My thought provoking read for the day: “Army Enlists Anthropology in War Zones”. I came across this while drinking my morning coffee and could help but have a few immediate thoughts on the subject.
The article describes how social scientists are being used by the armed forces in a new strategy called “armed social work.” Defining the problems, and taking care of them, instead of just reacting to the symptoms of the problems seem to have produced some positive results.
There’s been some criticism from academia,
“Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq.”
Far be it for academics, as prone as they are to academic incest, to not take this stand. We have anthropologist working with large corporations all over the world helping them figure out how to sell their lame Chinese made products, or products filled with carcinogens, to any given section of the population. We have social scientists working on political campaigns telling who to say what and to whom in order to get their vote, and some lame ass social scientist telling MSNBC that we want Britney slammed in our face every fifteen minutes. Why not admit that having social scientist aid the military in trying to better understand the people of the country we invaded, without justification, has potential. One might reasonably assume the academics choosing to be part of these programs would be well aware of the past misuse of social science, would promote a transparency of the program, and would act within their moral code. We should assume history provides lessons, even for academics.
“The concern that the scholars who work with the military might cause all anthropologists to be viewed as intelligence gatherer for the American military.”
Well — that is what they are — intelligence gatherers. In case you haven’t noticed the military needs all the help they can get. If in turn it prevents us from killing one more Iraqi or Afghani by mistake, or better yet promotes resolutions of some of the smaller issues as a building block to larger solutions, so much the better.
Besides, our options have slimmed down considerably over the last couple years in case academia hadn’t noticed.
What are your thoughts on this?
Tags: Society
Your opinion on this explains your choice to do post grad work in something other than the Social Sciences. I don’t disagree, but we should remain watchful.
Like minds! I just posted on this topic, first making a stop at the intriguing news subject line I received today in the NY Times online edition, pausing at the debate over torture, peeking in the bathroom stalls at Republican headquarters, hovering over athropoligists in the war zone, and landing in Afghanistan where the filming of The Kite Runner has sparked controversy, if not further ethnic conflict.
Yay for liberal arts majors finding work!!!
What are you studying in grad school?
What a concept to be focused upon people instead of an enemy, and to work visibly with others instead of functioning from directives created with “intelligence,” and no, I don’t mean intelligent content.
It sounds like an excellent use of someone’s brains — more so than limiting them to authoring textbooks, and musty lecture halls.
The military has been using “social scientists” for decades. It’s nothing new, just old news being recycled.
“We’re not focused on the enemy. We’re focused on bringing governance down to the people.”
That’s a huge wish in a country run by insurgents with insurgents born every hour
It’s one thing to identify a town with many widows. That’s tangible thus measurable. It’s another thing to identify towns or areas where people are bred to hate that’s subjective
I would assume if they’re using a system method they factor the subjective in as individuals are always looked at as part of a larger system
I would also assume that anthropologists are part of a larger interdisciplinary group and the results could be fascinating
I don’t see it happening for a long time. you asked :)
John: Always watchful John.
Sandra: International Affairs and Public Policy. In that order.
I see again that the filmmakers really did not appear to understand consequences but only read a brief on it in the Post.
Kellypea: As John says we must remain watchful as boundaries need to be maintained but I, even as one who tends to be more liberal in my thought processes do not find this idea appalling.
SK: Of course it’s nothing new the article pointed out very clearly and that they were used in Vietnam to the detriment of the Vietnamese, and it takes very little investigation to find out what went on there. The criticism from academia and from many other is expected.
Pia: It’s nowhere near as subjective when you have relative experts in ethnic and status groups of any given area and are more aware than most of the military is as to how a particular subgroup in a culture draws their boundaries, what is sacred what is profane etc etc. It may be a huge wish and may prove as unsuccessful as anything but I do not hold the same view of it as some academics seem to.
If history has taught us anything it surely has taught us what not to do with social science.
eh it’s late and I’ve had along evening so I may have to revise this answer in the morning.
I would assume that since we are now in the “nation building” business it would be best to understand the people there.
Sounds like something they should have been wise to since day one.
I agree with you for the most part. The reason they give for being wary of it is bullshit. On the other hand, if they’re trying to figure out things like who’ll crack under pressure of interrogation/torture etc… it gets a bit more shady.
Feeling free to show your “not so liberal” face is what a true progressive is. I bow to you, and wish you would turn on your instant messaging because I have exactly ten minutes of computer time and it ends in five minutes.
I see both POV. I hope the knowledge of what did occur would prevent it from occurring again, think that the ivory tower people need to step down. Despite my eventual goal of a terminal degree in Philosophy and Psychology I do live in the real world. A world where solutions need to be found.
It is nice that academia could finally find time to examine their culture AFTER we’ve done the damage.
History just repeats. We didn’t do enough background into what we were fighting against, and how we are contributing to the problem via our bullied actions, then we use this ploy to “cleanse our conscience” for the terrible way we handle this “war.”
But, I hope they succeed in gaining some understanding. As always, a good read.
I think the most important revelation here is they recognize there are people involved.
You know my degrees are in psych and econ. A lot of the jobs I was offered had to do with marketing crap to people either physically or mentally. This was all on a very low level of course.
If soldiers under stress can be helped to understand the people, if in the long term it helps solve problems without death I’m all for it. Will there be problems? I bet there will. Are there problems now? Yes and they can’t get much worse.
As a social scientist, I find it down right pathetic that those who take the time to pursue this line of study would sell out humanity for a paycheck.
Social scientists have a deep responsibility to humanity and working for corporations, the military, and/or the government promotes their interests and their agendas; neither of which hardly ever align to those of the people the are supposedly helping.