Multi-skilled Leader]

-------------
Edited by SWCAdmin
This is 80% drive-by rant.
We leave it in place for the 20% "are we being open-minded enough?" core.
Not as an example of good forum conduct.
-------------
Headline: Small Wars Council Dinosaurs Threatened by the “liberal” Anthropologist; Become Small Minds Journal for a Day.

You pitiful dinosaurs of the Small Wars Council:
You talk of developing effective, thinking, proficient small warriors to fight and win on the asymmetric battlefield of the 21st Century, yet feel threatened when a liberal anthropologist challenges your status quo?

You very same ‘agents of change’ in warfare thinking can’t look at one agent of change’s perspective on academic curriculum? You, mostly historians, want to believe you do not need a broad liberal education to force students at the War College to think outside the box? To challenge their reality? To realize that they may really be pawns to a perceived imperialism?

You PAWNS played into Dr. McKenna’s hand, for you are the very Military-Industrial-ACADEMIC complex desiring to protect your monopoly on the HEARTS & MINDS of our future strategic leaders.

Your testosterone-filled comments are more defense mechanisms than arguments. You are the very FUNDAMENTALIST that demand everything fall into YOUR box EXCEPT when you’re talking. When you’re talking, you can be creative and you can define creativity, by your rules.

I bet you participants of this particular thread are the very small minds that play DEVILS ADVOCATE and RED TEAM ideas in a room full of creative thinkers. You see it’s easy to be an intellect that shoots ideas down in lieu of offering your own broadening, challenging, reflective and original ideas.

HERE’S YOUR CHALLENGE:

Tell me how we create broadened strategic leaders ready for the challenges that our country will face in the next ten or twenty years?

You pitiful Dinosaurs of Professional Military Education. Where is Rob Thorton in this discussion thread to bail you out? He is on the sidelines because you have not contributed to the ongoing dialogue to advance training and education. Instead, you ran out of ideas and decided to have a little retiree target practice at the local rifle range with someone else’s ideas. Hey, this guy is not a COLD WAR, McCain Republican so let’s have a little target practice. You’ve made yourselves look like protectionist of the status quo.

Where is John Nagl, our Rhodes SWJ scholar, to bail you out? Oh, he isn’t here either. Funny. He would probably tell you to bring the brigade of anthropologists to shatter the thinking of our future strategic leaders of the Army.

Thank you for making Small Wars Journal the Small Minds Journal, in this thread at least, you 1000+ post scholars, for a Day.

[SWCAdmin]

There was a bit of a flurry, this thread was temporarily closed with some posts deleted. In the light of a fine Sat AM, here's the current status:

1) Pretty unambiguous that Multi-skilled leader was way more arrogant and offensive in his tirade than he needed to be. The little red card is an infraction. He needs to add, to his multiple skills, tact and the ability to more effectively influence people.

2) At the core of his message (we think, in hindsight), beyond the petty attacks, he echoes the concerns we have as operators of this forum over getting to be too much of an old boys club, set in our norms, etc. This forum only works if it is open, tolerant to new messages and new messengers.

3) We have undone some of the deletes, and neatened things up to continue the discussion. With that done, this can of worms is re-opened.

It is hard enough to hear criticism and grow from it. It's a lot harder to not close ranks when then criticism is couched in a ridiculously petty assault, in particular when blessed with the God-like powers of forum administrators to make things go away. We do not wish to be parochial or self-serving.

Please continue (or, some cases, start) to discuss the issues in a civil, professional, and open manner. Including the issue of whether we're in a rut. All is on the table. Just do it more multi-skillfully.

----
SWJED & SWCADMIN
(Dave & Bill)

[marct]

Referring to Dr. McKenna as a "liberal" is a drastic dis-service to liberals. Let's look at his "Introduction to Anthropology" course (so-called)

So, if I had a chance to teach "Introduction to Anthropology" at the War College, here is how I might do it.

Day 1: Orientation: Discussion. Introductions. Overview of Course. Where are you from? How long have you been here? What's the best thing about the military? What's something you'd like to see changed? Film screening: In the Valley of Elah

Day 2: Smedley Butler Day. Review and discussion of War is a Racket Speech; View and discuss Eisenhower's farewell address. Read Uri Avnery's "The Military Option" in CounterPunch. Film screening and discussion: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

Day 3. NACIREMA: Discussion Where is this? What is capitalism? Discussion of Marx's labor theory of value. George Carlin on Football & Baseball.

