<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>FW: Upcoming AAA mail ballot on uses of
anthropologists</title></head><body>
<div>We Must Fight the Militarization of Anthropology<br>
<br>
By ROBERTO J. GONZALEZ<br>
<br>
When students take introductory courses in cultural<br>
anthropology, they learn the techniques necessary for<br>
understanding daily life in peasant villages or among bands<br>
of hunter-gatherers. Professors teach them about the<br>
importance of building rapport with informants, the insights<br>
gained from cultural immersion, and the benefits of<br>
linguistic fluency - while interacting with people in the<br>
Amazon Basin, the Kalahari Desert, or the Australian<br>
outback.<br>
<br>
But students rarely learn that today a small but growing<br>
number of Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Department,<br>
and State Department officials and contractors are promoting<br>
militarized versions of the same techniques as key elements<br>
of the "war on terror." Military and intelligence agents<br>
seem to be particularly interested in applying academic<br>
knowledge to interrogation and counterinsurgency efforts in<br>
the Middle East and Central Asia, and at the U.S. detention<br>
facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.<br>
<br>
Recent events have dramatically demonstrated that<br>
anthropological and other scholarly information is a<br>
potentially valuable intelligence tool. But history tells us<br>
that such information can easily be misused when put into<br>
the wrong hands. That is why we, as scholars, must make a<br>
continuing effort to speak out against the misappropriation<br>
of our work. Last summer the governing council of the<br>
American Psychological Association, under tremendous<br>
pressure from the rank and file, passed a resolution<br>
prohibiting members from engaging in torture or training<br>
others to use it - although the statement allowed members to<br>
assist in interrogations. In late fall, a colleague and I<br>
presented a resolution at the annual meeting of the American<br>
Anthropological Association unambiguously opposing torture<br>
and the use of anthropological knowledge as an element of<br>
torture. Those present at the business meeting unanimously<br>
passed the statement. Now we must find ways to promote a<br>
wider discussion of the issue.<br>
<br>
Early evidence of using culture as a weapon came from the<br>
Abu Ghraib scandal revealed in 2004. That year the</div>
<div>journalist Seymour M. Hersh reported in<i> The New Yorker</i>
on<br>
the brutal practices of U.S. personnel at the Iraqi prison.<br>
Hersh included a quote from an unnamed academic who noted</div>
<div>that the anthropologist Raphael Patai's 1973 book<i> The
Arab</i></div>
<div><i>Mind</i> was "the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior."
Hersh<br>
implied that Patai's depiction of "sex as a taboo vested<br>
with shame and repression" in Arab cultures provided U.S.<br>
interrogators with culturally specific material that could<br>
be used to recruit Iraqi informants - and, with or without<br>
official approval, to develop torture techniques tailor made<br>
for Iraqi prisoners. If true, that marked a new and<br>
dangerous phase in applied anthropology. (Ruth Benedict's</div>
<div>classic study of Japanese national character,<i> The</i></div>
<div><i>Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese
Culture</i>,<br>
published in 1946, had helped the U.S. military - to create<br>
a peaceful post-World War II occupation in Japan.)<br>
<br>
Widespread concern erupted among anthropologists about how<br>
interrogators might use readily accessible ethnographic data<br>
for the abuse and torture of prisoners. Would the<br>
possibility lead anthropologists to censor themselves? Would<br>
they be recruited for interrogation or counterinsurgency<br>
work? Would collaboration with spy agencies or interrogation<br>
teams create global mistrust of scholars conducting research<br>
abroad? Those and many other questions arose in rapid<br>
succession.<br>
<br>
In some cases, the answers appeared quickly. In October<br>
2005, the anthropological association, the discipline's<br>
largest professional organization, posted a CIA job<br>
announcement in several of its journals. The association<br>
accepted the advertisement without wide consultation of its<br>
members. Many anthropologists were outraged. (By this time,<br>
reports about the CIA's extraordinary rendition program and</div>
<div>its secret prison network had appeared.) The CIA's covert<br>
dealings with anthropology-association officials during the<br>
cold war had set an ominous precedent, as had the<br>
involvement of social scientists in the ill-fated Project<br>
Camelot, a 1960s counterinsurgency-research project planned<br>
by the Pentagon for use in Latin America. The CIA's job<br>
announcement was eventually retracted, and the anthropology<br>
association assembled a special committee to examine the<br>
roles played by anthropologists in military and intelligence<br>
work.<br>
<br>
Other anthropologists were troubled by the findings of the<br>
historian Alfred W. McCoy, who has recently analyzed how<br>
interrogation techniques used by U.S. spy agencies have<br>
rapidly evolved over the last several years to incorporate</div>
<div>behavioral-science research. His 2006 book,<i> A Question
of</i></div>
<div><i>Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War
on</i></div>
<div><i>Terror</i>, examines how physically brutal torture methods
were</div>
