The problem with this kind of thinking, in my view, is that it ignores some key factors. I understand that to be an anthropologist one has to take a very detached, objective viewpoint. But you have to recognize that this is a fantasy. Certainly it is a necessary fantasy, an instrument which allows for better research. But in reality, you are a person who is a citizen (I’m making an assumption for argumentative purposes here) of the United States. You have the blessing of protection provided to you by the United States military, FBI, local police, etc, along with all the other blessings you receive living here. So it seems to me that finding a balance between the duties of a anthropologist and the duties of a citizen come into conflict. I suppose individuals will be forced to figure out this situation for themselves, but I think it is self-righteous and wrong to condemn anthropologists who choose to work with the military, in the same way that it would be wrong to say that anthropologists who make a different choice are bad citizens.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticize particular policies in the War on Terror, don’t get my wrong, but the idea that it’s imaginary, that it’s merely a rhetorical device, and the extensive use of the “” key whenever you refer to it betrays a certain lack of seriousness and honesty. There are certain key facts that you are ignoring. First, there is a global Islamist movement, which has an ideology every bit as cruel and hateful as fascism. Second, many people in this movement see killing certain people, ie. Westerners, as an end in and of itself. These people have a long-term goal, the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Now it doesn’t take a geo-political whiz to see that this goal is extremely unlikely, and that the US has overwhelming dominance in terms of economic and military power. Perhaps this is where your skepticism comes from. But I don’t think we are really as concerned about these people actually achieving their goals as we are about how many people they kill in the attempt. It is so easy when you are not responsible for the security of others to sit back and criticize, but it is a fact of life that a terrorist could set off a nuclear weapon in Washington DC tomorrow. Hopefully something like this will never happen, but if you want to be a serious person when you discuss issues like terrorism, you have to appreciate the nature of the threat.

at their best, there is gentleness in Humanity.
some understanding and, at times, acts of
courage

but all in all it is a mass, a glob that doesn’t
have too much.

it is like a large animal deep in sleep and
almost nothing can awaken it.
when activated it’s best at brutality,
selfishness, unjust judgments, murder.

what can we do with it, this Humanity?

nothing.

avoid the thing as much as possible.
treat it as you would anything poisonous, vicious
and mindless.

but be careful. it has enacted laws to protect
itself from you.
it can kill you without cause.
and to escape it you must be subtle.

few escape.

it’s up to you to figure a plan.

I have met nobody who has escaped.
I have met some of the great and
famous but they have not escaped
for they are only great and famous within
Humanity.

I have not escaped

but I have not failed in trying again and
again.

Thanks for your intervention. To Sam I willingly admit that the analogy I was drawing was a far from perfect one. It emerged from a complex of feelings that are still far from clear but include at least the following threads.

1. As anthropologists we work with human beings,who are not always the world’s nicest people. That includes our our informants as well as our colleagues. Our professional praxis demands, however, that we reserve judgment and carefully consider the context as well what they themselves have to say before condemning their behavior. What I call “knee-jerk” responses seem to me to violate this principle.

2. The work we do requires the cooperation of people who allow us to share their lives. Taking care to do no harm is, however, basic human decency, a proper response to their gift to us—regardless of whether or not our research is anthropology.

3.How far to take this principle can, however, be a complex issue. At a recent conference in Taiwan, I talked about Luke Eric Lassiter’s Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography. On first reading, Lassiter’s suggestion that we not only show people what we write about them but also show them what we write in advance, involving them in decisions about what gets published sounds very nice. Imagine, however, that the collaborators in question are executives running corporations and that for everything we write we have to have clearance from their PR departments. Now that nice principle doesn’t look nice at all; it looks like selling out. Suppose our topic is white-collar crime and our research reveals that our collaborators have been engaging in illegal (and from our perspective flagrantly immoral) acts. Going public may sent them to jail. Should we on that account whitewash our conclusions?

4. Finally, as someone with a daughter and son-in-law who are active duty military, if I thought for a moment that anthropological knowledge would shorten the war in which we are now (quite illegally and immorally in my view) engaged, getting them out of harm’s way and saving Iraqi lives as well, I would offer it without a qualm.

5. I recall the words of a friend whose wisdom I respect who once remarked in an e-mail message that moral choices are never clear-cut. If they are, in fact, clear-cut, there is no choice to be made.

John

I just found this site the other day. I have been reading through the links this evening, not done yet though. Trying to catch up and see what this site is all about.

That’s why I have some issues with the main topic of the original post here. Is THAT what anthropology is really for???

