In a recent blog post, Max Forte dissected the Human Terrain System’s (HTS) Top Misconceptions page. Now, in general, I have not been very kind about most of the attacks on the HTS and Max’s post is definitely an attack. It is, however, qualitatively different, in my opinion, from the majority of other attacks for one simple reason: Max is trying to actually look at the record of the HTS, at least the publicly available one, and use that record as the basis for his critique. This is not to say that I believe he is neutral in his examination - he isn’t, as his choice to use such terms as “imperialist”, “occupation”, “US aggression” shows. Moreover, he is quite open about his political stance:
As one critic, it has been my contention that social scientists should not play a supporting role of any kind, in any sphere, of the military or in the direct and avoidable service of an imperial state.
Kudos, then, Max for being right up front about your beliefs and biases. I can certainly respect someone for taking a position even if I disagree with their stance and conclusions.
First off, let me say that I welcome Max’s post because it is one of the few that has appeared that attempts to actually analyze what is happening with the HTS in the broader context of Anthropological engagement with the military. Possibly more important, throughout his post he attempts to examine what is actually happening vs. what might be happening, and relate these, at least partially, to the AAA Code of Ethics (html, PDF - the 1998 version). This is a welcome beginning to a debate on how ethics in application should be examined.
Second, let me further say that I still find a disquieting amount of rhetoric in his post; rhetoric that is at best of tertiary consideration and at worst irrelevant to the broader debate about ethical engagement. For example, whether or not US forces have used cluster munitions or individual soldiers have committed war crimes is irrelevant the debate on the ethics of the HTS - members of the HTS have not done so, although I will freely admit that the HTS opened the door on this in the Misconceptions page.
I’m not going to engage in a point by point argument with Max. Rather, I want to use some of the framework his post starts to build to expand upon ways in which we (Anthropologists) can start to develop a framework for analyzing actions as “ethical”.
Frameworks vs. specifics
The AAA Code of ethics starts with a very interesting base framework
In both proposing and carrying out research, anthropological researchers must be open about the purpose(s), potential impacts, and source(s) of support for research projects with funders, colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and with relevant parties affected by the research. Researchers must expect to utilize the results of their work in an appropriate fashion and disseminate the results through appropriate and timely activities. Research fulfilling these expectations is ethical, regardless of the source of funding (public or private) or purpose (i.e., “applied,” “basic,” “pure,” or “proprietary”).
While simple, this provides a very basic guideline for a definition of ethical research and breaks down into two areas or sets of questions.
The first is a simple matrix that looks something like this
Purpose | Potential Impact | Source(s) of support
Funders 0 | 0 | 0
Colleagues 0 | 0 | 0
Persons studied 0 | 0 | 0
Relevant parties 0 | 0 |0
The second is another series of checkmarks:
- utilize the results of their work in an appropriate fashion
- disseminate the results through appropriate and timely activities
According to the AAA Code, “Research fulfilling these expectations is ethical, regardless of the source of funding (public or private) or purpose (i.e., “applied,” “basic,” “pure,” or “proprietary”).” Now, that appears to be a very simple definition and checklist. The Devil, to use an old saw, is in the details, and some of them are absolutely crucial.
Open ended criteria
There are two crucial terms in the matrix that are de facto open ended (i.e. either infinite or finite but huge) namely “potential impact” and “relevant parties”. “The potential impact” of any action, including inaction, includes any effect that might happen as a result of the research at any point in time following the research. In a similar manner, “relevant parties” could, potentially, include every human alive today and every one who will be born in the future. Obviously, anyone who took such an interpretation could not do any research (and I actually know of one ex-graduate student who had a nervous breakdown over this). Indeed, such as stance would create the totally untenable position where both research and not conducting research would both lead to unethical action (remember, inaction is a form of action). Clearly, then, “potential impact” and “relevant parties” are not absolutes but, rather, probabilistic and relativistic statements.
