Anthropology Today (Kilcullen, McFate, Price, et al.

[marct]

Some very interesting articles here.

CONTENTS
Peter Jan Margry and Cristina Sánchez-Carretero 1
Memorializing traumatic death
Sylvia Grider 3
Public grief and the politics of memorial: Contesting the memory of ‘the shooters’ at Columbine High School
David H. Price 8
Buying a piece of anthropology, Part 1: Human Ecology and unwitting anthropological research for the CIA
Roberto J. González 14
Towards mercenary anthropology? The new US Army counterinsurgency manual FM 3-24 and the military-anthropology complex
COMMENT
David Kilcullen 20
Ethics, politics and non-state warfare: A response to González
Montgomery McFate 21
Building bridges or burning heretics?: A response to González
Stephen Ellis, Jeremy Keenan 21
The Sahara and the ‘war on terror’: A response to Jeremy Keenan (AT 22[6])
Laura A. McNamara 22
Culture, critique and credibility: A response to Houtman (AT 23[2])
Gerhard Anders 23
Follow the trial: Some notes on the ethnography of international criminal justice

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Any links or is it just paper?

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Any links or is it just paper?

The TOC is here. I'll see if I can find the URLs for the rest; probably need an institutional account for access though...

[added]
It looks like it's available online via Blackwell Synergy - you definitely need an institutional account.

Marc

[SteveMetz]

The solution is for anthropologists to concentrate on sexual mores in Samoa. Then people who have to deal with contemporary, real world problems won't come bothering them.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

The solution is for anthropologists to concentrate on sexual mores in Samoa. Then people who have to deal with contemporary, real world problems won't come bothering them.

But that would be imposing a Western ideological hegemony upon them via the obviously misrepresented presentation of such sexual mores !!!! The more obvious recourse is to just sit safely in the ivory tower and critique anyone who is actually out doing anything productive. Far safer, from a moral purity standard, to just should how impure everyone else is .

Marc

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Steve,



But that would be imposing a Western ideological hegemony upon them via the obviously misrepresented presentation of such sexual mores !!!! The more obvious recourse is to just sit safely in the ivory tower and critique anyone who is actually out doing anything productive. Far safer, from a moral purity standard, to just should how impure everyone else is .

Marc

I'll give the journal credit for letting Montgomery and Dave respond. It may be a rare chance for Mongtomery to use both her anthro Ph.D. and her law degree at the same time!

[marct]

Well, I just finished reading the Gonzalez article, and its critiques from Dave Kilcullen and Montgomery McFate. I would have to describe it as a WMC - Weapon of Mass Condescension. In general, he criticizes FM 3-24 as being poor Anthropology, arguing that MFate's co-authored chapter (3) is

In anthropological terms, the chapter is not innovative. It is essentially a primer on cultural relativism and social structure. At times it resembles a simplified introductory anthropology textbook – though with few examples and no illustrations. Much of the material is numbingly banal. Some concepts are incomplete or outdated, notably the culture concept...

He obviously does not realize that FM 3-24 is not an Introduction to Anthropology textbook. His critique of Dave Kilcullen's appendix is even harsher, and he spends considerable time arguing that it is a take-off from Lawrences' 27 articles. He concludes by noting that

Despite its energetic prose, the appendix includes little substantive cultural knowledge. At bottom, Appendix A is a collection of counterinsurgency guidelines for manipulating local social relationships in order to pry insurgents away from bases of support.

His "conclusions" about FM 3-24 are interesting

FM 3-24 generally reads like a manual for indirect colonial rule – though ‘empire’ and ‘imperial’ are taboo words, never used in reference to US power. The authors draw historical examples from British, French and Japanese colonial counterinsurgency campaigns in Malaya, Vietnam, Algeria and China. They euphemistically refer to local leaders collaborating with occupying forces as the ‘host nation’ (rather than indirect rulers) and uniformly describe opponents as ‘insurgents’. Yet they never mention empire – hardly surprising, since FM 3-24 is a document written for the US Army and Marine Corps, and from a perspective ensconced within US military culture.[6] Indeed, is it possible to imagine that any US Army field manual would ever use such terms?

