anthropology in a war zone

[flea]

I learned last night - Veteran's Day - that a high school classmate of mine was seriously injured in Afghanistan last week. Here's an account: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/army-social-sci.html She was a member of the Human Terrain Systems program, which embeds civilian social scientists with army units. I had a vague knowledge of this program; I must have heard some radio pieces when Michael Bhaktia was killed (in a roadside bombing) earlier this year. Now I'm reading a bit more about the program and the controversy surrounding it. The American Association of Anthropology issued a statement in 2007 condemning the program, but it has received some favorable press as well, and the idea of the military looking to understand the cultures they are operating within, as the army seeks to undertake peacekeeping operations, has some positives. (If you want to know more, Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any.)

I don't think that Paula is an anthropologist; the debate is framed as between anthropology and the army, but many of the embedded academics are actually political science students, linguists, or other social scientists. I do know that Paula is an army veteran; I think she did ROTC in college, and then served for several years (I didn't know her well in high school and only saw occasional notes from her in the alumni news after that). She wouldn't have been in the first Gulf war (too young), but might well have served in the Balkans. One of the articles about the attack on her mentioned that she had also worked for the State Department. I doubt she was naive about what she was doing with the Human Terrain Systems program.

A lot of the history of American (and other Western) archaeology in Greece is tied up with politics, espionage, and war - the same issues that have caused the controversy in the case of the Human Terrain Systems. Many of the American and English archaeologists, men and women, working in Turkey and Greece in the first half of the 20th century were involved in intelligence gathering, in various more or less formal ways, for their countries. Several western archaeologists fought in World War II in Greece; most famously, John Pendlebury was killed in the Battle of Crete. These events are far enough past that they seem romantic, often noble and heroic; also, WWII had the virtue of being a black-and-white war. There has been less said, and I know less, about American archaeologists' presence and actions in Greece during the ugly civil war that followed WWII, or the military junta of 1967-1974.

Can any field worker be innocent of involvement in politics, really? Can any human?

Comments

[jarsy.livejournal.com]

I think that the ideal of anthropology is always to maintain an unbiased view anda detached position in fieldwork. Obviously that's impossible, but it's always something to strive for, and as soon as you're being paid by one 'side' in any conflict, that ideal is blown away. IMO, anyway.

[serrana.livejournal.com]

I remember the "debate" within the AAA over this, which -- and admittedly my perspective is biased -- seemed to come down to the same old "profit is bad and wrong and we should all live on noodles and do this work for the betterment of our souls" schtick that everyone doing anthropology outside of universities has gotten kicked in the teeth with for the last fifty years.

I think we should have anthropologists in the field with the Army, for the simple reason that the lack of social understanding between the Army and the people they're fighting among has cost lives on both sides. The idea that the Army should ignore the cultures of the people they're fighting among seems ludicrous and counterproductive.

That said, I disapprove of people saying they're anthropologists (or whatever) and really being spies, because that's the kind of thing that gets non-spies dead by association.