Anthropology News • November 2007

12

A S S O C I A T I O N B U S I N E S S

Engagement With US Security and Intelligence Communities

Commentaries and Reports by Members of the AAA Ad Hoc Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology With the US Security and Intelligence Communities

November 2006 AN Does Anthropology Need a Hearing Aid? Robert Albro (George Washington U)

December 2006 AN US Security and Intelligence Commission Charts Ethnographic Course Paul J Nuti (AAA Director of External, International & Government Relations)

January 2007 AN Ethical Challenges for Anthropological Engagement: In National Security and Intelligence Work Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Monical Heller

February 2007 AN Open Source Experiments: What They Show About the Analyst’s Frustrations in Intelligence Communities Christopher Kelty (Rice U), George E Marcus (UC Irvine)

March 2007 AN Anthropology and the Wages of Secrecy David H Price (Saint Martin’s U)

May 2007 AN SAR Hosts Seminar on the Anthropology of Military and National Security Organizations Laura A McNamara (Principal, Sandia National Laboratories)

September 2007 AN Should AAA Publish Announcements From Intelligence and Military Agencies? James Peacock (UNC Chapel Hill)

October 2007 AN Reflecting Back on a Year of Debate With the Ad Hoc Commission Kerry Fosher (Marine Corps Intelligence Activity), Paul J Nuti (AAA Director of External, International & Government Relations)

November 2007 AN Update on the AAA Ad Hoc Commission James Peacock (UNC Chapel Hill)

All contributions to the AN series on Engagement with US Security and Intelligence Communities are accessible through AnthroSource (www.anthrosource.net) for teaching and research purposes.

A S S O C I A T I O N B U S I N E S S

JAMES PEACOCK, CHAIR

AAA AD HOC COMMISSION ON THE ENGAGEMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY WITH THE US SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES

The AAA Ad Hoc Commission on the Engage-ment of Anthropology With the US Security and Intelligence Communities has under-taken a process of research and deliberation, fi rst exploring the kinds of work anthropolo-gists involved with military, defense and intel-

to detachment or opposition, but we recognize that certain kinds of engagement would vio-late the AAA Code of Ethics and thus must be called to the community’s collective attention, critiqued and shunned. We encourage openness and civil discourse on the issue of engagement.

Opportunities and PerilsSince the Cold War, localized confl icts pitting culturally divided groups have increased the need for cultural knowledge and awareness of

Update on the AAA Ad Hoc Commission

tively, they can abstain from involvement and condemn the involvement of others.

Engagement with US security and intelligence communities raises concerns about secrecy and transparency. Anthropologists should be cog-nizant of the risks some kinds of engagement (information sharing, applications of anthro-pological field knowledge, tactical support and operations) entail to populations and to other anthropologists. Were anthropologists to be perceived as aiding and abetting US military aggression or (even) collecting information for the US security and intelligence communities, it might well inhibit the ability of other anthro-pologists today and tomorrow from establishing trust with study populations or colleagues who are not US citizens. This would cause harm to the reputation of the discipline internationally.

Our framework for evaluating the ethics of anthropologists’ engagement with US security and intelligence communities is grounded in four basic principles articulated in the AAA Code of Ethics. First, do no harm. Second, disclose one’s work and roles; do not deceive. Third, uphold responsibility to research par-ticipants as primary. Fourth, maintain transpar-ency; make anthropological research accessible to others to enhance the quality and potential effects of it as critique. As the code recognizes, each of these principles needs to be seen in rela-tion to the others and in particular contexts.

cultural dynamics and global forces. Anthro-pologists can contribute such knowledge, shape particular engagements and policies; alterna-

O N A N T H R O P O L O G Y A N D U S S E C U R I T Y / I N T E L L I G E N C E

AN

ligence sectors perform, then evaluating the ethical ramifi cations of such work, particularly in light of the AAA Code of Ethics, to propose guidelines for individual anthropologists and for the AAA as a whole regarding such engage-ment. The commission’s establishment by the AAA Executive Board in November 2005 was prompted in part by the question of whether or not the AAA should publish announcements of job positions, grants and fellowships offered by US security and intelligence organizations.

Position on EngagementAssessing anthropologists’ involvement in US security and intelligence communities is not an easy task. For one thing, the “national se-curity community” is both large and diverse, comprising military, intelligence, research and development, and homeland security agencies and programs, as well as private contractors and university research institutions, existing at the local, state and federal level. Anthropologi-cal engagement in these programs, institutions and organizations is similarly diverse.

We have found no single model for “engage-ment,” so issuing a blanket condemnation or affirmation in this context makes no sense. Instead, we are discussing practical guidelines for the AAA approach to this trend, as well as advice for anthropologists contemplating research or employment in an area that falls under the broader “national security” banner.

Accordingly, at our meeting at AAA headquar-ters in Arlington in July 2007, the commission came to a consensus position: we neither oppose engagement nor endorse positions that rule it out a priori. Nor do we advocate that anthro-pologists actively seek employment or funding from national security programs. We see circum-stances in which engagement can be preferable

November 2007 • Anthropology News

13

A S S O C I A T I O N B U S I N E S S

M E E T T H E B O A R D

STACY LATHROP

ANTHROPOLOGY NEWS

In early September, the AN Managing Editor had a chance to speak with incoming AAA President-Elect Virginia Dominguez, after which we ex-

changed questions and re-sponses via email, the result of which is published below.

