Nov. 30, 2007

Questions, Anger and Dissent on Ethics Study

Can an association urge its members to apply the principle of “do no harm” in research when there isn’t much agreement on what “harm” is? Is “doing less harm” a moral standard worthy of consideration or a cop out? Should scholars talk about their conduct during wartime in a general way without regard to the war taking place? Is the war in Iraq so terrible and is the conduct of the U.S. military so reprehensible that scholars should take a firm stand against any involvement?

Looking for a job?

See all 272 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,511
Administrative: 2,211
Executive: 194
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Those were among the issues considered Thursday when the rank and file of the American Anthropological Association had a first chance to question members of a panel that on Wednesday evening released a report on the issues raised by doing anthropological research for the military or security agencies. In an official session with the authors of the report, scholars asked a series of tough questions, but there was no open rebellion against the findings.

But Thursday night, at a discussion sponsored by anthropologists seeking a tougher stance than the panel suggested, scholars expressed considerable anger and dismay over the report, with some anthropologists suggesting that they organize a protest of their own organization. The discussion was sufficiently heated that a graduate student who spoke to the group to defend the concept of scholarly engagement with the military was crying at one point, and at another point, the audience applauded the suggestion that any anthropologists who work with the military should be kicked out of the organization.

The report issued Wednesday noted many ethical risks associated with such work, and urged scholars to consider them carefully, but also rejected the idea that the association through its ethics code should specifically bar such work, or any category of work. At this point, the panel’s report is just one group’s recommendations — while association leaders have been generous in their praise of the report, they have stressed that the study is the start of a discussion among members and is not policy at this time.

At the meeting Thursday where members could ask the panel questions, there were not frontal assaults on the report, although some critics said after the session that they felt constrained in that they had had time only to quickly skim its 62 pages, and so didn’t feel prepared to offer a full critique. But some questions challenged the assumptions behind the report.

For example, panel members stressed that they had interviewed many of the anthropologists who work for the military or security agencies and that the academics are engaged in standard, unclassified work, as often as not looking at the organizations for which they work. Repeatedly, panel members said that they did not find evidence of anthropologists doing clandestine work, spying on other cultures or nations and reporting findings back to the Pentagon, or anything remotely like that.

That prompted Daniel A. Segal, a professor of anthropology at Pitzer College, to say that while he appreciated the work done interviewing anthropologists who work for the military, he didn’t have confidence that the ones identified were necessarily representative of those posing ethical issues. Panel members asked agencies to help identify anthropologists, but why — Segal wondered — should they feel confident that they were pointed to all of those doing anthropological work when the answers were coming from an administration that “has never acknowledged that waterboarding is torture” and from an intelligence and military community that has been “repeatedly lying” about matters related to the war in Iraq.

Laura McNamara, a panel member who is an anthropologist who works for the government at the Sandia National Laboratories, said “we can’t deal with things we don’t know about,” and added that “we weren’t trying to do an investigation to root out evil anthropologists.”

McNamara said that it is possible that some anthropologists that have joined intelligence agencies are doing undercover work for them, but she said that if that’s the case, “they are doing something else” besides anthropology, and that the panel can’t be expected to come up with a way to govern them. At the same time, McNamara said that the study left her believing that many anthropologists who do contract work for the government don’t tell their colleagues about it — not because those doing the work feel they are doing unethical, but because they don’t want to be called unethical by fellow professors. She said that academe needs to “open up a civil space” for discussions of such topics, so people feel comfortable telling their colleagues about their work.

Panel members said that two principles were crucial to their recommendations on how anthropologists should consider work for the military or security agencies: the “do no harm” philosophy of importance to many disciplines, and a belief in being honest and transparent about work. But as the discussion Thursday indicated, those principles may not be simple to define.

Terence Turner, an emeritus professor of anthropology at Cornell University, said that the discipline was paying a price for watering down its stand against secret research. A decade ago, he said, the association’s code of ethics was revised — replacing a strong stance against secret research with one with less clarity. Turner said (and this belief appears to be shared by many anthropologists) that the change was made at the behest of anthropologists wanting to do proprietary work for companies. Once the discipline abandoned the principle that all research must have “public circulability,” Turner said, it was a “slippery slope” down to the point where some anthropologists will do secret work for the military.

