Anthropologists are like any other group. We have our own little societies and organizations that we belong to. The largest and most influential of these groups is the American Anthropological Association (AAA). Most anthropologists, be they practicing or academics, belong to this group. They decide a lot of things that affect the daily lives of anthropologists, from the formatting of academic papers to the ethical guidelines that we're all supposed to follow. However, I take issue with the fact that the AAA uses peer pressure in an effort to dictate a member's political beliefs. Allow me to elaborate...
To understand the issues, let's take a look at the AAA's hostile relationship with the US military. Back during the Vietnam War, the US Army had devised a social science project known as
Project Camelot. While the project never really got off the ground, it was a planned attempt to use anthropological research to find new ways to attack and demoralize an enemy. The army caught a lot of flack about subverting cultural knowledge and the project was scrapped. However, the AAA had decided that the military was an evil organization and should not be dealt with except in a strictly adversarial sense. This friction between anthropology and "The Man" helped the radical left-wing ideologies of the 60s take a firm root within anthropology departments across the nation. This mentality is still thriving there today.
But with all this "fight the power" shtick going on within anthropology, you really wouldn't expect to find the sort of underhanded fascism that goes on in the AAA. Today, the army seems to be a different creature than it was in the 60s. While the underlying tones of exploitation in the name of victory are still there, the army has adopted a few programs that show surprisingly forward thinking on their part. Mainly, I'm referring to the Human Terrain System (HTS) that has been developed in recent years to address cultural issues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since its implementation, the HTS program has seen a stark reduction in violence in every area that has employed it. Yet, in their infinite wisdom, the AAA has decided to oppose the program, citing that it violates the AAA's Code of Ethics, which states that anthropologists must do no harm to their research subjects.
Apparently, I've missed something. Wouldn't the decrease in violence indicate that the anthropologists that have been brave enough to ignore the mighty AAA have saved many lives? Isn't the AAA's refusal to cooperate causing harm to people? Is the AAA actually afraid that the army will find a way to use this information in a questionable manner? Or do they not have faith in the participating anthropologists to exercise good judgment and not serve as intelligence agents? Either way, I don't think they're looking at the picture holistically, which is what anthropologists are supposed to excel at. So, as it stands, you can either stay in the good graces of the AAA and let innocent people die in pointless tribal violence, or you can risk drawing the ire of your peers by going off into the desert to try and do some good.
This is the main example of my gripe with the AAA. Incidentally, there are also no Coke products allowed at department functions at my school because of the company's supposed human rights violations. Really? I have to just follow along like a good little lemming and give up all the wonderful things that the Coca-Cola corporation brings me? Well, no thanks. Good luck, by the way. I'm sure the .0000001% of sales that are lost because of a half-assed boycott organized by an obscure group of ivory tower academics will bring the company to its knees in no time. Personally, I'll be keeping my membership dues, and my freedom of thought, from now on.
« Hide Post