The question, then, becomes where one draws the line in terms of what a potential impact might be and who is a relevant party. These “lines”, obviously, are “fluid” and have shifted over time although we still see artifacts (in the sense of the term used by Frazer) appearing in the current ethics debates - the injunction against “spying” being the best know example. Boas, who is the main foundational figure in this position, stated (the Nation, November 20th, 1919 available here) it as
A person, however, who uses science as a cover for political spying, who demeans himself to pose before a foreign government as an investigator and asks for assistance in his alleged researches in order to carry on, under this cloak, his political machinations, prostitutes science in an unpardonable way and forfeits the right to be classed as a scientist.
It is interesting to note that while the topic of this was “political spying”, the actual context was prostituting science in order to carry on “political machinations” while using science as a “cover” to gain assistance - a position partially maintained by the current open disclosure of purpose. I should also note that in the current ethics debates, there is no injunction not to use “science” (Anthropology) for advocacy purposes.
Debating where to draw the line
While the “potential impacts” of any research are open ended, it is useful to make a distinction between the context of the research, i.e. that which is regardless of whether or not any research is conducted, and the possible effects of the research. To me, this seems to be an obvious consideration but, apparently, for many it is not.
If we look at the HTS and where they are operating (Iraq and Afghanistan), the context might be termed as either as “security force assistance” or as an “occupation” depending on whether or not the person describing the context accepts or does not accept the legitimacy of the Maliki and Karzai governments (both governments have “requested” such “assistance”). The actual, on the ground lived-reality of parts of each country is that it is a “war zone”, in the loose sense of the term to include counter-insurgency operations. Citizens of many countries are dying as a result of both combat operations and terrorist attacks (as a note, I am using “combat operations” in the sense of open warfare, and “terrorist attacks” in the sense of covert, haphazard kinetic operations; I am not using them as political or faction labels).
With this as the context, what is the potential effect of the HTS research? Probably the best place to start is with the HTS Mission Statement and the HTS Values and Beliefs.
HTS Mission Statement
- The HTS Mission is to provide commanders in the field with relevant socio-cultural understanding necessary to meet their operational requirements.
HTS Values and Beliefs
- HTS believes that achieving national security objectives is dependent on understanding the societies and cultures in which we are engaged.
- HTS also believes that the use of social science is necessary to and legitimate in military operations.
- By developing an understanding of the societies and cultures in which we are engaged, HTS believes that the U.S. military can reduce the need for and negative repercussions of lethal force.
I will admit to being bothered by the mission statement since providing field commanders with the “relevant socio-cultural understanding necessary to meet their operational requirements” might include target identification. I believe, and it is a belief based on talking with people involved with the HTS and with in field intelligence officers and commanders, that every effort has been made to separate the operation of Human Terrain Teams (HTTs) from military intelligence, especially target identification (assassination lists if you prefer). The statement relevant to this on the HTS site is
HTTs do not proactively elicit actionable intelligence from the local civilian population. Team members are legally prohibited from performing active intelligence collection.
As Max notes,
Once more, readers are presented with a “loophole” statement — they do not “proactively” gather intelligence, leaving open the possibility that they may gather intelligence by other means. And when such intelligence falls into the laps of HTS researchers, what are they to do with it? No answer is provided.
and he is quite correct; this is a “loophole” statement. The fact that “no answer is provided” is not, in my opinion, germain - this is another one of those sliding “lines”. Let me give an example from a different field; medicine. If a doctor has cause to suspect that abuse of a minor is taking place, they are required to report this to the authorities. This reporting is not viewed as a breach of medical ethics, including doctor-patient privilege.
Do Anthropologists have the same responsibility? This has never really been addressed at the social level (barring, I believe, one case in New York State in the late 1980’s), but within the discipline we have tended to regard the Anthropologist-Informant relationship as “sacred” in the same sense as doctor-patient, priest-penitent and husband-wife. Indeed, in an AAA ethics case study, this is one particular issue looked at where the researcher had information about a murder. The “dilemma” and its “solution” are given as
Thompson’s Dilemma: (1) Since she knew the police would question her, should she quickly tear out and destroy the pages in her notebook where the events were recorded? (2) When questioned by the police should she, like the other villagers, plead ignorance concerning the killing?