The panel in fact calls for the association to reconsider its language on secret research, perhaps returning to the old version. James L. Peacock, chair of the committee and a professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that it was not true that the association had changed its secrecy rules because scholars wanted to work for companies. Peacock speculated that the language barring secret research was written at a time that anthropologists were angry over the role some of their colleagues played in helping the military in Vietnam, while the rewrite a decade ago came a time that such issues weren’t as urgent as they are today, with the war in Iraq.

Context is everything, said several panel members, in explaining why they didn’t want to offer a “do and don’t” list or to frame their analysis around the Iraq war.

Defining ‘Do No Harm’

Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, a panel member who is a professor at Rhode Island College, said that defining “do no harm” isn’t as straightforward as it sounds — even if it is viewed as the “gold standard” of professional ethics. She said that many anthropologists who work for the government talk about “doing less harm” — acknowledging that the military is causing harm to some people in Iraq or elsewhere, but arguing that their work lessens that. Fluehr-Lobban said that the argument could be taken further: Is there an obligation to do “more good” rather than just avoiding harm?

Is the “do no harm” standard really “minimal,” she asked? Fluehr-Lobban characterized the discussions within the discipline about defining harm and the way it is considered as being at “a primitive stage.”

Several audience members asked or suggested that “just war” theory should have been brought into the ethics report. In doing so, they acknowledged that anthropologists who worked with the government during World War II in some cases found ways to adhere to high ethical standards toward those they studied while also helping their country. But committee members, while acknowledging the differences among different wars, said that they didn’t want to suggest that work was possible in some wars, but not others.

While the discussion was polite — with audience members praising the panelists for their hard work — critics of work for the military were clearly frustrated. David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University and one of the organizers of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, said that he found the panel’s report to be “very weak” and “very watered down.” The network is a group that does not rule out work for the military or security agencies, but that asks scholars to pledge “not to undertake research or other activities in support of counter-insurgency work in Iraq or in related theaters in the ‘war on terror.’”

Vine said he had hoped for a much more “clear statement” from the panel about activities that simply can’t be considered ethical. During the public discussion, he said, “aren’t there some forms of harm where we don’t need to talk any more?”

In the interview later, he said that he didn’t understand why the panel couldn’t have said that doing classified research or working in battlefield situations — both kinds of work that the committee suggested raise all kinds of ethical issues — were simply wrong in any scenario. In both cases, he said, the anthropologist has lost any ability to live up to the “do no harm” standard.

As for the “do less harm” idea, he said that that was “a total violation of our ethical code,” and that anthropologists should have no part of saying that their work is justified “if we kill 17 people instead of 20.” He also said that the anthropologists saying that they are able to do less harm have not demonstrated to anyone how that is really the case, beyond their theoretical discussions of the issue.

A Tougher Stance

The Network of Concerned Anthropologists gathered with members of the American Ethnological Society Thursday night to consider these issues — and the repeatedly voiced sentiment was that anthropologists must be willing to cut off certain kinds of ties to the U.S. military. The ethnological society’s board adopted a statement that said that American security forces, in conjunction with the “American security state, have and continue to torture and kill.” For that among other reasons, the society’s board said that anthropologists should “refuse employment, graduate funding and participation in public relations efforts from or by the Pentagon.”

Catherine Lutz, an anthropologist at Brown University, told the group that as she listened earlier in the day to the panel that wrote the ethics report, she had felt “a sense of nausea” at the “utilitarian approach” she said committee members took. Lutz said that the idea seemed to be that as long as anthropologists did their work “sitting in some cubicle,” it didn’t matter what effort they were supporting.

Many audience members said — several times to applause — that the ethics panel should have ruled out all military work, given that the U.S. military engages in actions that kill people. Anthropologists who were present said that the association’s study did not speak for them, and that they intended to push for sanctions against work for military or security agencies — and to rally support against a report they considered inadequate. (In a phone interview late Thursday, Peacock, chair of the committee that produced the report, said that he couldn’t respond to specific comments because he wasn’t at the Thursday night session, but that he wished people had raised their concerns at the earlier meeting. He said that the committee “responded to the charge” it received and that he believed it had done “a thorough job.")

One professor Thursday night said that the main reason scholars work for the military is for the cash, so the association should kick out any members who do so, and refund their dues from the last five years because they are “ruining anthropology.”

