http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/anthropologists-and-the-us-army-yet-again/ Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:11:25 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/anthropologists-and-the-us-army-yet-again/#comment-4809 Rob Hutton Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:25:34 +0000 http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/anthropologists-and-the-us-army-yet-again/#comment-4809 I believe that Dr. Griffin probably has similar concerns about the methodological limitations for studying Iraqis in Iraq with the US military, that is, not being able to integrate and become part of the Iraqi people and work with them closely poses severe limitations on the anthropologists ability to understand the problems they face and the way they view their situation. I hope that you do not take Dr. Griffin's blog posts too out of context and therefore undermine the good work that these anthropologists are doign for the US military, albeit with severe (recognized) limitations. Firstly, the post that you refer to by Dr. Griffin was posted while he was still undergoing training with the US military pre-deployment. Therefore, there was nothing else to write about but the US military and US military culture. Throw an anthropologist into a new culture and of course s/he will report on that new culture.. even though it was not the ultimate goal of the program. At that point, Dr. Griffin had not even set foot in Iraq, so there was nothing to report with respect to Iraqi culture. He was just reporting on his experience of being an applied anthropologist being part of a new program with the US miltiary, as much for his students as anyone else. Secondly, doing anthropology in a war zone is severely limiting. I am sure that Dr. Griffin would have loved to go and live with an Iraqi villager for the duration of his deployment, however security concerns prohibited this. I believe that this severe limitation did not go un-noticed by the deployed anthropologists, and I am sure that they were as frustrated as you at the methodological limitations that this imposes on naturalistic/ethnographic study of cultural anthropology. However, is it not better to have trained eyes observing from a perspective closer than researchers in their offices? (discuss!). Thirdly, I think there is another important issue here which relates to the relevance of the anthropological data to the "customer" (in this case, the US military). In this instance of applied anthropological study, there is also a need for a thorough understanding of the user of the data that comes from the anthropological study and the uses of those data. I believe that, although flawed, the idea for the HT Teams is to support better use of anthro/cultural data by the US armed forces to do a better job of accomplishing their mission. This requires that the anthropologist also understands the military's requirements, their questions, the issues that they are dealing with, and then translating that into meaningful research questions for studying the local population. This includes helping the US military ask questions that can be answered by this type of study, especially when the methodologies are limited, the time frames are limited and so forth. It is therefore as important for the anthropologist to be embedded with the military customer (in this case the Brigade Commander and his staff) in order to understand what questions they have about the local culture and what is driving those questions. This allows the anthropologist to provide a different perspective for the commander in accomplishing his mission, and potentially can have a large influence on how that commander does his job. This is a tough balance and, as you have pointed out, there is the possibility of the anthropologist going native in the wrong direction (taking on the values and perspectives of the US military). But again, there is the supposition that as an ethical, educated, and experienced observer of the world, the anthropologist is less prone to this type of behavior and more able to remain objective about both sides of the equation. This is a key challenge for aapplied cultural anthropologists who are looking for answers to the challenges and questions posed by their employer, and tied by the constraints of the working environment (in this case, severe security restrictions). But is this not better than postulating and ruminating from afar? At least the trained anthropologist recognizes the methodological issues and can identify strategies to overcome them as best they can. Someone without this training will fall foul of the very myopia that you describe in your blog. I do not believe that the post that you quote from Dr. Griffin is a fair reflection of the actual events that transpired, but merely the existing context in which it was written, and that trained anthropologists in the HTP should be given more credit for their knowledge, skill and experience (and therefore by supposition, objectivity and recognition of methodological limitations) than you give them in this post. It should be noted also that being a trained anthropologist is not a prerequisitie for selection to the HTP, however. For me, this is the bigger worry. But, I applaud the US military for allowing civilians into their command posts to advise their commanders and to provide the objectivity and cultural perspective that would seem to be so critical for achieving peaceful aims in stabilizing the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting the recovery of these countries. I believe that Dr. Griffin probably has similar concerns about the methodological limitations for studying Iraqis in Iraq with the US military, that is, not being able to integrate and become part of the Iraqi people and work with them closely poses severe limitations on the anthropologists ability to understand the problems they face and the way they view their situation. I hope that you do not take Dr. Griffin’s blog posts too out of context and therefore undermine the good work that these anthropologists are doign for the US military, albeit with severe (recognized) limitations.