Have you read the previous SM posts on the topic? (Linked above.)

I would still like Doctor McCreery to identify who the anthropologist and the CIA in his parable are. Which one is the father, the child sold into prostitution, or the motorcycle?

I don’t think that McCreery meant for that to be some perfect analogy in the way that you’re seeming to understand it or want to use it.

Claiming that anthropologists are only to observe without involvement or responsibilities is insane, to pretend that anthropologists working for CIA are not responsible for what is done with their work or the wars being waged is likewise insane. Like I said, I think the site has been taken over by a few pro-CIA nuts.

I still agree with the basic contention that you are making here, even though I’m not quite sure where the whole CIA aspect came from.

I do agree with the idea of anthropology being used as some kind of conflict resolution device, but I DO NOT agree with the idea of using anthropology to win wars, put down insurgencies, etc. Kind of like when the Brits used Evans Pritchard’s work to find ways to control the Nuer. That’s why they were so interested in his studies of political and social organization. That’s why I have some issues with the main topic of the original post here. Is THAT what anthropology is really for???

Agreed. Big difference between empathy and sympathy. It’s an important difference for people to understand, I think. And I know exactly what you mean when you talk about Conservative thinkers who conflate the two meanings, and who even go so far as condemning people like anthropologists and others who are trying to gain a greater understanding of issues like the war in Iraq. Man, do I get tired of that line of reasoning. They claim that anthros, or journalists, or whomever, MUST be sympathetic to the so-called enemy when they try to gain a better understanding of the particulars.

Objectivity: yep, we were thinking of the word in different terms. No wonder I was a little confused by what you wrote. Now I see what you were saying.

I think it is paradoxical in that you talk about objectivity both as something to “give up” and also to “strive for”, but to be fair it is a complicated issue.

Ya, that’s pretty paradoxical…but what can I say? The idea of objectivity or impartiality in anthropology, to me, is somewhat akin to a religious or moral code that is desirable, and honorable, but almost completely impossible. It’s nice to strive for, but also good to be somewhat pragmatic and realize that “pure” objectivity is about as attainable as they fountain of youth. Haha.

Put me in some ethnographic situation and tell me to remain objective. I’ll try, but the minute my informants start telling me they’re selling their daughters into sexual slavery or participating in guerilla attacks…well…my objectivity goes out the freaking door. At that point, no matter what I tell myself, I’m a participant. I then make choices about the information that I have been given. Bingo. Pretending or stating that you’re apolitical and impartial doesn’t mean that it’s a reality. Anthropologists, in my opinion, don’t somehow exist OUTSIDE of social situations, even if they think they do or say they do.

I agree with you that anthropologists should maybe be writing more as themselves than as anthros per se. There is something to that. Maybe it’s because the goals of the discipline are somewhat murky and undefined at times. What is anthropology for? People ask that a lot. I do. But you’re right, it’s not like most political scientists go around making proclamations in the name of political science.

Also, was the pro-NRA thing a clever joke, because I don’t get it.

Anyways, yes I agree completely that there is a difference between understanding (I would have used the word empathy) and sympathy. I think that is exactly what is wrong with a bunch of the posts in this thread: they confuse the two, in a sense willfully refusing to understand because that would require sympathizing. As I tried to say above, I find this to be the conservative thinking of the Right (which is ironic). Phil’s post is not ipso facto “pro-CIA” (whatever meaning), it is just intellectual generosity. I didn’t read enough of this to know how much it is justified, though my feeling is that Phil is a bit more nuanced than some of the others.

Re: objectivity. I think this is the result of my confusion over what you meant by objective. I was thinking more along the lines of “independent of the observer” while I think you meant something more like “unprejudiced or impartial”. I think it is paradoxical in that you talk about objectivity both as something to “give up” and also to “strive for”, but to be fair it is a complicated issue.

On a related note, what I find interesting, and I am unhappy writing it this way but anyways, is the way discourse within the anthropology works to construct an identity or even brand. Or, why is it it a question of “anthropology” re: the friend who gives up his daughter to prostitution vis-a-vis your responsibility as an individual to speak out etc? I sometimes feel like anthropologists, when acting as advocates or activists, should be writing more as themselves or more as people rather than “anthropologist” as a category. It may just be my feeling, but this seems to be a (relative) difference from other social sciences, like economics or political science, the need to re-affirm the disciplinary self. I think this also relates to the somewhat problematic concept of “public anthropology”, if you know what I mean. But anyways, that is kind of on a tangent.