Amid calls for blanket prohibitions on working for the military, it fell to Hugh Gusterson, a professor of anthropology and sociology at George Mason University, and one of the organizers of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, to defend even the possibility of ethical work for the military. He said, for example, that he would consider it possible to do ethical work if the Pentagon asked him to study post-traumatic stress disorder.

Much of the discussion Thursday night focused on the Human Terrain System, a military program in which anthropologists have accompanied and assisted the military in dealing with local groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military officials have said that the program allows social scientists to help people in those countries by advising soldiers on the ground. Marshall Sahlins, a professor at the University of Chicago, scoffed at this, and said that all the military was doing was using scholars to “make lethality more effective.”

Sahlins referenced a recent blog item he wrote at Savage Minds in which he compared the logic of “collaborating anthropologists” to a cartoon he once saw, showing “two hooded executioners leaning on their long-handled axes, and one says to the other: ‘The way I see it, if I didn’t do this, some sonovabitch would get the job.’ “

The most unusual part of the discussion was a presentation by Zenia Helbig, a graduate student at the University of Virginia, who Wired Magazine reported Thursday was recruited to the training program for the Human Terrain System, but was suspended because of a joke she made about not wanting to stay involved if the U.S. invades Iran.

Helbig’s message was that the Human Terrain System is poorly run and that the scholars involved aren’t doing spying so much as helping military officers in “nation building” activities for which the military has no training. She argued that it would be better for Iraq if people with knowledge of the region became involved. While her tales of Human Terrain System foolishness were well received, her comments on a positive role for scholars were met with eye-rolling and some dismissive chuckles.

At one point Helbig said that she couldn’t disengage from the military role in Iraq because it includes her fiancé, and she noted that if someone in the military refuses to deploy as ordered, that person would go to jail. At that point, a number of people in the audience shouted that her fiancé should have resisted nonetheless, and at that point, she started to wipe tears from her eyes and face.

Gusterson, the George Mason professor, urged the audience to show Helbig some respect, and said that she “showed courage” in expressing her views before an audience she knew didn’t share her opinions. Gusterson’s comments received applause as well and several of those who subsequently criticized Helbig’s views made a point of praising her for attending the meeting.

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Hmmm, let’s see....refuse to do any work about the military. That means, I guess, we will never learn anything about them by direct observation and we can just make it up to say whatever we want the data to say. Don’t think that sounds like science to me. Blanket proscriptions are, in general, bad policy.

Don Inbody, Adjunct Prof at Concordia University Texas, at 8:30 am EST on November 30, 2007

As a passerby to the discussion, it seems to me that the American Anthropological Association has embarked upon a self-marginalization effort.

justaguy, parent & taxpayer, at 9:40 am EST on November 30, 2007

the issue of vocation

My view of this situation is no doubt influenced by the fact that my sister is a doctor and also a colonel in the Army Medical Reserves. She joined the U.S. Army many years ago, for a variety of reasons, and has been deployed twice in the current war in Iraq. She shares as negative a view of this particular war as anyone likely to post on this site, but has served when called. To be sure, the work she actually does is to aid young people whose lives have been shattered both physically and psychologically, but that is not the point I wish to make here. The point is that she serves in the Army, with all of the sacrifices and responsibilities that entails. She is not an outside contractor.While I might not equate anthropologists working for the military with those working for Blackwell, we should indeed, as anthropologists, ponder the extent to which our social functions, including the military, have come to be outsourced, privatized.

In this instance, anthropologists who wish to serve military purposes, particularly in the current context, should think about whether they ought to be doing so as soldiers (albeit soldiers with an anthropological training), rather than as anthropologists. That way they could keep distinct the missions of these two very different enterprises. From my point of view, this would be a more principled, not to mention honest and courageous, approach.

Judith Shapiro, President at Barnard College, at 10:10 am EST on November 30, 2007

Ethics or Politics

It seems that many Anthropologists are getting their ethics confused with their politics here.

You can be against the war but assisting in helping bring it to a swift conclusion and minimize it’s damage to both sides would be an ethical stance to take.

In fact, it could be argued that not becoming involved and not using your talents to minimize the suffering and loss of life would indeed be unethical.

TA, at 10:25 am EST on November 30, 2007

Are anthropologist needed by the military or anybody?