<div>augmented by the work of American and Canadian psychologists<br>
in the 1950s and 1960s. Their research, with covert<br>
government financing, led to the discovery that sensory<br>
deprivation, disorientation, and self-inflicted pain could<br>
more effectively (and more rapidly) break down the human<br>
psyche than could physical assaults.<br>
<br>
Such social scientists unwittingly paved the way for what<br>
McCoy calls a "distinctively American form of torture,"<br>
relying primarily on psychological assaults, which would be<br>
used extensively by the CIA and its proxies during the<br>
latter half of the 20th century. The techniques were<br>
codified in a 1963 counterintelligence manual, now<br>
declassified, which makes chilling reading even today.<br>
<br>
The latest developments in the science of suffering have<br>
provided another component to the interrogator's tool kit -<br>
cultural manipulation. Since 2002, U.S. interrogators have<br>
used Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (so-called<br>
Biscuit teams) of psychologists and other social scientists.<br>
According to McCoy, U.S. agents at Guantanamo Bay have<br>
created a "de facto behavioral-research laboratory" that<br>
goes beyond using psychological stressors by attacking<br>
"cultural sensitivity, particularly Arab male sensitivity to<br>
issues of gender and sexual identity."<br>
<br>
Last December even more news appeared regarding the use of<br>
social-science expertise by military and intelligence<br>
agencies when George Packer, a staff writer for The New<br>
Yorker, reported the emergence of anthropological<br>
counterinsurgency experts. His article profiles the<br>
Australian anthropologist David Kilcullen, who is under<br>
contract at the State Department's counterterrorism office.<br>
Among other things, Kilcullen is in charge of writing a new<br>
counterinsurgency manual. In his work, Kilcullen refers to<br>
counterinsurgency as "armed social work" and maps out a<br>
range of extremists, providing a guide for military<br>
personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. At times it reads like an<br>
anthropology fieldwork guide: "Know the people, the<br>
topography, economy, history, religion, and culture. Know<br>
every village, road, field, population group, tribal leader,<br>
and ancient grievance. Your task is to become the world<br>
expert on your district." At other times, Kilcullen's tone<br>
is brazenly militaristic: "Counterinsurgency is a squad and<br>
platoon leader's war, and often a private soldier's war.<br>
Battles are won or lost in moments: Whoever can bring combat<br>
power to bear in seconds, on a street corner, will win."<br>
<br>
Meanwhile at the Defense Department, a new office, the<br>
Cultural Operations Research Human Terrain, has been created<br>
to tap into social-science knowledge. Its director, Steve<br>
Fondacaro, is recruiting social scientists to join<br>
five-person teams in Iraq and Afghanistan as cultural<br>
advisers; pilot teams are scheduled to begin work in the<br>
spring. Fondacaro has at least one anthropologist on his<br>
staff.<br>
<br>
The fact that Kilcullen and others are eager to commit<br>
social-science knowledge to goals established by the Defense<br>
Department and the CIA is indicative of a new anthropology<br>
of insurgency. Anthropology under these circumstances<br>
appears as just another weapon to be used on the battlefield<br>
--not as a tool for building bridges between peoples, much</div>
<div>less as a mirror that we might use to reflect upon the<br>
nature of our own society.<br>
<br>
Spurred by such revelations, Kanhong Lin, a graduate student<br>
at American University, and I crafted the resolution<br>
opposing torture and the use of anthropological knowledge as<br>
an element of torture that we brought to the anthropology<br>
association. At the group's annual business meeting, nearly<br>
300 anthropologists - the largest number in years - packed the<br>
conference auditorium and unanimously adopted the<br>
resolution.<br>
<br>
The resolution is being submitted to the full membership by<br>
mail ballot this spring. It is important that all our<br>
members, particularly those who were not at the business<br>
meeting, know what led up to the meeting's vote. It is<br>
important that scholars in other fields know, as well. At<br>
the anthropology conference, there was widespread discussion<br>
of whether the earlier resolution by psychologists - who<br>
condemned scholarly participation in torture, but not in all<br>
interrogations - had gone far enough. These are issues that<br>
scholars need to discuss widely.<br>
<br>
Although academic resolutions are not likely to transform<br>
U.S. government policies, they do articulate a set of values<br>
and ethical concerns shared by many scholars. We who adopted<br>
them hope that the recent resolutions will extend and<br>
amplify dialogue among anthropologists - and others - around<br>
issues of torture, the "war on terror," and the
potential<br>
abuse of social-science knowledge. We also hope that they<br>
will prompt us to directly confront - and resist - the<br>
militarization of the social sciences at this critical<br>
juncture in the history of the American academy.<br>
<br>
Roberto J. Gonzalez is an associate professor of<br>
anthropology at San Jose State University. He is most</div>
<div>recently the editor of<i> Anthropologists in the Public
Sphere:</i></div>
<div><i>Speaking Out on War, Peace, and American Power</i>
(University</div>
<div>of Texas Press, 2004).<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>