Thompson’s Decision
Thompson decided to risk discovery of her field notes and consequently hid the notebook containing the description of the events surrounding Tom’s death under coverings on her bed. When police asked her if she knew anything about Tom’s death, she denied having any knowledge of the events of that evening. The police accepted her statements and did not search for her field notes.
In other words, she lied to a foreign government’s officials, helped to subvert their laws and, at the same time, was stupid enough to keep evidence of her lies which, if uncovered, would have materially damaged the reputation of any other Anthropologist working in that nation.
This is “ethical”? Maybe it is, since it relies on a judgment of who the “relevant parties” are in a particular case at a particular point in time. More importantly, it places the locus of control for such a decision firmly in the hands of the Anthropologist.
Such control of ethical decisions based around a priest-penitent relationship, however, does not enjoy the same benefits for Anthropologists as for doctors, priests and spouses. Very few of us can “plead our clergy”, or have that plea count for anything in either Canada or the US. In point of law, under current Canadian laws, if I was to act this way during fieldwork I could be charged with hindering prosecution in Canada even though the event took place in a foreign country (this point of law was established in Canada following the Female Genital Mutilation debate of the late 1990’s). Certainly, under current US legislation, I would imagine that if an HTT member acted in this manner to protect someone judged to be a “terrorist” or “insurgent”, they could also be charged.
Of course, the fact that an action (or inaction) may be defined as “illegal” does not, of necessity, mean that it is “unethical” (although it is “immoral” by definition). There are certainly cases where ethical action may be in direct contrast to legal action, but this cuts both ways: there are also cases where following / using a Code of Ethics as if it were a law is unethical, a point noted by Cassel and Jacobs in their Introduction to the AAA Ethics Handbook.
On occasion, the concept of “ethics” is used as a weapon: my beliefs differ from yours, therefore you are unethical. Anthropologists who speak of ethics in this sense wish to improve or, at the least, reprove the behavior of others. A “Code of Ethics” in their view is a mechanism to help regulate the behavior of those with whom they disagree. Unfortunately, as historians and ethnographers have documented, the attempt to control others in the name of morality is more likely to lead to confrontation than moral improvement.
Use of and reporting on research
Beyond the matrix of informed consent, there are requirements to
- utilize the results of their work in an appropriate fashion
- disseminate the results through appropriate and timely activities
Talk about “loophole” phrasing! Who defines “appropriate”? If I am funded by a private concern to conduct proprietary research, then the “appropriate” use of the research will be defined by the negotiations between myself and the source of funding, although there will be some general limits. If the research is proprietary, which is an acceptable form of research according to the AAA Code of Ethics, then the results may never be published to either the general public or to my colleagues, although I am still required to “disseminate the results through appropriate and timely activities” to my client.
Now in the current debate over the HTS, there appears, to me at any rate, to be a real problem with assumptions about the use and reporting issues. I believe, in principle if nothing else, that the HTS has established acceptable use guidelines, although I will readily admit that that is merely a belief based on limited discussions with HTS and in-field personnel; I haven’t been in the field and seen it for myself. The focus appears to be on operations that might loosely be termed “developmental” (”Civil Affairs” in MilSpeak) and “cross-cultural communications”. Please also note that I am talking about the purpose not the effectiveness - that is a different matter and there certainly appear to be problems associated with the HTS (then again, I know of very few research projects that have not had some type of “problem”). All we have right now is anecdotal evidence and some preliminary reports; we do not have any reports or audits produced by independent observers. Of course, most fieldwork doesn’t have that, so it may be a moot point.
So, let’s move on to disseminating the results in an appropriate and timely manner. In discussion the claim that the HTS is “open source”, Max notes that the
HTS has published no reports that have been made available publicly. It is not open source. Recently, detailed login instructions have been circulated among a limited number of message recipients, that clearly indicate that whatever data there may be is behind a wall, and in order for non-government persons to gain access, they must request and place a statement to the effect that “you are a partner with HTS and need access to the site.”