Considering that the military has the highest acceptance rate or ethics and statute by practically all surveys, I just wonder if the government ought to kick out the anthropologists who agree with kicking out their members who do work for the military. Perhaps a place like Burma or Iraq or Afganistan would be a great place for them to do their anthropology type work. We certainly don’t need these pinheads in America. With that type of attitude, I doubt if they could be objective about anything.

Jim, President at JAC STENN Inc, at 10:45 am EST on November 30, 2007

The association and its members have been at the bottom of this slippery slope before. Consider the case of Gerald Hickey, who was blacklisted because he was employed by the Rand Corporation and published his work on the mountain people of central Vietnam through Rand reports. His studies of the disastrous effects of the war in Vietnam on the mountain people and his defense of them against the pressures of the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments counted for nothing when he returned to the States.

UPD, at 11:15 am EST on November 30, 2007

Judith

Your sister’s service is commendable and brings up an interesting point.

Tomorrow, a soldier will be laid to rest in my hometown. He died on his third tour in Iraq. He was there voluntarily and had been wounded on his second tour but returned anyhow. He disagreed with the war but told his father this summer before returning that he felt obliged to be there becuase he knew that he had the talents both to lead his younger collegues and to help the people of Iraq. He leaves behind a wife and three children under the age of 8.

He knew that someone had to do the job and he believed that it should be him because he had the experience that younger soldiers may not have.

TA, at 11:30 am EST on November 30, 2007

Bravo, Helbig, for making your years of study relevant to international relations. I love a gal with “GRAVITAS". You could just as well have kept yourself segregated in the spirit of self importance ruminating your days away with your own kind.

I wonder if these anthropologists would have any ethical problems with providing assistance to the UN “Peace Keeping” FORCES since it is comprised of military branches from countries all around the world including the most brutal of them all, the U.S.

Denise, capitalist, at 11:30 am EST on November 30, 2007

Hard vs. “soft” science

One of the differences between scientists and the rest of the world (as noted by Stephen Hawking, a reasonably intelligent soul) is that a scientist will propose a hypothesis, then immediately look for reasons to refute it—denying the null hypothesis if you will. The rest of us will propose a hypothesis then look for reasons to defend it—a somewhat futile effort. This seems to be the problem with the antropoligists. They have already formed their hypotheses and don’t even want to look for reasons to refute it. It’s bad science at best, and destructive of the organizations credibility at worst.

How much more benefit would we get if the group simply reported what they observed and let the rest of the world use the information to form our own hypotheses?

Fred Flener, Retired, at 11:50 am EST on November 30, 2007

” .. if I didn’t do this, some sonovabitch would get the job ..”

‘The way I see it, if I didn’t do this, some sonovabitch would get the job.’ “

Truer than you think, sir.

First, in an academic field so grossly over-supplied, 3,000+ new colleges would have to built to meet PhD applicant supply — what are the odds that some starving PhD or ABD would jump at an Army contract? Oh, about 3-to-9.

Second, I’m reminded of my West Point friend at the Syrian border with a tank brigade. He’d had a three-month “crash course” in Arabic.

The major in command said, “Jones, get your butt up here and translate.” He hesitated — “Major, I’m not very good.” The major: “Son, you’re the best we got, right now. Let’s do it.”

The grand, munificent AAA thinks the U.S. military is going to stand by helpless, if AAA doesn’t help defend the freedom that AAA benefits from? Freedoms that were attacked on 9/11/01?

Doubtful. Very doubtful. They’d just do it. And save the taxpayers, the expense.

L.L., at 11:50 am EST on November 30, 2007

responses

Mr. Flener,

You raise a couple of interesting points, but some of them may need to be further analyzed. First of all, the instant topic involves relationships between anthropologists and the military. As such, anthropologists that would work with the military would likely not be engaged in any specific scientific exploration, but rather would be advising officers (or other officers) or interacting with locals. Therefore, they are being retained in their professional capacity rather than to generate original theories. (This is probably similar to the difference between scientists and physicians.)

Secondly, from your post it is unclear whether you are familiar with anthropological methods. Perhaps if you could, say, cite to a fundamental anthropological text and explain to show how their methods differ from that of hard scientists we might be better able to continue the conversation.

Denise, While your comments might have been rhetorical, UN peacekeeping missions would raise the same ethical problems. However, since the scope of such actions is limited, they would likely fit more easily into the proposed ethical framework. You probably need to clarify your use of the terms “gal” and “gravitas.”