Firstly, the post that you refer to by Dr. Griffin was posted while he was still undergoing training with the US military pre-deployment. Therefore, there was nothing else to write about but the US military and US military culture. Throw an anthropologist into a new culture and of course s/he will report on that new culture.. even though it was not the ultimate goal of the program. At that point, Dr. Griffin had not even set foot in Iraq, so there was nothing to report with respect to Iraqi culture. He was just reporting on his experience of being an applied anthropologist being part of a new program with the US miltiary, as much for his students as anyone else.
Secondly, doing anthropology in a war zone is severely limiting. I am sure that Dr. Griffin would have loved to go and live with an Iraqi villager for the duration of his deployment, however security concerns prohibited this. I believe that this severe limitation did not go un-noticed by the deployed anthropologists, and I am sure that they were as frustrated as you at the methodological limitations that this imposes on naturalistic/ethnographic study of cultural anthropology. However, is it not better to have trained eyes observing from a perspective closer than researchers in their offices? (discuss!).
Thirdly, I think there is another important issue here which relates to the relevance of the anthropological data to the “customer” (in this case, the US military). In this instance of applied anthropological study, there is also a need for a thorough understanding of the user of the data that comes from the anthropological study and the uses of those data. I believe that, although flawed, the idea for the HT Teams is to support better use of anthro/cultural data by the US armed forces to do a better job of accomplishing their mission. This requires that the anthropologist also understands the military’s requirements, their questions, the issues that they are dealing with, and then translating that into meaningful research questions for studying the local population. This includes helping the US military ask questions that can be answered by this type of study, especially when the methodologies are limited, the time frames are limited and so forth. It is therefore as important for the anthropologist to be embedded with the military customer (in this case the Brigade Commander and his staff) in order to understand what questions they have about the local culture and what is driving those questions. This allows the anthropologist to provide a different perspective for the commander in accomplishing his mission, and potentially can have a large influence on how that commander does his job.
This is a tough balance and, as you have pointed out, there is the possibility of the anthropologist going native in the wrong direction (taking on the values and perspectives of the US military). But again, there is the supposition that as an ethical, educated, and experienced observer of the world, the anthropologist is less prone to this type of behavior and more able to remain objective about both sides of the equation.
This is a key challenge for aapplied cultural anthropologists who are looking for answers to the challenges and questions posed by their employer, and tied by the constraints of the working environment (in this case, severe security restrictions). But is this not better than postulating and ruminating from afar? At least the trained anthropologist recognizes the methodological issues and can identify strategies to overcome them as best they can. Someone without this training will fall foul of the very myopia that you describe in your blog. I do not believe that the post that you quote from Dr. Griffin is a fair reflection of the actual events that transpired, but merely the existing context in which it was written, and that trained anthropologists in the HTP should be given more credit for their knowledge, skill and experience (and therefore by supposition, objectivity and recognition of methodological limitations) than you give them in this post. It should be noted also that being a trained anthropologist is not a prerequisitie for selection to the HTP, however. For me, this is the bigger worry. But, I applaud the US military for allowing civilians into their command posts to advise their commanders and to provide the objectivity and cultural perspective that would seem to be so critical for achieving peaceful aims in stabilizing the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting the recovery of these countries.

]]> http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/anthropologists-and-the-us-army-yet-again/#comment-2694 American Anthropology Association issues Human Terrain System resolution « Culture Matters Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:20:17 +0000 http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/anthropologists-and-the-us-army-yet-again/#comment-2694 [...] with ethics, not with the methodological trouble of working for the military in a war zone (which Greg has discussed here on Culture Matters). The resolution identifies three key areas of ethical trouble that potentially [...] [...] with ethics, not with the methodological trouble of working for the military in a war zone (which Greg has discussed here on Culture Matters). The resolution identifies three key areas of ethical trouble that potentially [...]

]]>