Day 4: Fieldtrip to US Veteran's administration hospital. Tour Guide: Wheelchair veteran Bobby Muller from Vietnam Veterans against the War

Day 5 Iraq Veterans Against the War Day; How to file CO, information on war resisting. Film screening and discussion: Hearts and Minds

Day 6. How to keep from Dying: Are you safe? Discussion of April 17, 2008 RAND report which details 101,000 U.S. casualties a year. See "Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Other Readings: Grand Theft Pentagon: How they made a Killing on the war on Terrorism.

Day 7: Rod Ridenhour and the My Lai Massacre. Discussion of war hero Ridenhour who was a whistleblower against this war crime. Discussion of Geneva Convention. Film screening: In the Year of the Pig

Day 8: Hitler and Totalitarianism: Can it happen here? Film screening: Seven Days in May

Day 9: Debate on Iraq War. Two teams of four students per team will debate the question "Is the War in Iraq a Just War?" Like college debate, students will be responsible for arguing both sides of the issue in two debates.

Day 10: The Deceptions of Military Recruiters. What did they tell you? Read "Lies Military Recruiters Tell" by Ron Jacobs.

Nowhere in all of this do I see any teaching of any of the core concepts of Anthropology: Culture, Kinship, Social Organization, Power, Religion and Ideology, etc. This is not an Introduction to Anthropology but, rather, an Introduction to Anti-military Ideology.

Furthermore, how does he view the role of military education?

[quote}At boot camp, soldiers need a proper military education so they can actively know how to resist immoral orders, report abuse and leave the military as a C.O., and university students require critical military education it in order to help lead civic engagements against the national security state.[/quote]

This is "education"?!?

Tell me how we create broadened strategic leaders ready for the challenges that our country will face in the next ten or twenty years?

The first thing is to define erms such that they have some type of meaning rather than meaning what people will them to on a use by use basis a la Humpty-Dumpty. So, let's start with a few terms then...

Data: sensory input, either "real" (i.e. individually observed), "inferred" (based on previous associations) or "assumed" (usually via a theoretical construct.

Knowledge: data organized according to some form of schema

Knowledge base: a collection of organized data held by internally by an individual in their memories and externally by various storage devices (e.g. books, journals, blogs, databases, etc.).

Learning: the action of individuals who take data and construct interpretations of them and, as a result, construct internal models of data processing.

Education: a system of teaching and learning that concentrates on students acquiring ways of thinking and ways of judging data that are presented to them. At the core of an education system is a grounding in Epistemology.

Now, let's just pull apart some of the assumptions in your question. First, why do you assume that people like this can be "created"? Humans are not robots, so any attempt at creating a PME system that treats them as if they were is doomed to failure. You don't "create" broad strategic leaders, you help them emerge.

What is a "strategic leader"? This is not a "red team" question but, rather, a Socratic question. The very concept of a "leader" needs to be pulled apart which, BTW, is one of the reasons I highly approve of the choices David Price makes in his readings - it exposes the underlying social-structural assumptions behind terms like "leader". So, let's pull it apart a bit.

What is a "leader"? In one set of social (power) relations, a "leader" is the person who has the best knowledge of a given task or set of tasks. In Anthropology, we tend to call social settings where this type of leadership is used as "situational leadership" (in business, the organizational type is called a Matrix Organization). It also correlates with social systems organized around reciprocity.

In another set of social relations, a "leader" is a "leader" by virtue of holding a particular office (this is what Weber called a bureaucratic organization). A minimum level of skills / competency is assumed to be held by the individual by virtue of the requirements of obtaining that office. However, nothing more than a minimum level of skills can be assumed, and that minimum level may not be enough to actually perform the jobs they are required to perform. This is the current organizational type that dominates most military organizations, and is the type assumed by the way you structured your question.

There are other types of leaders and other types of social relations, but I'm not teaching an Introduction to Anthropology class right now (although I have taught them).

Now, let's look at the adjective you used: "strategic". In what sense? Are you talking purely military strategy? If so, then you had better hope that the US fights another peer2peer war, because that is the only situation that allows for "pure" military strategy. If not, then "strategy" must include politics, economics, military action, communications theory, and a whole host of other areas. If that is the case, you certainly do not produce such a strategic leader in a 4 year degree program - it will take a lot more years and a lot more experience than that! And, more importantly, you certainly will not produce such a person in a 10 day propaganda fest!

[marct]

Hi Gian,

But I read the article, and as abrasive as it was it did bring up some points that merit serious discussion on this blog; e.g., the theoretical underpinnings to political power and military structure; the link between the military, the political, and academic departments.