Jim, I am unclear how you propose to determine who America needs. For my money, America doesn’t need people without college educations (or that drank in high school), yet few efforts are made to kick out the uneducated people that plague our country. As an academic it is probably not the most congenial of communications to denounce others as “pinheads.” Whatever the case, it seems like there is (and always has been ) a demand for anthologists in the defense and intelligence communities, so your argument is problematic.

Ms. Shapiro, “Professionals” such as doctors and lawyers have historically served in the armed forces. Speaking in terms of lawyers, there are differing attitudes as to whether one is a “lawyer first and a solider second” or the other way around. I personally took the attitude that they were equal, but that didn’t stop the rhetoric. While us lawyers have the benefit of having their ethical rules adopted as laws in the states that we are admitted (and military lawyers can and do follow them) anthropologists have no such luxury. My guess is that because anthropologists are used to not having their rules imbued with the force of law, that they don’t see the reason to square their ethical rules with other sources of law. Perhaps if anthropologists would realize that even in the best of times, the armed forces will have a legitimate need for their expertise, they might be able to articulate what their members should not do.

Larry, at 1:40 pm EST on November 30, 2007

Larry,Thank you for calling me to task on the use of the term “gal". I assure you it was not meant perjoratively; it was a slip of the tongue so to speak. It’s slang for “girl” commonly used amoung the sisterhood as in “...if you want a winner who knows how to take ‘em on, I’m your gal!” But I understand why in this particular venue, slang would not be well received.

As far as the word “gravitas", I wouldn’t think further explanation would be needed. For Zenia Helbig, the University of VA graduate student to share her knowlege with the US military in order to help bring about a strong and peaceful aliance with Iraq is a good thing to do. I’m sure her work is much appreciated all around, even if it isn’t by her colleagues at home.

Coincidently, the use of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces is by no means nominal. Currently there are over 80,000 troops deployed around the world under these umbrella organizations. This is a very costly undertaking, much of it coming from the US government which has troops mainly stationed in Darfur. Good job “guys"...woops!

Denise, capitalist, at 6:20 pm EST on November 30, 2007

QUestions, Anger, and Dissent-

It astounds me that having a relative or friend in Iraq would have any influence on anyone’s ethical decision about anthropologists taking part in government and military efforts in Itaq. I applaud the anthropologists for taking a hard line on their participation in Iraq. Until we all refuse to partake in this kind of evil folly, it will continue.

Kathy Barker, at 6:45 am EST on December 1, 2007

Denise’s comment in part:

” ...military branches from countries all around the world including the most brutal of them all, the U.S.”

...is intriguing since it implies she has successfully measured brutality among all the military branches around the world. Though I estimate her comment to be more a political belief than a scientific conclusion, it does point up a very good reason for anthropologists to carefully separate their individual or group politics from the science they purport to represent. Denise’s comment may provide excellent questions for anthropoligists. Among them a definition for “brutality” as well as an effort to determine if it means the same thing in all cultures. I have some good reasons to believe it is not understood as universally as Denise imagines.

As to the original question, I’m stumped on why researchers would find value in excluding any category of human or cultural behavior from serious study. The ethical dimension of the question is probably difficult for some or many of them. But, claiming their answer to the ethical question generates the exclusion is a bit like being unable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Stanley N Cornett, at 4:45 pm EST on December 1, 2007

I applaud the many sensitive and sensible anthropologists who want to see the AAA become part of the mainstream of international, American, and above all else, Iraqi public opinion in wanting to see no more American occupation of Iraq. Any discipline that lends its support to the service of an invading and occupying state, that is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, issues itself a death sentence.

Maximilian Forte, Prof. at Concordia University, Montreal, at 4:45 pm EST on December 1, 2007

A Comment from Iraq

I’m writing this comment from a FOB in Iraq close to the Iranian border. For the first time in more than a month I had a spare moment to check in with IHE, one of my favorite publications (I’m a mobilized reservist; in my civilian job I am the Director of the Alliance Defense Fund’s Center for Academic Freedom), and I read the story above with great interest.

At least I started to read with interest, then I just became amused. The intensity of the argument seems to be inversely proportional to its objective significance. There is literally nothing this Ethics study will do to impact the course or conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those anthropologists who wish to lend their scholarly expertise to the coalition effort will no doubt still do so (it’s not as if they had any pre-exiting illusions as to the approval of their academic peers), and those who passionately oppose the war will most likely continue to do so. The debate described above seemed less designed to change minds than to provide a platform for those who wished to simply vent.

