If you think it could possibly improve their situation, then you will believe that the program is justified. If you believe that it will make the situation worse then you will oppose HTS. And if you think that HTS will have no effect at all (the Ecclesiastes argument) then other factors will decide your position, such as whether or not you believe participation will negatively effect how other anthropologists are received in the field, or even your politics.

We need to prioritize our concerns.

These are good questions, and a place to start pursuing them might be

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/OriginUniversities.html

I wonder, however, if it mightn’t be more pertinent to ask, What have universities become?

Lest that question seem too cryptic, what I have in mind are the implications of the huge, post-WWII expansion of tertiary education that transformed higher education from the prerogative of a small elite into a mass-produced commodity.

Yeah, the anthropologist associated with HTS are indeed very eager to be down to earth, which in this case unfortunately is an occupied land. I even worry that people here will miss the point by asking too much if these folks care about ethical issues. They have taken a political stand and given their informed consent of cooperation to the military. So even if they tell their full names, do not wear uniforms and get meaningful informed consent from the locals, they are still there to help occupation, just a smoother one, a more successful one. Who need anthropologists to go native if military operations can do all the job? And of course the government and army don’t hire anthropologists to challenge their interest, beliefs and policies. They have heard enough challenges.

Don’t want to blame these anthropologists too much either. Think about how many U.S. citizens actually still support the invasion. It should not be a surprise.

This has led to anthropology rolling around in its own guilt for many years which has led to it seeing itself more as a moral guardian of something than an academic discipline. If anything it is this sense of moral ownership that gives the image of the Ivory Tower, not the fact that it is a academic discipline. If you compare other social sciences they seem to have a greater influence is other areas of life, for example sociology and psychology (this does not mean that they offer more than anthropology).

I attended a conference in London at SOAS on the future of medical anthropology. I asked the question why medical anthropology does not do more work along side commercial medical companies – such as looking at diabetes and the use of insulin pens for example. A Professor on the panel replied by saying that the the US army were recruting anthropologists. The fact that he confused my question with the threat of anthropologists working for the military illustrates the point that anything outside the self made moral boundary of the academy threatens to expose the guilt amongst many anthropologists who perch on the tower. Constructive discussion about anthropology, diabetes and the commercial world is one thing, linking diabetes to the US Army is abstract to say the least.

“Dwelling in the Pagoda of the Elephants Tooth” has Indiana Jones street cred je ne sais quoi like a muthafucka.

One aspect of this ‘real world’ vs ‘ivory tower’ dichotomy that always boggles me is the hallucinatory quality of people’s imagination of what I and my colleagues do all day. Today I did the laundry. Tonight I will grade some papers, and all with little to no squealing on anyone’s part.

Yet somehow — I think it has to do with people’s histories as undergraduates — we academics are held responsible for other people’s fantasies of our lifestyle. Someone may be responsible for perpetuating these stereotypes, but it certainly isn’t me. That said, I’m pretty sure I’m atypical for a professor in many ways.

First, anthropology is not being singled out; the popular media resorts to the tired ivory tower cliche almost any time it talks about academics and academia (apart from the applied sciences, of course…). It is a feature of US discourse, not to mention anti-intellectualism, which we must work to change, and not just because it drives us up the wall.

Most of use recognize that anthropologists are quite willing to get their hands dirty in the “real” world to effect positive change… as long as those things won’t draw the attention of anthropology’s vigilant (and vindictive) ethics police. And in the current climate, the US military is POLLUTION, and all such collaborators are marked, “Leper! Outcast! Unclean!”