I think part of the problem is with the specific theoretical underpinnings he chose. One of my main problems with Marxian theology is that it all rests on St. Karl's flawed theory of the value of labour. At the same time, it has also focused so heavily on production side economics that it has, in many ways, forgotten distribution (at least in its classic forms). As for Gramsci, I far prefer Luigi Sturzo if we are talking about Italian Sociologists...

Gian, just out of interest, what would you use for such an examination?

Marc

[SteveMetz]

Hi Gian,



I think part of the problem is with the specific theoretical underpinnings he chose. One of my main problems with Marxian theology is that it all rests on St. Karl's flawed theory of the value of labour. At the same time, it has also focused so heavily on production side economics that it has, in many ways, forgotten distribution (at least in its classic forms). As for Gramsci, I far prefer Luigi Sturzo if we are talking about Italian Sociologists...

Gian, just out of interest, what would you use for such an examination?

Marc

I wasn't taking issue with that--I've read Prison Notebooks. It was an important and interesting work. What set me off was the implication that he's so smart that he'd throw a few intellectual bon mots at a room full of war college students and they'd see the errors of their way and recognize that they are tools of imperialism.

I guess this struck a nerve because I am intimately familiar with both military professionals and latte leftists, and therefore know which have better understanding of the reality of the world and have used that to develop a ethical code.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I wasn't taking issue with that--I've read Prison Notebooks. It was an important and interesting work.

I've read them too and, honestly, didn't find them that interesting at all. A lot of the points he makes were made in earlier works.

What set me off was the implication that he's so smart that he'd throw a few intellectual bon mots at a room full of war college students and they'd see the errors of their way and recognize that they are tools of imperialism.

Oh, I agree with that! The arrogance he displays is, IMO, quite humourous in its scope - that's why I suggested you actually invite him (okay, I have a viscious sense of humour - just make sure you post the videos on YouTube!!!!).

I guess this struck a nerve because I am intimately familiar with both military professionals and latte leftists, and therefore know which have better understanding of the reality of the world and have used that to develop a ethical code.

Again, I don't disagree with you. I think it would be interesting to dig into the power relationships, as Gian noted, but to do it in a way that as far as possible tries to avoid the theological stridency of Marxism or any other theoretical model.

[J Wolfsberger]

Perhaps we could all help the good professor by investigating the Ygoloporhtna cult.

[Tom Odom]

Hi Steve,



I've read them too and, honestly, didn't find them that interesting at all. A lot of the points he makes were made in earlier works.



Oh, I agree with that! The arrogance he displays is, IMO, quite humourous in its scope - that's why I suggested you actually invite him (okay, I have a viscious sense of humour - just make sure you post the videos on YouTube!!!!).



Again, I don't disagree with you. I think it would be interesting to dig into the power relationships, as Gian noted, but to do it in a way that as far as possible tries to avoid the theological stridency of Marxism or any other theoretical model.

Ok given his background how about we ask him to serve on a PRT or HTT helping retore the marsh Arab's way of life after Saddam's draining of the area in post DS to punish the Shia; that would allow him to use his expertise OUTSIDE the US.

Then let him speak to the War College.

Tom

[SteveMetz]

Oh, I agree with that! The arrogance he displays is, IMO, quite humourous in its scope - that's why I suggested you actually invite him (okay, I have a viscious sense of humour - just make sure you post the videos on YouTube!!!!)

Several people have suggested that but I'm not inclined to waste the time of a buch of war college students just to teach the guy a lesson. I personally have never been in a war college class where I felt I was the smartest guy in the room (or a CGSC class for that matter). I suspect that would be a shocking revelation to him.

[Rex Brynen]

I suspect that would be a shocking revelation to him.

Sadly, I doubt it would register in the way that you would hope that it did--he would likely just presume that his day-with-your-class was insufficient to excavate through all the false consciousness...

[Adam L]

Headline: Small Wars Council Dinosaurs Threatened by the “liberal” Anthropologist; Become Small Minds Journal for a Day.

You pitiful dinosaurs of the Small Wars Council:
You talk of developing effective, thinking, proficient small warriors to fight and win on the asymmetric battlefield of the 21st Century, yet feel threatened when a liberal anthropologist challenges your status quo?

No, the problem is that he was very rude. Many of his statements were simply inappropriate and had nothing to do with whatever legitimate points he may have had. Although I do wonder why so much time is being spent on such a trivial character.

You very same ‘agents of change’ in warfare thinking can’t look at one agent of change’s perspective on academic curriculum? You, mostly historians, want to believe you do not need a broad liberal education to force students at the War College to think outside the box? To challenge their reality? To realize that they may really be pawns to a perceived imperialism?