In the meantime, I’m grateful for those individuals who have chosen to help in any capacity — as anthropologists, as soldiers, as diplomats, even as civilian servers in our dining facilities (good food is essential to morale). By choosing to help, you are actually doing good — which is preferable to the more passive command of “do no harm.”

As for those who believe that people like me are engaged in an actively evil campaign of murder and oppression, I have found that they often make judgments based on bad information — reading their favored sources uncritically and failing to apply the same kind of skeptical scholarly analysis that they (hopefully) apply within their disciplines.

I respect (and defend) their right to dissent, but I do urge greater open-mindedness and respect for the dissenters within their own ranks. Based on the account above, it seems that the Army is model of free speech, internal discourse, and mutual respect — at least as compared to this group of anthropologists.

(This comment should in no way be construed as an official Army statement. It is an expression of my personal views only.)

David French, Captain at United States Army, at 5:50 am EST on December 2, 2007

What good is being done?

A crucial point left entirely out of the discussion so far (though mentioned in the original article) is that we have no conclusive evidence regarding how much “good” might be done by Human Terrain, and as any good anthropologist knows, the information one provides can easily be used in ways contrary to one’s intentions or expectations. Avoiding harm is the standard because “doing good” is even harder to define and harder to ensure.

The only clear thing is that these scientists are helping the US military, and that is very dangerous in a profession whose practitioners rely heavily on the trust of their informants (many of whom already suspect anthropologists of being “CIA").

Jason James, University of Mary Washington, at 10:10 am EST on December 2, 2007

Cpt French: Thank you for your service.

Denise and Stanley: I honestly coldn’t tell if Denise’s tongue was in her cheek when she wrote her comments. But one way to measure brutality is to look at the rules of engagement. So compare the rules of engagement of the US in Iraq with the rules of engagement of Al Qadeda in Iraq, or the rules of engagement of the Russians in Chechnya, or Hamas and Hezbollah in the Mid-East, or the Taliban, or any of the movements the left supports. The US is positively benign.

Dr. Shapiro: I thank your sister for her service. Still, I don’t understand why anthropologists working for the military are any different from anyone else in a learned field working for the military. What about doctors, lawyers, engineers, rocket scientists, etc?

Prof. Forte: The mainstream opinion to which you refer is the view of self-appointed elitists with a bias that prevents from looking at facts objectively. Surely you don’t support Saddam’s or Al Qaeda’s torture houses, or the gassing of the Kurds, or the beheadings. Personally I’m curious about what exactly it was that the Russian Special Forces took from Iraq and trucked into Syria shortly before the war started.

AYY, at 5:40 pm EST on December 2, 2007

I have to admit that my thinking on this has changed. Every time the AAA seem to breathe, it does something it marginalizes itself. Here is how I see it.

Anthropology as a discipline is new. As a profession it is questionable. In some parts of the world it is recognized as a profession (like doctor and lawyer), but in the US, anyone can hold themselves out as an anthropologist. No training or license is required. Heck, I could call myself an anthropologist and charge money for my services. But, one can’t be sued for malpractice, and whatever ethical guidelines the national association has are aspiration, at best.

Anthropologists, however, seem to seek professional recognition, but do not wish to have their practice regulated by the state.

Contrast this with law and medicine. These are old professions. They are pervasively regulated in every state. Doctors and lawyers face professional discipline and can be sued for malpractice.

Doctors and lawyers have long served in the military as doctors and lawyers. They are well-integrated into the chain of command which has acknowledged that we are bound to our professional duties. (So, for instance, a lawyer serving as a judge advocate in Iraq that is admitted to practice in, say, Maine, must follow lawful orders but must be sure and not violate Maine’s Code of Professional Responsibility. On the other hand, there is no dispute that the lawyer is 1) bound to follow lawful orders; and 2) fighting on “our side.”) There is no hint that mere participation in military operations is unethical. At some level, participation in some narrowly-defined activities would be unethical, but an order to undertake them would be unlawful. (But, determining whether a order is lawful is a lot more complicated than saying, “I am against war,” or “I swore to do no harm.”)

This is pretty much how it has been for a long time, especially after the adoption of the UCMJ.

