Having followed the internet trail on this for a few months now I read with interest what you had to say.

Im struck by the differences in how many persons with anthropological backgrounds engage the issues.

For me, and my subjective 21st century ideas on what anthropology is and should be, it is an oxymora – like cruel kindness – to place military action and anthropology together. This is made even more problematic when the military action is preemptive because as such any anthropologist on the ground who at some level believes they are trying to help the situation is nonetheless an apologist for the use of military force against people who were not aggressors. It feeds into a wider notion that the action in Iraq was lawful, which it was not, and provides legitimacy to the US political myth that the action in Iraq was about 9/11 when its really about oil and geopolitics. Anthropology needs to recognise how it is being used to effect this hegemonic mind f**k, both in Iraq and afghanistan…

Another interesting cultural difference between your idea on anthro and mine, was this notion of the group and interaction you use, i liked the picture you painted, however i prefer to look at things from the individual up, and the individual’s ability/agency to perform many different acts depending on the audience situation. Ie performance, and performing certain behaviours, mannerisms, language, cultural identifiers etc is at the basis of social interaction. Sometimes peoples’ performances are as close to honest as can be, many times, the honesty is removed for necessity and need be that good or bad, and then there is the performance of those who deliberately try to mislead, something i believe McFate has done on many different levels from the anthropology community, the general public, the military community, herself and most importantly the people on the ground who she is claiming to help.

Anthropologists, in my humble opinion (and related to the experiences in our anthropological past – anthropology mixed with the military always harms someone) should be involved in non military solutions to cultural difference and furthermore, again from my point of view, should be against coorperation between the military and anthropology.

Military action is rarely about redistributing wealth to make things better for all persons in the world, the current military complex is about sustaining neoliberal capitalism, stratification and capturing new markets. And while i doubt there is such a thing as a doctor evil sitting in a room making individual decisions to perpetuate the vast economic and social inequalities in the world – the system is nonetheless self perpetuating. The connection between anthropology and the military makes this perpetution worse by legitimising it under a cloak of benevolence which is only khaki green deep.

At a fundamental level i think this mcFate situation raises ideas about what sort of world you want to live in, one that continues along the same path it has been on since 9/11 or something better. i know im for the latter.

The partnership of the military and anthropology is a symbolic performance that explicitly rejects the idea of fundamental societal change and keeps our eyes focussed on the short term road in front of us which is certainly not heading toward social justice but rather a increased acceptance of the current militarised world.

To end, I guess i sound like an old hippie (not that there is anything wrong with that), but i became an anthropologist because i wanted less war and inequality in the world, less gun diplomacy, and more understanding and honesty.

The McFate saga might paint on the surface this is what she is about, but as we all know you have to get beneath the surface t really see wha is going on, and embedding anthros with military units creates an asymmetrical situation between those we study and ourselves. Whats worse is it misrepresents the actual work the military is tryng to perform as positive, when infact it is nothing short of a strategic invasion that the UN deemed unlawful.

The views that have sprung up around the mcFate issues made me feel disheartened at first but now im reinvigorated because we are all (as both you and max point out) being politicised by the issues, being public intellectuals because we must take a stand in order to define our intellectual projects. As people draw their lines in the sand perhaps those who are against the combination of military and anthropology can mark their field and ethics as such, while those who disagree can mark their terrain as such. Or perhaps its far more complex than this duality…for me thought it isnt – anthropology and the military is an oxymoron

Thanks for your long, and very thoughtful, comments. I am really getting to enjoy our “discussions” .

I must admit, I have been fascinated with the history of Anthropology, both in its intellectual and “professional” forms. I think that there has been a major tension in the “profession” (actually, the university based form) for a long time, one that has served to keep Anthropology more “open” than most other academic disciplines.

“We have differing notions of career, and espionage, as there are indeed multiple accepted definitions for both of these terms. A career need not be life long to have been a career and espionage is intelligence gathering, not so?”

I suspect our notions of “career” are moderately similar, but we do have radically different notions of “espionage”. I would have t say that “espionage” is a sub-set of “intelligence gathering” and is distinguished from other forms, such as Anthropological fieldwork, by a matter of intent.

“One of the biggest ironies here is that those who complained of safe academics buried in their Ivory Towers seem to now be howling for us to get back into the Towers, since we came out, only on the “wrong” side.”

LOLOL – oh too true! It really is a good example of the “No zero’s, no infinities rule” . Well, in my opinion, it’s about time that we got out of the academy and started getting involved in politics – again.

We have differing notions of career, and espionage, as there are indeed multiple accepted definitions for both of these terms. A career need not be life long to have been a career and espionage is intelligence gathering, not so? What do corporate spying and HTS have in common? Spying on dissident, subordinate, subaltern groups who threaten the existing or desired status quo upheld by groups with superior financial, military and political power. So yes, she has made a career of spying.

Your article is very interesting, but it is deflective. It looks sometimes very far away from the fact that the one personified as the new way, challenging conventional wisdom, and with a more nuanced view of ethics, is the one who spied on groups and when convenient flicked the switch, re-announced herself as an anthropologist, and then re-attached herself to anthropology, but with a definite vengeance. She is still a professional, but in many ways anti-anthropological, and therefore my opposite on both grounds.

These are not attack ads nor smear campaigns. McFate bears her own responsibility for mounting these things against herself — from engaging in corporate spying, to producing anonymous blogs that if authored by a man would have resulted in dismissal on grounds of sexual harassment, to either directly stalking anthropology blogs using a fake identity or abiding by a friend doing so in her alleged defense, and by assaulting the reputation of anthropologists as a whole as safe, comfortable, Ivory Tower social parasites. No, when you do that, you get what you ask for. And keep in mind, she has not denied doing any of these things (had it been me, in that position, I would have legally changed my name already to, “I-deny-it It’s-not-true” just to spare me the repetition of denying). Stating facts is not a smear, but silencing critics, or trying to shame them for bringing those facts to light, now that is very disturbing, especially as she is a public official in the employ of the military.

One of the biggest ironies here is that those who complained of safe academics buried in their Ivory Towers seem to now be howling for us to get back into the Towers, since we came out, only on the “wrong” side. If you pray for public anthropology that does not play it safe…you might just get what you asked for.

What disappoints me (but not sorely) is where people like yourself, who stand head and shoulders, intellectually and ethically, above the likes of a McFate, run interference for her. It’s not your job and it can be dangerous too. The shame that she brings down on herself rains down on those closest to her. And one has to know that when doing politics in public. I don’t see anything from McFate that comes close to the standard of what you are producing, and I personally would have a serious problem with anyone even accidentally associating my name with hers.

Lastly, my list of “types” of anthropology bloggers was not meant to stand as comprehensive nor applicable to anthropology blogging as a whole…just to specific (lack of) reactions to this latest clash on a blog, and that has already changed today in fact. So it had very limited intent and limited applicability. I must say I liked the types that you added, though I don’t see all of them as bloggers.

Anyway, thanks again, and as always, very best wishes.