[Marxism] CIA and anthropology

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/01/anthro
Sept. 1
If CIA Calls, Should Anthropology Answer?

Anthropologists have a long history of being uncertain about how close they 
should get to the U.S. government. Many anthropologists helped intelligence 
agencies in World War I and World War II, but from Vietnam on, most have 
resisted any such work. And for most of that time, the Pentagon and CIA 
have not exactly been calling anthropology departments looking for guidance.
Related stories

But post-9/11, everything is different. New federal fellowships aim to 
provide government support for graduate work in anthropology (and other 
fields helpful for understanding global cultures) in return for pledges of 
working for the government. This year, the Central Intelligence Agency 
posted some job ads on the American Anthropological Association Web site, 
and when the CIA tried to have those ads appear in the association?s 
journals, some took them and others turned them down ? amid considerable 
debate among members.

As a result of these discussions, the association has created a special 
committee that will try to figure out the ethical issues involved with 
working for national security agencies, with the possible goal of adding 
guidelines to the association?s code of ethics. Anthropologists on the 
committee and those who track these issues say that they are extremely 
difficult for many scholars.

In a hypothetical situation where the Pentagon asks you for information 
about a tribe or group you have studied, the information provided could 
lead to good or harm ? and the decision not to provide information might 
lead the government to take a harmful action as well, said James L. 
Peacock, a professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill and chair of the new committee. ?That?s the dilemma. If you 
abstain from providing information and something happens, is that ethical? 
But if you become implicated, is that ethical??

Peacock, who studies Muslim groups in Indonesia, has never worked for the 
U.S. government, but the association?s committee includes some scholars who 
have.

David Price, an anthropology professor at Saint Martin?s University, in 
Washington State, and also a member of the committee, said that his main 
concern is secrecy. He said that he would be inclined to answer questions 
from an intelligence agency ? provided he had permission to post online 
everything he said once the meeting was over. The way to protect the 
interests of the people being studied is to keep everything in the open, he 
said.

Price has just finished writing Anthropology at War: American 
Anthropologists? Contributions to the Second World War, forthcoming from 
Duke University Press. Price said that professors did many things to help 
the U.S. government, such as advising officials on how to phrase leaflets 
encouraging Japanese soldiers to surrender and how to communicate with the 
Japanese public. When the war broke out, he said, anthropologists who had 
lived in remote Asian villages found themselves being asked questions ? and 
having to think through the ethics involved.

The central problem, he said, is one of informed consent. Anthropologists 
now feel that they have an obligation to tell those they study what they 
will do with their knowledge. If the CIA asks about research done a decade 
ago, ?how can there be informed consent?? Price asked.

Hugh Gusterson, a professor of cultural studies at George Mason University, 
said informed consent is also his key issue. Gusterson has written in 
anthropology publications, warning of the dangers of working for 
intelligence agencies.

?My feeling is that anthropologists? primary ethical contract is with the 
people they study. Their loyalty to their government has to come after 
their ethical obligation to the people they study,? he said.

Gusterson stressed that this isn?t a matter of politics. For example, he 
studies nuclear scientists, most of whom work for governments. If 
anti-nuclear groups ? with whom Gusterson has sympathy ? came to him to ask 
questions such as what kinds of signs might really cause a nuclear 
scientist to reconsider the work being done in a lab, or who in a lab might 
be open to leaving, Gusterson said he would never tell. To do so would 
betray a trust, he said.

At the same time, Gusterson said that many of these issues are ?in a gray 
zone.? Many anthropologists who would never want to brief the CIA would be 
pleased to advise journalists or give a public lecture about a group they 
have studied that suddenly has become newsworthy. And many would think 
?that they could brief Donald Rumsfeld with a clean conscience,? trying to 
explain to him why he shouldn?t do something harmful to some group they had 
studied.

There are certain ?clearly dirty areas to avoid,? he said ? ?if you study 
enemies of the United States and then give information that will be used to 
kill them.? But he also said that there are plenty of situations where one 
might not know how information would be used ? and that still doesn?t 
address the issues of informed consent.

Gusterson said he was very pleased to see the anthropology association 
creating the committee. He said he hoped for guidance, but said he was 
unsure that it would be possible to have precise rules for every situation. 
And he added that it was also important for academics to respect free 
speech. While Gusterson said he would never work for the CIA, he said it 
was wrong for some anthropology journals to reject their advertising.

Anthropologists who work for intelligence agencies could not be reached for 
this article. Peacock, the committee chair, said he believed there were 
very few of them, although he stressed that their actions could affect 
other scholars. If anthropologists working abroad are seen to be military 
spies, they could be endangered or lose the trust of those they study, he said.

Others, however, argue that the overriding issue should be the need to 
protect the United States. The Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program, 
which provides generous stipends in return for government service, is one 
of the efforts that has attracted scholars? attention. Peacock said that 
the anthropology association has fielded questions from professors about 
whether it is ethical to encourage their students to sign up. The program 
was created out of the belief that U.S. intelligence agencies have been 
weakened by lacking expertise in many foreign cultures and societies.

Writing last year in National Review, Stanley Kurtz said that U.S. troops 
depend on better foreign intelligence and he castigated ?leftist 
professors? for not supporting the Roberts program. He also said that this 
was part of a pattern in which, ?for decades, area studies professors have 
undermined scholarship programs designed to bring knowledgeable recruits 
into our defense and intelligence agencies.?

Of course sometimes anthropologists have in fact sided with the U.S. 
government ? and later not been proud of the results. Franz Boas, one of 
the founders of American anthropology and one of the first presidents of 
the American Anthropological Association, was censured by it 1919 after he 
criticized scholars who served as spies during World War I. Writing in The 
Nation, Boas said that anthropologists need to preserve a distinction 
between spies and scholars, who must be dedicated to ?the service of 
truth.? The article so upset his fellow anthropologists that they voted to 
condemn him.

It was only last year that the association rescinded the censure.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism