There is a bridge that many people cross every day. A civil engineer seeks to strengthen the bridge so that it can accommodate more traffic and thus be even more of a public benefit. A saboteur seeks to weaken the bridge’s supports so that the bridge will collapse when it is full of people, thus maximizing human misery. Both are engineers. They understand the tensile strength of the material of which the bridge is composed. They use the same calculations to determine which sections of the bridge ought to be reinforced or weakened. Perhaps they even attended the same technical institute.
The question is, can we determine, based on the tensile strength of wood or other principles that lie at engineering’s ‘core’, which one of them is doing the right thing?
It might be very interesting to see why each one is motivated to build or destroy, but aren’t these elective affinities peripheral to the actual act of engineering itself? Would we grade down a perfectly correct analysis of the bridge because our students chose to research how to blow it up instead of strengthen it?
I’m not altogether sure if the analogy bears scrutiny. An engineer adds elements to reinforce a structure; a saboteur removes them to weaken it. They work under different assumptions and guidelines. Sure, each does his work best if he has an accurate model of the bridge’s physical properties, but anthropology and engineering are more than simple description; rather, I think they are ways of acting upon that data.
The saboteur and engineer both work under the exact same asusmptions about the bridge’s physical properties! It’s just why they care about that bridge’s physical properties are different — they have different values that lead to a similar interest. What do you mean when you say ‘engineers and anthropologists act on data’?
I stand by my statement that, while physical description of the bridge is an important prerequisite to swift completion of the engineer’s and the saboteur’s appointed roles, the work they perform upon that data is entirely different. By which all I mean to say being merely that this analogy throws no new light on the conundrum at hand and instead gets lost in incomplete parallels.
I’m ambivalent about the analogy. On one hand, I agree that the same thing (eg. a bridge, the human mind, a social structure) can be analysed and acted upon by various individuals with different motives that are informed by values and assumptions.
On the other hand, while a bridge is . .well . . a bridge in a very concrete way, social and cultural elements are not necessarily as tangible. The anthropologist is not just learning about an unchanging and concrete thing when s/he is learning about a social phenomenon. S/he is interpreting it *as* s/he is observing it and learning about it so that the very entity that s/he presents as “fact” or “reality” is already affected by her assumptions.
So the two people who share a common understanding of the structure of the bridge can do so because the bridge was constructed according to a set of parameters that are easily quantifiable. Social structures don’t work that way. Two people trying to understand the same social structure will understand it differently because of their assumptions.
I agree with Nancy, but have to add that, if one of my students wrote a paper advocating blowing up a group of people whose ethnography we had discussed in class (and it’s happened, once), I’d be very concerned… (and I was, once — though the student came around once we’d spent more time on the ethnography). I think that the first principle in the AAAs Code of Ethics really prohibits research with the intent of blowing people up.
I might also add (and what the heck, I guess I am) that disagreeing about what “the right thing” might be in a given instant is precisely what I’m referring to as the moral process — as anthropologists, we do not have the engineer’s luxury of working with materials that it would be ethical to destroy — or that don’t talk back, that don’t read our material, that don’t lobby Congress or the UN, that don’t get pissed off and debate throwing us physically off the Mesa, etc. Thus I don’t think it’s that easy for us to divorce our work from the morality of our work. (For that matter, I don’t think it’s that easy for either the anthropologist or the engineer to do so in practice, though they might have a little more room between themselves and their subjects to insert rationalizations of various sorts.)
See this is interesting. Wimbrel says the analogy is incomplete and therefore misses the point. But I think the analogy is productive _because_ engineering and anthropology are different. What is it about anthropology that makes (some) of us feel it has moral implications in a way that the tensile strength of wood doesn’t?
And we have at least three different answers: on the one hand Nancy is making an argument that culture is ‘intangible’ and elusive in some way that physical objects aren’t (it isn’t ‘easily quantifiable’). On the other, she seems to be making a methodological point: human action is meangingful and we must interpret it’s meaning, whereas bridges just sort of sit there. Finally Oneman suggests it’s not so much the fact that human action requires interpretation so much that our research subjects have rights which physical objects do not.
I wouldn’t argue that it’s _easy_ to separate our sense of what is right and wrong from our sense of what is good and bad anthropology — I’m just saying they are two different (and connected) things.
My guess is that we have some sort of feedback model here — answers to ethical questions rely on implicit models of what humans are like (‘theories of the good’, ‘philosophical anthropology’ and so forth). As we learn more about them we end up revising our ethics. This is different from the bridge because learning more about bridges will never touch on the wider issues that drive the passions and programs that the saboteur and the engineer pursue. Or…?
Although I do like the analogy between engineering and anthropology, I wonder if we have moved away from some of the more “intangible” meanings associated with bridges.
Rex, I am not sure if this was your initial intention, but I though you were hinting at the role of bridges as making connections between different things and allowing for exchange. Is that so?
I liked the image you conjured up of bridges allowing for a commerce of ideas, things, and people across separated lands. Sometimes this commerce is booming and people move across it freely. Maybe on another day, though, this bridge can make a little cultural difference stand out that much more: that woman talks funny, that man’s hat is all wrong, that dog stinks.
So some think this commerce is good, some think its bad, and some just live with it. This, I think is where the “morality” issue comes in.
And perhaps bridge engineering is not only about the physical integrity of the structure.
So many good students of architecture have discussed how physical structures create social spaces. And I think bridges, too, do that.
Do we put train tracks over it? Fiber-optic cables? Will it be a symbol of a culture based on cars, as is the Golden Gate Bridge? Or allows for standing in the middle and chatting, as was Pont Neuf in Paris? Will it be a symbol of imperialism, as was the Bridge over River Kwai? Or, as I think anthropology should be, a bridge for peace?
Exactly. Damage to the bridge might involve wholly different lines of thought from strengthening the bridge. The idea of the “bridge” itself has multiple social meanings. And how exactly does one decide what will produce maximal human misery? Is it worse if the bridge collapses and causes loss of life or if the bridge stands and lets an enemy army cross the river? Is the bridge strengthened by physical supports or improving road access to it?
Supposing the bridge in this analogy stands for human society, destroying and rebuilding take approaches as different as those taken by anthropology and economics. Both disciplines study patterns of action in human societies, but with very different skews and different applications.
There are two analogies here: comparing doing something to a bridge and doing something with societies, and comparing constructing and destroying. The first analogy (and the moral discussions) are one thing, but as to construction and destruction they are hardly comparable purely on a knowledge basis. It takes much much much more skill and resources to construct the bridge than it does to destroy it. For all your points of comparison, the constructor needs to be much more adept than the destructor to be successful.
“It takes much much much more skill and resources to construct the bridge than it does to destroy it. For all your points of comparison, the constructor needs to be much more adept than the destructor to be successful.”
That’s a good point. Interestingly, in both cases, it seems to be those who destroy bridges/warp information that get the most attention. More later.
Rex said: I wouldn’t argue that it’s easy to separate our sense of what is right and wrong from our sense of what is good and bad anthropology—I’m just saying they are two different (and connected) things.
There still is a significant difference in the understanding of ´morality` within this topic.
Look. You have mentioned ´perfectly correct` analysis.
Allthough not made explicit, this is related to certain paradigms and a catalogue of criteria upon which you draw distinction between ´correct` and ´uncorrect` analysis or ´good` and ´bad` anthropology.
Why not just have a try and follow oneman`s invitation to make our current paradigms and methodological catalogues explicit?
Then, in a second step, connected to concreta (detail), there might be a more substantial basis to analyse the relatedness of anthropology`s implicit morality(questionmarked) to what ´our sense` considers ´right` and ´wrong`.
Standard preface: I’m not an anthro type, please excuse my lack of knowledge about the specifics of the subject, I just find these discussions interesting.
Now, the study of a discipline is the study of how to do something. A particular subject is organized around a group of facts or theories that are relevant because of what they enable a knowledgeable person to do. The ends to which the knowledge is to be put are what organizes the body of knowledge whether implicitly or explicitly.
Almost all sciences, social or otherwise are implicitly geared towards the betterment of society, or particular groups within. Engineering is no exception. The study of engineering usually focuses on construction or controlled destruction for constructive purposes. In modern civil engineering safety is of the utmost importance and there are strict codes and regulations that an engineer is expected to follow (regionally/culturally varying of course!) In a certain sense, there is a ‘moral core’ to engineering: the implicit expectation that you will use your knowledge constructively.
