I think the words being used by Max are much more subjective and politically loaded than he states.

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.

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.

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.