On his first point, I agree - no reports (except for some blog entries by Marcus Griffin, now apparently unavailable) have been made that are publicly available. Then again, I don’t find this surprising since the HTS has not been operating for that long. How long does it take for most Anthropologists to report on their fieldwork? The figures I was given during graduate school were, if I remember correctly, “interim reports” (say a conference paper or brief note) after a year and a paper within two years for cultural Anthropology and anywhere up to ten years for Archeology. I’m not surprised at the delays but, then again, I’m not pleased with them either. I think the HTS should be able to do better (assuming they could bypass some of the DoD restrictions on posting).
Max’s second point that “detailed login instructions have been circulated among a limited number of message recipients, that clearly indicate that whatever data there may be is behind a wall” is also correct. The announcement that I received was over a particular list-serve aimed at Anthropology and the Military which currently has 292 members not all of whom support the HTS. Is the data behind a wall? Yes, it is and, if Max wished, he could probably gain access to it. Having seen the data there, I am not too impressed with it on the whole. Then again, I am usually not very impressed with most preliminary reports either ;).
While I would, personally, encourage the HTS to make their data and reports more openly available I also know that it takes time out of the field to write up decent reports. Furthermore, since the HTS is under the auspices of the US Department of Defense, it is also restricted by bureaucratic regulations that some in the Military think are outdated (see here for example). In my opinion, these bureaucratic restrictions severely hamper the effective and timely dissemination of research, but that is the fault of the regulations, not the HTS.
Using the checklist for the HTS
Let’s apply the checklist against what we currently know of HTS activities. As a caution, all of the data I am using to do this is based on open source material and some (limited) discussions and not on any systematic investigation.
Purpose | Potential Impact | Source(s) of support
Funders Y | P | Y
Colleagues Y | P | Y
Persons studied Y | ? | Y
Relevant parties Y | P | Y
- utilize the results of their work in an appropriate fashion - ?
- disseminate the results through appropriate and timely activities - P
Y = yes, ? = Unknown, P = Problematic
Lets go through the checklist. Clearly, there is no problem with disclosure of purpose and sources of support to any potentially involved part. Pretty much anyone who has any interest knows that the HTS is being funded by the US Department of Defense and what the stated purpose of the project is (whether people agree with, like or support that purpose is another thing entirely). In all cases, the potential impact may be defined as either “problematic” or “unknown” since there does not appear to be an available detailed analysis of the potential impact that is open source, although there are certainly statements about the potential (and actual) impact of the program that are available.
Of the two use/dissemination questions, the first is “unknown” since the material is de facto “proprietary”, at least for a limited time and no one appears to know how long that time is. I have listed the second dissemination question as “Problematic”, primarily because of bureaucratic regulations surrounding the release of any DoD information. To my mind, it is also problematic because of HTS claims that it is “open source” while here are few open source venues where it appears.
Based solely on this framework, and any proper examination of the ethics of the program should actually include a lot more (but that is for the future), I would have to the HTS a barely passing grade as “Ethical” primarily because much of their research has not be presented yet, and many of the methods and protocols involved in the research must be currently listed as “unknown”.
13 users commented in " Untangling Ethics: A framework for Anthropology "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI have yet to digest everything and I also don’t want to interfere with your readers’ appreciation of your post, my post, the HTS website, what lies between all of them — it’s getting to be a lot of reading just on blogs alone. Overall I think this is a very reasoned and important contribution to the debate, with a lot of valid points. That does not surprise me — I have known at least some of your work from a good many years ago (I think the last time we met was around 1999?), and I know that you are a serious person with a great wealth of learning. You’re right that we disagree on this issue on many lines, and in some cases trying to find common ground will not produce positive results. I have very strong opinions as well, and the fact that you can take them on in such a collegial manner is going to impress a lot of people. Let me stop there, especially when I say that I don’t want to get in readers’ way here.
Hi Max,
Thank you for the comments. You are totally right about it getting to be a lot of reading - it’s definitely taking time away from my “day job” just to try and keep up :). I’m not sure if it was 1998 or 1999 that we last ran into each other - somewhere around there at any rate.