The anthropologists don’t seem to get this. They seem to want to 1) second-guess the decisions to go to war; but 2) demand that their ethical rules be incorporated into “the law” so that any order that goes against them is unlawful. (Never mind that there really isn’t an anthropologist’s command structure.)

So, here is my suggestion. Anthropologists should lobby their state legislatures for regulation as a profession. (They likely would have to pay a tax of some sort.) The military should require that all anthropologists serving as anthropologists comply with the state regulation. The state codes should delineate what activities are forbidden. The UCMJ could be amended to specifically refer to such state codes. (I am not sure if a presidential directive could take the place of a statutory change in this regard, so I am erring on the side of caution.)

Denise, Quite frankly, I think that this gal just wanted the money. But you still have not defined “gravitas” beyond your vague admiration.

AYY, The fact that our enemies do not play by our rules does not mean that our rules have changed. I am open to a discussion about withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions, or repeal of the 8th Amendment. But, let’s have these discussions honestly. Unfortunately, these decisions will be made by “elites” and not “the people” because, for better or worse, in the US, “elites” do run things. If you want to get your way, it is probably a better strategy to be an elite than to complain about them.

LArry, at 8:35 am EST on December 3, 2007

Anthropology is an extremely important discipline and dangerous to most stereotypes. It shouldn’t be taken lightly or for personal aggrandizement (although that never stopped many.) There are ethical scientific issues involved in the HTS. It’s unfortunate that sincere discussions of important issues cannot take place amongst a group of AAA, neither 2007 or 1985. Of all the disciplines, anthropology should know about complex human systems.

justaguy—"As a passerby to the discussion, it seems to me that the American Anthropological Association has embarked upon a self-marginalization effort.”

The AAA has been doing this since at least 1982.

LArry—Anthropology as a natural science goes back over 100 years (one of the founders was a physicist) and I suspect predates medicine as a licensed profession. There are differences, some anthropologists are licensed (forensics, archaeology) but in general, anthropology or physics, isn’t practiced as is medicine or cosmetology.

mpb, at 6:50 am EST on December 4, 2007

Cross cultural knowledge is needed

As a doctor who has worked extensively in cross cultural medicine on two continents, teaching soldiers to understand the culture, especially those who work as liason with the Iraqi’s elected representatives, is indeed important.

It’s too bad that the holier than thou types prefer to show their lack of understanding of different political points of view. Presumably, when confronted with practices such as type three female circumcision, you are supposed to “understand” it makes them feel better (never mind the infections and obstructed labour and lack of sexual pleasure from the surgery). Yet to help soldiers understand locals so they can ferret out suicide bombers is somehow beyond the scope of your understanding.

I point out that Ruth Benedict’s work helped soldiers in the occupation of Japan. So this help is nothing new.

Nancy Ryes, M.D. at Better Country Com.Corp, at 5:25 am EST on December 6, 2007

COLONIALISM IS NOTHING NEW EITHER

Of course Ruth Benedict “helped,” but certainly not by directly engaging Japanese within Japan and violating the ethical codes of her discipline. “Helping” the occupiers certainly has been a feature of anthropology, both British and American—it’s not new, no, and that does not make things better, quite the opposite. That admission, however, is welcome.

What is striking about all of these discussions is the acute absence of any concern with what Iraqis may want. (We already know that the majority of American public opinion wants US forces out of Iraq, and the majority of Iraqi and international public opinion wanted that long before. You should therefore use the term “pin head” advisedly.) What happened to negotiated entry, consultation, establishing rapport? None of that matters, because these HTS-anthropologists and their fanatical militarist supporters have automatically assummed that they are not only right to be in Iraq, but that they have some sort of inalienable right to be in Iraq. Then, with false innocence, or perhaps dulled self-consciousness, they wonder how “imperialism” can possibly apply as an accurate depiction of their position. To hear their absolute silence on the issue of financial remuneration from involvement with HTS, from $200,000 to $400,000, also speaks volumes.

The only “fortunate” thing about this debate, conducted in public, and online, is that it becomes available to people in a whole host of nations that continue to experience what they would describe as neo-colonialism. Seeing anthropologists debate—on both sides—without any attempt to gauge Iraqi views, speaks volumes again. The “fortunate” aspect is that perhaps governments will exercise far more rigid control when it comes to admitting anthropologists into their countries. At present, from what we see in discussions such as this, American anthropologists should certainly be banned from entry in any nation singled out as valuable to American “strategic interests", or any surrounding country for that matter.