1. I can look at it. I'm just underwhelmed.

1. I believe in a broad liberal education. In fact I would endeavor to say that my view of a “broad liberal education” doesn't even exist any more. I am probably the greatest champion of broadening education. I also believe in a classical liberal education for that matter. My personal distaste for much of the work by anthropologist, psychologists, sociologists, etc. (also historians, literature professors, etc.) comes not from my disrespect for their field, rather them individually. I would go so far as to say that I am critical of the majority of academics (military and civilian.)
   

You PAWNS played into Dr. McKenna’s hand, for you are the very Military-Industrial-ACADEMIC complex desiring to protect your monopoly on the HEARTS & MINDS of our future strategic leaders.

Your testosterone-filled comments are more defense mechanisms than arguments. You are the very FUNDAMENTALIST that demand everything fall into YOUR box EXCEPT when you’re talking. When you’re talking, you can be creative and you can define creativity, by your rules.

You are reading too much into this, they are simply “testosterone-filled” and don't like being insulted. Look, I'd say most of us are guilty of thinking we are more creative than we are (some of us more than others), and Dr. McKenna is no different.

I bet you participants of this particular thread are the very small minds that play DEVILS ADVOCATE and RED TEAM ideas in a room full of creative thinkers. You see it’s easy to be an intellect that shoots ideas down in lieu of offering your own broadening, challenging, reflective and original ideas.

Look, I will acknowledge that it is generally easier to find flaws in ideas than creating them. This however is important. The people who are good at making “good” ideas are those that excel at deconstructing ideas and have some creativity. For example, the same skills are used when drafting a law that has to survive scrutiny or in fact scrutinizing it. Also, there are more “bad” ideas than “good” ideas, and in this particular case the “good” ideas must work both in theory and practice.

HERE’S YOUR CHALLENGE:

Tell me how we create broadened strategic leaders ready for the challenges that our country will face in the next ten or twenty years?

1. Broader history education – From the start, BA's are too focused, too early. This might have worked when students came out of high school with a strong overview of history, but it has been a long time since that happened.
2. More cognitive psych in the survey courses less clinical. Psychology has been made into a joke the last 20-30-40 years. Also, everyone should have to study some Neuroscience/Neuroanatomy. (good for the understanding of psychology, human behavior and chemical/biological weapons)
3. Classical Liberal Arts Education – would give greater depth to almost everything being studied. As well as give officers a solid grounding in oratory and statesmanship. (two things we are missing these days)
4. Less boxes to check off, less SAT scores - Half the schools in this country are saying that interviews are optional and won't effect the admissions process. I doubt there is a single school in this country that would let Einstein study there even if he had shown up at the deans office with general relativity. That is unless CNN gave him coverage.

You pitiful Dinosaurs of Professional Military Education. Where is Rob Thorton in this discussion thread to bail you out? He is on the sidelines because you have not contributed to the ongoing dialogue to advance training and education. Instead, you ran out of ideas and decided to have a little retiree target practice at the local rifle range with someone else’s ideas. Hey, this guy is not a COLD WAR, McCain Republican so let’s have a little target practice. You’ve made yourselves look like protectionist of the status quo.

Hey, you don't have to be a McCain Republican to dislike this schmuck. Also, considering the amount of ordinance guys on the website McKenna is lucky they're using rifles.

Where is John Nagl, our Rhodes SWJ scholar, to bail you out? Oh, he isn’t here either. Funny. He would probably tell you to bring the brigade of anthropologists to shatter the thinking of our future strategic leaders of the Army.

Yes, he might. I wouldn't agree with him though.


If Mr. McKenna's curriculum has anything to do with anthropology, please let me know. As far as I could tell it was jut plain old leftist ideology. It also happens to be pseudo-intellectual garbage of the type that no person should have to suffer through.


“Debate on Iraq War. Two teams of four students per team will debate the question "Is the War in Iraq a Just War?" Like college debate, students will be responsible for arguing both sides of the issue in two debates.”


This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether this is a “just war.” They are professionals and they must perform their duty.


“The Deceptions of Military Recruiters. What did they tell you? Read "Lies Military Recruiters Tell”


Hopefully our officers want to be in the military! Also, it is irrelevant.


“A central purpose of anthropology is to help citizens recognize their ethnocentrism so that they can think more clearly about the world.”


Really? Hmmm... Things certainly have changed. I can remember when anthropology was a serious academic endeavor.


Adam L