Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
but that's not the question, really---does this relation compromise anthropology as a field?
or just the work done by these particular anthropologists?
|
I'm a little late to the thread, but I'd have to go with the latter, rb. I see these kinds of anthropologists as mercenaries. In my dep't, we get recruiting e-mails from the government pretty often, promising all kinds of goodies if fresh PhD's would be willing to go to places of military interest and act as go-betweens, translators, etc. We've all laughed loudly and shaken our heads, whenever we receive these e-mails. None of us would touch that with a ten foot pole. It has nothing to do with us being American citizens (of which half of us are not, in my department... keep in mind that a shit-ton of grad students in the US are foreign) or being "divorced" from the real world. I have no intention of going into the ivory tower, but I would never use my ethnographic skills to abet any kind of military activity whatsoever.
I subscribe to a list-serv of economic anthropologists, and of course this article has stirred up some discussion in that forum as well. Here is what one member said (I'm keeping the person anonymous, since it's a closed list-serv):
Quote:
This is very similar to the debate between Margaret Mead and others over the AAA [American Anthropological Association] code of ethics during and after the Vietnam War, if I remember correctly.
Anthropologists were involved in WWII in a number of positive ways. However, the ways in which anthropologists' reports have been used in Vietnam, Guatemala and other parts of Latin America has been of serious concern for the discipline.
There are two parts of this story that I think need to be highlighted. Tracy, "vehemently denied that the anthropologists collected intelligence for the military" and a few lines below this is quoted as saying, "Along with offering advice to commanders, the five-member team creates a database of local leaders and tribes, as well as social problems, economic issues and political disputes". This type of information is routinely included in CIA intelligence gathering and is used for military purposes.
I have talked at some length with anthropologists who worked for AID in Guatemala and initially believed that their work would be used to improve the safety and well being of the villages they studied. However, they eventually discovered that much of it was shared with the Guatemalan military and used to identify and "disappear" leaders as well as to decide which areas to invade and/or bomb. Others have talked about similar experiences in Vietnam.
There is a serious problem here and the edges are somewhat gray. We never know for sure how the information we collect may be used in the future. Government service has been an important part of anthropology“s history. And, to paraphrase Mead, "They are going to do it with us or without us. They will do a better job with us." As I recall she was speaking about family planning programs. But the same could be said about building the social infrastructure for democracy and peace.
However, in this situation, it seems clear to me that in not considering the historical lessons that resulted in the code of ethics, some anthropologists are being used. The most important issue of course is the protection of the persons and communities we research. While there is no guarantee that any published information will not someday result in some disadvantage, there are ways to reduce the risk.
These include first, the standard procedures of making clear to the research subjects what the research will be used for and to whom it will be given, as part of obtaining informed consent.
Second, in dangerous situations the subjects should be asked to review a draft of the report and their perceptions of potential risk involved in including certain information in the report should result in the removal of this material or its modification such that the persons involved do not consider its release to constitute a potential danger to their security or wellbeing. This is essential because fieldwork techniques are designed to build rapport and trust, and thus result in an interpretation of the anthropologist as a "friend" or even "adopted family member", which results in people confiding things to us personally that they had no intention of our reporting to others in a written document.
Finally the research reports need to be given to the participants at the same time that they are given to those who are paying for the research. In situations like this, a translation needs to be provided by an independent translator to assure accuracy. Making this available in a timely fashion is critically important in situations of war or civil unrest. The results should also be published and thus available to the public for criticism and debate.
These steps would greatly lessen the risks to the subjects of the studies being done, but are probably forbidden by the contracts these anthropologists are obligated to sign with the military concerning "confidentiality" for "national security reasons". That is the center of the problem. Applied anthropologists frequently find themselves in situations where the conditions of an offered contract would be in violation of the code of ethics. This situation has been a subject of debate for many years.
I think this issue is of sufficient immediate importance and brings together so many issues that have been debated for so long, that perhaps the AAA should consider constituting a task force to investigate these issues. Certainly these activities, like similar ones in Vietnam and Guatemala, potentially affect all of us who work in countries where we are frequently suspected of secret employment by the CIA or the US military. At least in this case the anthropologists are officially employed and their role is known to the public. However, the fact that their names are not is a possible indication that the information they are providing the military and the CIA is secretive intelligence of military value.
|
It's long, but I bolded the part that I agreed with the most. Anthropologists are supposed to be bound to a strict code of ethics, which we are supposed to hold to even in a court of law (when we are called as expert witnesses, for example, but have no protective rights as doctors or psychologists do in similar situations). Helping the military in this sense goes against all my understanding of those ethics. It seems quite clear to me, but I suppose not everyone has the same principles... which I find unfortunate for the discipline.