I think you are right about trying to find common ground possibly not producing positive results. Still, I would count it as positive even if we just agree to disagree, and definitely positive if, amongst that disagreement, we can identify the specific areas (where we place the “lines”) of disagreement. If we can do that, then I think our discussion will be of benefit to the discipline as a whole.
[...] Ghraib, and laying siege to civilian population centres, the response is not that it is just “rhetoric.” If it is rhetoric, then please do look at the “rhetoric” below. For those of us [...]
Marc,
The quote from Boas really jumped out at me. It seems relevant not only when examining the activity of HTS, but also when examining the actions of those who most zealously argue against the activity of HTS.
Whether HTS is behaving ethically is a relevant issue to discuss. But it seems quite evident that many are using this issue as a proxy argument. Or, to put it another way, they are prostituting science in order to carry on “political machinations” by using their professional credentials as a cover for political activity. The ethical implications of HTS present an issue for which anthropologists who happen to have an opinion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can assert their views in a manner that leverages their professional credentials. It differentiates them from the relatively homogenous masses of those who decry the war effort and magnifies their voices. It is a clever way to amplify their opposition to the war, by making it the underlying assumption of an assessment of HTS. The assessment of HTS becomes a cover and a megaphone for their political activism.
In most fields, ranging from one as analytical as statistics or to those as abstract as argumentation and rhetoric, it is valid to question the motivations for a claim, method, or argument, in addition to challenging the claim, method, or argument itself. I cannot point to a specific sentence in which Max states that he has a highly partisan political agenda. Of course, that would undercut the perceived legitimacy of his argument, so I do not expect to find such a disclosure. But experience and a general feel for human nature lead to the conclusion that he is a partisan and that he does have a political agenda. Such descriptions as “imperialist” and, as noted on another thread, the notion of “US aggression” or the assertion that we are waging a “war of domination,” are arguably highly inaccurate, most likely politically motivated, and certainly controversial. To throw those terms about so haphazardly implies an ulterior motive and possibly the inability to be objective on this issue.
Like Max, I certainly admire the collegial manner in which you responded. I also recognize that your analysis presents a valid means to rebut his argument on the terms that he has chosen. That is less controversial than my observation that he is most likely a partisan with a political agenda and it is certainly more effective, if successful. My observation only invites indignation. The most likely response of a partisan using science as a cover for political agenda is to feign disbelief that someone actually called him out on it. But it seems like you had to work pretty hard to not acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room. That seems like an injustice to individuals like yourself who always make thoughtful, candid, and honest contributions to discussions, only to have your decorum exploited by those who know that you will always be a gentleman and not acknowledge any ulterior motive.
Hi Tim,
Thank you for the comment. I do try and be collegial in this debate because I consider it to be too important for the future of the discipline for us to get totally lost in partisan rhetoric.
I also find myself in the interesting position of being a Canadian involved in the debate. We (Canada) do not operate in Iraq, and I think that allows me to distance myself from it a it more than many others.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that I don’t have my own political views and that I don’t have concerns about the HTS. Still and all, I believe that I have a better chance of getting those concerns acted on by being rational about the entire thing. I must admit, though, that I find myself wanting to do a political rant of my own on the issue ;).
Let me touch on the “800 pound gorilla” for a minute. Max is actually quite open about his political stance and, if you strip away the rhetoric and any emotional reactions to it (which may be difficult :), he is also quite firm in his beliefs. I think this comes through very well in the concerns he expressed in a recent post on the NSF-Minerva agreement (http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/hugh-gusterson-when-professors-go-to-war/).
One thing I truly appreciate about Max, aside from our shared passion for music ;), is that he is honest about his political beliefs and consistent in his stance. That doesn’t mean I agree with him (I don’t on many things), but I do have to give him kudos for being true to himself.