Instead, FM 3-24’s authors imply that a culturally informed occupation – with native power brokers safely co-opted by coalition forces, community policing duties carried out by a culturally sensitive occupying army, development funds doled out to local women, etc. – will result in a lighter colonial touch, with less ‘collateral damage’ and a lower price tag. The question of whether military occupation is appropriate is not addressed, nor is there any serious exploration of assessing the legitimacy of insurgents’ grievances. This is not just a simple oversight. Because it ignores the broader context of US imperial power, it is incomplete, inadequate, and at times inane.

This "conclusion" is followed by a rather tired recitation of what I consider to be a very weak "ethical" argument showing how working with the military will inevitably result in Anthropologists being killed. In other words, more of the same tired, worn-out rhetoric surrounding ritual purity.

I should note that SWJ is mentioned in the text (page 17 and a snide reference to my article in footnote 9). Also, SavageMinds higlights the AT articles in a recent blog entry.

Marc

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by marct

Well, I just finished reading the Gonzalez article, and its critiques from Dave Kilcullen and Montgomery McFate. I would have to describe it as a WMC - Weapon of Mass Condescension. In general, he criticizes FM 3-24 as being poor Anthropology, arguing that MFate's co-authored chapter (3) is



He obviously does not realize that FM 3-24 is not an Introduction to Anthropology textbook. His critique of Dave Kilcullen's appendix is even harsher, and he spends considerable time arguing that it is a take-off from Lawrences' 27 articles. He concludes by noting that




His "conclusions" about FM 3-24 are interesting



This "conclusion" is followed by a rather tired recitation of what I consider to be a very weak "ethical" argument showing how working with the military will inevitably result in Anthropologists being killed. In other words, more of the same tired, worn-out rhetoric surrounding ritual purity.

I should note that SWJ is mentioned in the text (page 17 and a snide reference to my article in footnote 9). Also, SavageMinds higlights the AT articles in a recent blog entry.

Marc

I pulled up the guy's CV. His focus appears to be Mexico. I wonder if he's ever talked to someone who has lived through an insurgency? Probably not, since that might "taint" his analysis.

[Tom Odom]

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Steve,



But that would be imposing a Western ideological hegemony upon them via the obviously misrepresented presentation of such sexual mores !!!! The more obvious recourse is to just sit safely in the ivory tower and critique anyone who is actually out doing anything productive. Far safer, from a moral purity standard, to just should how impure everyone else is .

Marc

I don't want to impose anything thing on a Somoan. I might watch but only from a safe distance

[FascistLibertarian]

The solution is for anthropologists to concentrate on sexual mores in Samoa. Then people who have to deal with contemporary, real world problems won't come bothering them.

At the time it was written coming of age in samoa was dealing with the contemporary real world issue of youth culture in the 1920's.

But that would be imposing a Western ideological hegemony upon them via the obviously misrepresented presentation of such sexual mores

She was trying to show that the Wests view of human sexuality, and the 'crisis' of the 1920's with declining morality might be questionable.

Mead might not have done the most important work ever. I think point is to try and do ethnographic work that does something.
I doubt there have ever been more well done and important ethnographic studies being done right now.
Its just information overload bc the whole world has gone open source.

[whsieh]

Gentlemen,

I suppose I should introduce myself real quick. I'm on the civilian faculty at the Naval Academy, where I'm the US Civil War specialist in the History Department. More broadly, I do nineteenth-century US military history. Anyhow, I also teach an unconventional warfare in Am. history course here (our department is also offering a more 20th-century orientated course in the Fall, we have also offered a Roman counterinsurgency warfare course, and Poli Sci has a Low-Intensity conflict course). Anyhow, I and some colleagues at USNA have been keeping an eye on stuff at this site, which is most interesting for obvious reasons.