Maximilian C. Forte, Prof. at Concordia University, Montreal, at 11:55 am EST on December 6, 2007

People in the real world do not have the luxury of the black and white perceptions that seem to pervade a significant portion of the academic set. Those that want to support the US forces in Iraq are not “fanatical militarists,” “pro-murder thugs,” or any other equally absurd epithet you may want to assign us. Such terms that are so far divorced from reality only serve to reveal one’s own fanaticism.

Any students of international relations reading the literature at the time should have been familiar with the neo-conservative (before that was a dirty word) school of thought. In my opinion the real reason for the invasion was to install a relatively prosperous society loosely based on democratic/free market/secular principles to serve as a counter precedent to Iran in the region. It was and is generally assumed that the autocratic regimes in the region have their days numbered and we did not want the Islamic revolution to be the only model in the region. While that sounds all well and good the assumptions that idea rested upon were in my estimation hopelessly naive. The idea of a quick and relatively bloodless overthrow of a regime and the equally quick and bloodless installation of a new democratic regime always seemed to be a silly and tragically over-simplistic notion.

The fact that the invasion was a mistake is however wholly irrelevant to whether or not we should now stay. By far and away the most likely consequences of us leaving before a stable regime is in place would include ethnic cleansing that would make the violence up to now pale in comparison. That sectarian conflict would also pose the very real danger of sucking regional powers into a larger regional conflict. Iran would almost certainly support the Iraqi Shia and the Arab states would in turn be obligated to support their Sunni brethren. Certainly open conflict between Iran and the Arab states is in neither of their interests, but no one wanted World War I either. The point is that the eventual extent of the conflict cannot be determined with any certainty. Beyond the Shia vs. Sunni issue you also have the Kurds that would almost certainly make a play for Kirkuk which would also involve significant ethnic cleansing. Kirkuk is a matter of Shia and Iranian interest as well. The Turks would also be loathsome to see such a valuable region fall into Kurdish hands. Iran and Turkey may well feel it in their best interests to divide (conquer) Northern Iraq (Kurdistan) between themselves.

Right now it is the American forces that are keeping a lid on this larger conflict. American success in Iraq means Iraqi success and success for the region at large. Facilitating our soldiers’ positive interaction with the Iraqi populace not only makes the larger goal more likely, but in many instances will make the lives of many Iraqis better.

To admonish your peers for helping make a bad situation more tenable for all its participants and in a larger sense helping to bring about an outcome that is much more positive than its alternative for all those involved is in fact doing harm.

John-Michael Davis, at 1:15 pm EST on December 13, 2007

Jobs Related to Questions, Anger and Dissent on Ethics Study

or search for jobs directly.

Assistant Professor of Anthropology
James Madison University

Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job

ANTHROPOLOGY — Associate Faculty Pool
West Valley/Mission Community College District

WEST VALLEY-MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACADEMIC PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ANTHROPOLOGY — Associate Faculty ... see job

Department Head and Professor — Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice
Valdosta State University

Valdosta State University where tradition and tomorrow come together. see job

Assistant Professor South Asian Religions
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

The program in Religious Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee seeks a tenure-track Assistant Professor in South ... see job

Assistant Professor of Anthropology
Southwestern University

The Department of Sociology and Anthropology invites applications for a tenure-track Assistant Professor of Cultural ... see job

Archaeology — Tenure Track Faculty Position
Humboldt State University

FULL-TIME, TENURE TRACK POSITION STARTING AUGUST 2009 JOB # 7424 Area of Instruction: Archaeology Rank and Salary: The ... see job

Cultural Geography
Bard College

The Programs in Anthropology, and Environmental and Urban Studies at Bard College invite applications for a full-time ... see job

Faculty Research Fellow
Stanford University

Stanford University gender and STEM Research Fellowships for tenured and tenure-track faculty for 2009-10. Stipend up to ... see job

Full-Time Faculty — Fall 2009
College of DuPage

We have some excellent career opportunities for you to lead our students, our organization and our community into a future of ... see job

Assistant Professor of Archaeology
Sweet Briar College

Sweet Briar College invites applications for a one-semester replacement at the assistant professor level in archaeology for ... see job

Questions, Anger and Dissent on Ethics Study

Related stories