On the issue raised by the Boas quote, I do have to agree that I am quite concerned about it. Boas himself was quite “political” in many of his stances (e.g. racial equality, opposition to the NAZI party, etc.), but I believe, that his ethical touchstone was the best scientific knowledge available rather than a political ideology and that, I believe, is what we, as Anthropologists, should be holding to now.
There is some irony in TJM’s statement above, because the best human science is where the scientist identifies the inevitably subjective lenses through which the data were viewed, even gathered. Nobody can claim to have no political beliefs, and be taken seriously. Nobody can claim to have no values of any kind, and be taken seriously. So the scientist who has respect for his/her reader can be very upfront about the perspective through which the world is seen. I do not see that as undermining the legitimacy of one’s argument, rather, failure to be honest insults the intelligence of the reader and produces an aura of objectivity that is not credible.
Now TJM has decided that an objective analysis will produce certain desired results, which lo and behold, are the results he wants to see. That is not objectivity, that is simply using a once hallowed principle as a mask. I do not mask. TJM thinks it is “highly inaccurate” to refer to 200 years of U.S. expansionism, invasions, control of over other economies and polities, as imperialism. Then, he has a very exotic definition of imperialism, that he should have shared. I therefore fancy my position as the objective one, not that I promote in such terms, because it is in consonance with a large array of documented fact, and meets the standards of plausible objectivity, that is, a high degree of intersubjective agreement among a great many parties of differing orientations. TJM should therefore note that non-leftists — Max Boot, Niall Ferguson, Michael Ignatieff, William Kristol — have no problem whatsoever with using the term “imperialism.” Indeed, they read positive aspects into this.
When people of all stripes can agree that, in line with most definitions of imperialism, a bundle of processes and actions constitute imperialism…then, it is imperialism that we are indeed speaking.
War of aggression. Iraq did not, and has never attacked the U.S. So by all standards this was a war of aggression. More than that, if you take the Nuremberg Trials seriously, it was also a crime against humanity on the very same grounds. I have been leaving out Nuremberg thus far. This should be a no brainer, that is, not a basis for disputing objectivity.
War of occupation. The invasion took place in 2003. It is now 2008. American forces still dominate Iraq. Find me a phrase that you prefer to war of occupation…but, remember your own standards of objectivity TJM, because if it appears to be a whitewash phrase, or an attempt at doublespeak, I will come back here to remind you that you are being political, not objective, and that in your terms, your argument lacks legitimacy.
My ulterior motive is not ulterior at all. I do not want to take what Bush, Cheney, etc. say at face value. To accept the dominant ideology is not objective, not free of politics, but it is also not science, which must be rooted in skepticism and the asking of questions. Likewise, to not see HTS promotion as political activism is simply not credible.
So we need to move this discussion out of the 19th century, and start acting like we know and understand the problems surrounding objectivity. The key here will not be who gets to sound the most neutral will win; the key will be which argument does best at capturing a greater range of the information available and makes most sense of it. And you can be totally political when doing that, and analyze objective conditions, which means those conditions that are exterior to yourself.
I should have made a cross-cultural observation here. The desire for “neutral” and “objective” analysis that betrays no political agenda or human emotion, is a concern that is distinctly American, and one that flourished in the context of the Cold War. Europe, and most of the rest of the world, has grown up long ago, and one expects that academics and journalists will write politically — where politics is a dirty word only for tyrants who want submissive subjects who lack even conceptual tools for opposing tyranny, such as a political belief. The idea is if you do not want a Marxist perspective, then you do not buy Newspaper X. What they don’t do is cry and complain that Newspaper X dares to have a point of view, and journalists who are in fact human.
Hi Max,
Just a quick comment on one thing you mentioned - “The desire for “neutral” and “objective” analysis that betrays no political agenda or human emotion, is a concern that is distinctly American, and one that flourished in the context of the Cold War.”
Actually, I would suggest that it goes back to Francis Bacon and was formalized with Descartes. If you look at late 18th - late 19th / early 20th century social theory, say Turgot to Spencer, there is a distinct objectification of “Nature” and a valorization of the objectification.