I would still like Doctor McCreery to identify who the anthropologist and the CIA in his parable are. Which one is the father, the child sold into prostitution, or the motorcycle?

Claiming that anthropologists are only to observe without involvement or responsibilities is insane, to pretend that anthropologists working for CIA are not responsible for what is done with their work or the wars being waged is likewise insane. Like I said, I think the site has been taken over by a few pro-CIA nuts.

I do think that Sam’s use of the term “pro-CIA” comes from left field somewhat. I don’t think it’s the best wording, but I think Sam is asking a question about the role of anthropologists in a war effort. It’s a good question to be asking, I think.

Your substitution of the term “pro-abortion” illustrates pretty well the problems with Sam’s terminology/phrasing.

I think the prostitution example is somewhat easy to condemn, but a more polarized example might be terrorism. Trying to understand the motives of suicide bombers… is that “equivocation”? This is what I have been told, but not by “activist anthropologists”. Maybe for Ryan it is, I don’t know.

I don’t think that trying to understand motives is equivocation. I mean, that’s why I sit around reading all these damn books about Middle Eastern history, politics, etc. I want to understand why things are they way they are, at least as best as I can from here in California. But trying to understand it is entirely different from feeling that it is justified, right, noble, or something that’s acceptable. Understanding the particulars of some dictator’s actions is very different from sympathizing with him.

I happen to think this “pick a side, with us or against us” form of rhetoric is the American phenomena that lead to the invasion of Iraq, and the so-called “War on Terrorism” in the first place.

I agree with you 100% there. And you’ve got me pegged all wrong if you think I’m someone whose going around saying anything along those lines.

You don’t have to be a complete moral relativist to accept the fact that sometimes a looking at the context is worthwhile. At least, I didn’t think so anyways.

I agree with you again, even if that seems to go against what I wrote above. Of course contexts and situations and particulars matter. Definitely. But at some point, I think, anthropologists should be able to admit that something might be either acceptable or unacceptable. I mean, if no conclusions are made, EVER, then what’s the point of anthropology? Is it wrong for an anthropologist to proclaim that the actions of Saddam Hussein were deplorable? Does that go agains the grain of the discipline?

Also, I find the (ab)use of a scare-quoted “objectivity” troubling, since it is clear that Ryan is the one that is advocating objectivity (against subjectivity) here.

Hmmm. I’m not sure about that. Did I say that? I have my doubts about the ability of humans to remain completely objective. It’s an ideal, and something to strive for, but I’m not sure if it’s ever attained in the real world. People might SAY they’re able to be objective, but I remain pretty skeptical. We’re humans, not machines that go around recording and observing life without getting involved in some way. That’s what I think.

Also, I find the (ab)use of a scare-quoted “objectivity” troubling, since it is clear that Ryan is the one that is advocating objectivity (against subjectivity) here. Further, you can agree with the statement “at some point, shouldn’t clear judgements be declared?”, without agreeing that either 1) anthropologists should be the ones making those judgements 2) those judgements are even possible based solely on the third-hand, one-sentence account given on savageminds.

I wonder how you would respond if you found yourself in Larry Crissman’s situation in central Taiwan, circa 1968. “Culture shock,” Larry told me, “that’s finding that your best friend and most important informant has just sold his daughter into prostitution to buy a motorcycle.” Would you say that trying to understand your informant’s behavior made you pro-prostitution?

I would probably give up on the super human anthropological ideal of “objectivity” and give my informant a healthy dose of my opinion, for what it was worth. But that’s just me. I know that anthropology has a long history of pretending to be non-judgmental, however.

Do we really need to conduct 10 years of research to figure out that selling one’s daughter into prostitution in exchange for automotive freedom IS A BAD THING? At the very least, it’s probably not a good indication, right?

Would a Marxist analysis of the socio-economic situation in the man’s country, intermixed with a critical understanding of identity formation in his village, really change the fact that the dude sold his daughter to get a used Yamaha so he could get to the local factory to make cheap goods for export? What would that study actually accomplish? Would it help the man or the daughter? Or would it just be sold in book form to cultural anthropology students as an another example of economic and social “complexities”???

At some point, shouldn’t clear judgments be declared?

I do not think that trying to understand the behavior makes the anthropologists complicit, but then, objectively taking ethnographic “field notes” while this happens right in front of your eyes, well, that isn’t exactly stopping the activity is it?

So the main question here is whether anthropology is supposed to have any kind of activist component, or whether it should stick to the idealistic objective and non-intrusive approach.