Anyhow, does anyone know if Gonzalez is the same chap who wrote a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education magazine on the same topic? As I recall, that article seemed to think that Dr. Kilcullen et al were only interested in anthropology in order to find ever more ingenious and villainous methods of torturing people. I'm working from home today, and I don't have immediate access to my photocopy of that piece. I'm sorry to say USNA does not have a subscription to Blackwell Synergy, or even the print journal, although I will try to dig it up the next time I'm at the Library of Congress. I'm happy that they did let Dr. McFate and Dr. Kilcullen respond, though.

Would anyone be willing to characterize the responses of Dr. McFate and Dr. Kilcullen?

WWSH

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by whsieh

Gentlemen,

I suppose I should introduce myself real quick. I'm on the civilian faculty at the Naval Academy, where I'm the US Civil War specialist in the History Department. More broadly, I do nineteenth-century US military history. Anyhow, I also teach an unconventional warfare in Am. history course here (our department is also offering a more 20th-century orientated course in the Fall, we have also offered a Roman counterinsurgency warfare course, and Poli Sci has a Low-Intensity conflict course). Anyhow, I and some colleagues at USNA have been keeping an eye on stuff at this site, which is most interesting for obvious reasons.

Anyhow, does anyone know if Gonzalez is the same chap who wrote a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education magazine on the same topic? As I recall, that article seemed to think that Dr. Kilcullen et al were only interested in anthropology in order to find ever more ingenious and villainous methods of torturing people. I'm working from home today, and I don't have immediate access to my photocopy of that piece. I'm sorry to say USNA does not have a subscription to Blackwell Synergy, or even the print journal, although I will try to dig it up the next time I'm at the Library of Congress. I'm happy that they did let Dr. McFate and Dr. Kilcullen respond, though.

Would anyone be willing to characterize the responses of Dr. McFate and Dr. Kilcullen?

WWSH

Our library doesn't have access so I haven't been able to get it. I've asked the anthropologist who works for me if she subscribes. Will summarize the replies if she does.

[whsieh]

Much thanks.

Sorry for not giving my name in the earlier post--I accidentally botched setting up my sig.

WWSH

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by whsieh

Much thanks.

Sorry for not giving my name in the earlier post--I accidentally botched setting up my sig.

WWSH

My name is John Nagl. I just use "Steve Metz" as a pen name.

[Shek]

Will the real Steve Metz, um, John Nagl, please stand up

[Steve Blair]

Does that mean we can call him Shirley?

(if you don't get it, watch Airplane)

[marct]

Hi FL,

Originally Posted by FascistLibertarian

At the time it was written coming of age in samoa was dealing with the contemporary real world issue of youth culture in the 1920's.

Quite true and, at the time, a very daring project on her part. Then again, from what I have heard from people who knew her (including my grandmother), she never let "common <sniff> morality" interfere with her work ....

Originally Posted by FascistLibertarian

She was trying to show that the Wests view of human sexuality, and the 'crisis' of the 1920's with declining morality might be questionable.

I think we need an "irony" emoticon .

Marc

[marct]

Sorry for not posting this earlier, but I've been working on other stuff (i.e. what I get paid to do ). Maybe we could ask Dave if he would be willing to post the entire text - it's only a page, but very good reading.

Kilcullen's response disregards the ad hominen attacks of Gonzalez and concentrates on the twin concepts of jus in bello and jus ad bellum - loosly translated as "rightness in war" and "rightness of a war". As an ethical starting point, he holds that

There are two questions here: the first is whether using anthropological knowledge in counterinsurgency is ethical, that is, whether it engenders the greatest good of the greatest number. Since the greatest number is the non-belligerent population, the people’s welfare (not that of insurgents or governments) is what counts. This is jus in bello – right conduct in war once engaged, not jus ad bellum – rightness in deciding to wage war.

He proceeds with a very nice argument to show that troops involved in a counterinsugency will a) do better and b) cause less collateral damage if they are culturally aware.