However, consider military engineers, who use their knowledge to enable others to maim and kill other humans. Presumably, their political beliefs motivate them to believe that this is also ultimately, a constructive activity. It is left to the individual to evaluate the moral aspects of their actions: engineering itself takes no stance.
Now, consider anthropology. There is a difference between anthropology and engineering that needs to be pointed out. The aim of the study of engineering is to inform the student about physical concepts so they they might design/build or, as the case may be, destroy something. The most basic aim of the study of anthropology is the inform the student about humans and anthropological methods so that they may use this knowledge to learn more about humans. Much of the debate within anthropology is about exactly what there is to be known about humans and how one should go about learning about them. There is also a great spectrum of ideas about what one should do with one’s knowledge and this is what gives anthropology it’s very own moral ambiguity.
This needs to remain a topic of discussion. There are a few disciplines with a built in moral core (see Hippocratic Oath,) a few that seem to be mostly agnostic to morality, and some, such as anthropology, that are very much in the grey area. I doubt very much that anthropology will ever take on a coherent moral core, but I do believe that much good can come of the discussion about it.
As to the grading of papers, it doesn’t seem to be a realistic issue. It would seem to me that assignments would tend to be either of the “analyze this bridge” sort or the “analyze this bridge with regards to how to fortify/destroy it” sort. If the assignment is the latter, then there is a clear means to distinguish when the student has done wrong, if it is the former then the student’s concern for the bridge’s fate is irrelevant to the assignment. A paper filled with Wile E. Coyote style diagrams of where to put dynamite, while certainly disconcerting, would detract from the student’s grade only because of it’s irrelevance.
The subtlety with which ethical concerns are woven into anthropology make grading anthro papers a much more complex subject, particularly if the student disagrees with you.
You have mentioned ´perfectly correct` analysis. Allthough not made explicit, this is related to certain paradigms and a catalogue of criteria upon which you draw distinction between ´correct` and ´uncorrect` analysis or ´good` and ´bad` anthropology.
Perhaps if Oneman were actually to provide us with a description of anthropology’s moral core we would move ahead on this. We’re all waiting.
Of course I rely on criteria when judging something. But that doesn’t make something moral. Perhaps our confusion lies in the fact that I don’t consider a formal rule ‘moral’. If asked to count from 1 to 10 and I said “1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10” I would say that was perfectly correct. If I said “1 2 3 6 5 8 3 10” I would say that was wrong. But these are criteria, and while morals often rely on criteria, not all criteria are moral. This is a purely formal rule which does not itself guide us in our determination of how what ultimate ends we ought to value in life, and that is what I mean my moral.
Perhaps you think the commandments “do not kill” and “all of the nails we manufacture in this factory should be three inches long” are both ‘moral’ in that they both imply a judging of things in the world according to rules, and morality is simply the application of rules to a situation. If so I disagree. I think murder is immoral in a way that a two inch nail is not.
“..it seems to be those who destroy bridges/warp information that get the most attention.”
This somewhat is true, see reception of Descartes.
And yes, theres sensation in deconstruction.
“..Perhaps if Oneman were actually to provide us with a description of anthropology’s moral core we would move ahead on this. We’re all waiting..”
He obviously has no data at hand, a scent instead, otherways he d use the data for his argument.
Let´s have a look on what you are waiting for,
a “describtion of anthropology`s moral core”.
Switch your focus to the question of anthropologists` moral core and the thing gets less imposant.
You won`t disagree there s a relation between the two terms anthropologist and anthropology, will you?
So, if not wasting time at linguistic reflections on those,
-> how is this relation represented in practice,
this is what oneman wants to make us think about.
(Please correct me if wrong.)
Let´s leave this theoretical base.
Some time ago, in Europe, especially France and Germany (I had read that time only swiss and german media) the wearing of scarfes for women had been forbidden in education (schools, currently I m not informed about universities) and other public office spaces.
I d be interested in your opinion on the “kopftuch case”.
I stumbled upon Suisse obviously does not need to forbid scarfes.
Now is this a reduction of individual rights?
One perspective on this I gained asking Ayla, my germanturkish/turkishgerman haircutter, who articulated heavy support to this change of laws in Europe, because she connected certain islamistic/muslim practice as the wearing of scarfes with patriarchism and islamistic fundamentalism.
My first place reaction to this change of laws instead has been connected to the protests I noticed taking place last year in France by muslim girls.