Yes, that’s right, but as a dominant approach to conceptualizing social science, such ideas gained and retained greater currency in the U.S. than in Europe, especially positivism and the fascination with social realities converted into numbers. As long as one was seen to be number crunching, the research was deemed safe and “non-ideological”, which is a euphemistic way of saying, “not critical of the dominant ideology.”
While I tend not to weep much for what American anthropology is doing to itself in its compromises with the military — and here proponents have factored out of their discussions reactions from prospective local hosts abroad who do and will lock them out (there seems to be an assumption that they will automatically get to do Minerva research wherever they go, “no problem”) — and I could say that Canadian anthropology will be spared harsh international judgments, I am skeptical. I think that many people will not draw distinctions between a visitor who is an anthropologist from the U.S., U.K. or Canada.
Hi Max,
Oh, I certainly agree with you about how the numbers game played out in the US, say 1945 - 1965 or so. In this case, the US was certainly behind what was happening in Europe, which lost a lot of its fascination with social engineering after World War I and certainly by the end of World War II.
One thing I find absolutely fascinating in the variants of Lysenkoism that crept into both the US and Soviet conceptualizations of “science”. I think that one of the effects of using atomic weapons to end the war in the Pacific theatre led to a co-evolution of paranoia on the one hand and “science as religion” (i.e. threat containment) on the other as part of the Cold War.
As a pseudo-religion, “science” had, to my mind, been co-opted into the dominant ideologies as almost a sacred containment device. This does seem to start to break down in the 1960’s, to some extent, in the West, but not until the late 1980’s in the ex-Soviet Empire.
I was watching a show last night on the Discovery channel on how Star Trek (or Wm. Shatner) changed the world (http://www.discoverychannel.ca/shows/showdetails.aspx?sid=2827).
One of the interesting points made in that was that Gene Roddenberry’s “vision” of the future was highly optimistic as far as the role of science and technology was concerned; an optimism that the show reflected and, in turn, acted as a catalyst to actually develop the technology. Towards the end of the show, Shatner talks about the adoption of the “darker” side of technology into the show and how, as they did it, it led to less and less viewers. I think that this speaks to a desire on the part of people to *want* to believe that science will make things better.
I mention this because I think that science has been loosing its Cold War, quasi-religious status and is getting popularized; in effect, moving back into the realm where at least some of it is accessible by the general population - a situation somewhat analogous to the mid-19th century (then again, I tend to view time in spiral terms ).
On you second point, I suspect you are right, but with a really large caveat. As far as the Minerva research is concerned, I actually doubt that you will see much of anything that could be classified as classic fieldwork. My gut guess is that most of the proposals will involve secondary research rather than primary research. Added on to that, the US military has some very strict protocols on research involving human subjects, one of the requirements of which is that any such research taking place in a foreign country requires the equivalent of IRB approval from that country.
Will that have any real effect on how Canadian, British and Australian Anthropologists are perceived? Probably not since most people won’t bother looking into the ethics requirements since it doesn’t suit their political agendas. I certainly imagine that AQ will not hesitate to brand all foreign researchers as spies!
What I see happening increasingly is that all researchers, Anthropologists or not, will be required to take some type of “loyalty test” by the groups they wish to study. The trend for this was set, in a way, back in the 1920′ and 30’s with the development of Boasian advocacy Anthropology, and I expect that it will be accelerated somewhat as a result of the Minerva discussions. Personally, I don’t think that bodes well for Anthropology as a science . Then again, as you know, that is my bias.
[...] I quoted this case study earlier, I noted that In other words, she lied to a foreign government’s officials, helped to subvert [...]
[...] model of ethics (aka “morality”). I’ve noted this in a several posts (here and here), and expressed concern over it, in its various forms, in others (here and here). Given [...]
The problem with defining things on limited terms - i.e. “Wars of aggression” and “Crimes against humanity”, is that you are then forced to call a doctor a “butcher” and “murderer of flesh” for operating on a cancerous tumor. (And doesn’t cancerous cells have rights, equal to all other cells?)
I think the words being used by Max are much more subjective and politically loaded than he states.
Leave A Reply