The second question, implied in much recent discussion among anthropologists and in Dr González’ paper, is whether it is legitimate for anthropologists to support or countenance the current conflicts (in Iraq, Afghanistan and the greater war on terrorism). This question, in effect, asks whether current conflicts are just wars. This is a jus ad bellum question – ‘were we right to engage in these wars in the first place’?

He makes, what to my mind, are two important points. First, reasonable people can disagree, and second, that the place to hold such debates, in a democracy, is at the ballot box and not by claiming a moral highground for a particular discipline.

He goes on to note the three main weaknesses in Gonzales' argument:

There are three weaknesses in Dr González’ argument, in my view. First, he seems to conflate jus ad bellum and jus in bello....

Second, Dr González seems to be arguing that any conflict against a non-state enemy constitutes, by definition, the oppression of innocent populations....

Third, Dr González seems to misunderstand the purpose of FM 3-24....

His conclusion sums it up nicely

In conclusion, I congratulate Dr González for raising this important issue, but I believe there are weaknesses in his argument, as he conflates the ethics of war’s conduct with the justness of the decision to make war. The field evidence to which I have access suggests that ethnographic knowledge renders counterinsurgency more, not less humane. And the question of whether the wars in Iraq and elsewhere are just wars is for every citizen, is political not ethical, and is an area in which anthropologists have no special authority. I would urge all anthropologists who oppose the war to make their views known in political debate and through the ballot box. In the meantime, the ethical path is to ensure the war is humanely and effectively conducted, and I believe there is a clear place for anthropologists in this endeavour.

Marc

[marct]

Montgomery McFate's reply is a touch more pointed than Dave Kilculen's. Entitled "Building Bridges or Burning Heretics?", she starts off with a very nicely bracketed piece of cunter-battery fire:

Professor González is yet again on the warpath, accusing others of committing ‘ethical transgressions’ in what amounts to a proxy discussion of US foreign policy. Apparently Professor González’ efforts to polarize the discipline do not leave much time for selfreflection: if he is so concerned with ‘building bridges between peoples’, as he has written elsewhere (see González 2007), then why is he taking a position of intellectual isolationism towards the military?

First she draws on an argument made by Gonzalez (apologies for no accent on the name, but my keyboard doesn't have one) and Price that the military / intelligence community should not be allowed access to anhropological knowledge.

The view that the military should remain ignorant of anthropology is a truly alarming perspective for professional educators. Is the use of anthropological knowledge by the national security community less ethical than the censorship and control of such knowledge by academic anthropologists who claim to believe in truth and freedom?

Next, she points out that Gonzalez' comments about FM 3-24 not "being innovative" are, in fact, stupid. As she notes,

While long-winded discussions on ‘capitalism’ and ‘colonialism’ may hold great interest for scholars, military personnel have other more pressing tasks to attend to.

I a going to synopsize her final point and conclusion with a two quotes...

Professor González appears to believe that direct engagement of anthropologists with the military or the intelligence community is somehow unethical. On the contrary, anthropological knowledge applied to military problems has the power to save lives, both military and civilian, and it has done so in many 20thcentury wars....

Of course, many anthropologists will never engage with the military because they view Iraq as a ‘bad war’. Perhaps one ought to ask, why exactly is it a bad war? Some of the many reasons might include: problematic government policies, flawed intelligence, counterproductive strategies, etc. In each of these cases miscalculations resulted, in part, from a lack of understanding about other societies. Aren’t anthropologists then obliged to educate the military and policy-makers to prevent mistakes in the future? Speaking truth to power should mean something more than sniping from the ivory tower – rather, it should mean constructive engagement with the national security community in a spirit of open-minded discourse.

Marc

[J Wolfsberger]

Marc,

You are clearly not reading this with the enlightened perspective of independence from eurocentric, male dominated imperialism. In fact, your lack of post modern, reductionist analysis seems obvious.