Dominguez, the Edward William and Jane Marr Gutgsell Professor at the University of Illinois, special-izes in cultural politics, eth-nicity, semiotics, critical dis-courses, the Middle East (espe-cially Israel) and the US and the Caribbean. Dominguez previously taught at the University of Iowa, where she cofounded and directed the

International Forum for US Studies (IFUSS), which also relocated to the University of Illinois.

From July 2002 to June 2007, Dominguez served as editor in chief of American Ethnologist, and between 1999 and 2001 she was the presi-dent of the Society for Cultural Anthropology.

Anthropology News: Why did you seek to be-come president of AAA?

Virginia Dominquez: It is a privilege and an honor to give something back to the intellectual community that has long nourished me, em-braced me and always kept me on my toes. Most of us sigh at the thought of time spent solving administrative, logistical and bureaucratic prob-

Re-Imagining the AAA With Incoming President-Elect Virginia Dominguez

lems, and I am no exception. But I learned years ago that it is important for all of us to take turns running departments, societies, conferences, in-stitutes, search committees and even promotion and tenure committees. It promotes a sense of teamwork and fairness, and it keeps us all alert, curious and challenged. I bring that spirit to AAA. I have experience and optimism about anthro-pology. I want to bring those to AAA, following in the footsteps of those AAA presidents I have watched, known, worked with and admired over the past 10–12 years.

AN: During a conversation of ours you suggested that we partake in a mental exercise of disband-ing the AAA as it currently exists and imaging what would then happen. What’s the value of such an exercise and where did your imagination take you when you experimented with the idea?

VD: Over the past few years, I have sensed so much angst and anger toward AAA from within its membership and among lapsed members that I thought it useful to imagine a world with-out AAA. Friends and colleagues have looked very surprised over the past few months when I told them that I do this exercise in my head. “But, Virginia,” they say, “you’re running for president of the association! How can you be thinking about disbanding the AAA?”

I find it very helpful to think about what is central to AAA by imagining ourselves with-out it. How long would it take for us to start clamoring for something very much like it? I doubt it would be more than two–three years. I would love to have many of us do the same mental exercise and then come together to iden-

tify what we learned from it about the field, its needs, its strengths and its weaknesses.

For example, there may be colleagues who think of AAA as the organization that puts on the AAA annual meetings and they may not be very fond of the experience of going to AAA meetings. But after two–three years of no large anthropol-ogy meetings, would we not want to recreate them? And then, of course, there are the services AAA offers job seekers and academic departments looking to hire some of them. How would hiring practices be affected if we had no AAA and no AAA meetings? I am sure that many of our current practices can be improved, but much of the work we do in and through AAA is crucial, as I see it, to anthropologists and their fans.

AN: In your candidate statement for AAA president-elect, you wrote that you view “the AAA as a ‘federation’ that enables particular economies of scale not otherwise available.” What does that mean to you in terms of AAA governance? What does it mean in terms of AAA operations and programs?

VD: AAA is unlike quite a few scholarly associa-tions. It has more sections and interest groups than many I know. This often creates a problem of perception and affect. As most of us know, many members of AAA feel connected to their section or sections but not to “AAA.” I have few friends in the profession who feel emotionally at-

AAA President-Elect Virginia Dominguez Photo courtesy L Brian Stauffer

We recognize that US security and intelligence sectors seek to employ anthropologists for a vari-ety of tasks in policy, organizational study, cul-tural training and operations. Obviously, these categories vary in the ethical considerations they raise for anthropologists: although organiza-tional study seems the least likely to automati-cally pose quandaries that would challenge the AAA Code of Ethics, in the case of certain tactical operations violations to the code seem almost inescapable.

Ongoing Education and ResearchWe are focusing on establishing guidelines to help individual anthropologists assess the ethi-cal implications of various kinds of engagement with security and intelligence sectors, and gen-erating recommendations for AAA’s conduct as an organization. We believe that offering a process of consultation will aid anthropologists in deciding whether or how to engage with se-curity and intelligence organizations.

Given the shifting borders between academic and applied anthropology and emerging proj-

ects of engagement, we also note the value of description over prescription in helping individu-al anthropologists make decisions and the AAA as an organization craft policies. Our ultimate goal is to prompt and inform discussion about engage-ment so that anthropologists can potentially mine its opportunities and avoid its pitfalls.

The commission is currently exploring means of evaluating the ethical aspects of specific opportunities of engagement. Education, for both engagement and professional ethics, is rec-ognized as a needed foundation for this assess-ment. We judge that the best way to maximize the opportunities engagement offers and reduce its threats is to maintain ongoing research, discussion and deliberation about engagement. Neither individual anthropologists nor the AAA as a whole can best address the prospects and perils of engagement without continuous learn-ing and debate about specific instances of it.

Among the possibilities for addressing the practical issues of engagement are the following options: maintaining links to national security-related fellowships, jobs and other opportunities

but not through the normal route of advertisement in AN; providing access to such notices with a disclaim-er attached; soliciting commitments from relevant funders and employers that specific opportunities will permit anthro-pologists to conduct themselves within AAA ethical guidelines; forming a AAA oversight committee to field opportunities and call atten-tion to those that seem to violate the code; sponsoring “safe space” style workshops at vari-ous meetings at which people could discuss spe-cific ethical concerns about potential projects and build networks for future conversations; and perhaps establishing ongoing AAA fora on the topic of engagement with national security and other controversial organizations.

The commission comprises eight members in three subcommittees: Laura McNamara and George Mar-cus, the Practitioners Subcommittee; Kerry Fosher and Rob Albro, the Institutions Subcommittee; Car-olyn Fluehr-Lobban, Monica Heller and David Price, the Ethics Subcommittee; and Chair James Peacock.

See Meet the Board on page 14