Tyrone Schiff Cultural Anthropology 330 Necessary EvilFor an undergraduate in liberal arts, the application of anthropology to modernday life seems outdated and without consequence. Studying another civilization’s culture,rituals, and habits is merely an academic exercise that enhances a scholar’s perception of their own environment. I could stop here and anthropology would have sufficientlyfulfilled a function in society. However, if one considers military activity, this begins toraise some interesting ideas as to how anthropology can involve itself with meaningfulcontributions to the world; as well as benefiting the academic community. For close to100 years now the debate continues on as to what anthropologists’ place andresponsibility ought to be in military conquests. In large part, it appears as though their actions are covert, which causes a great deal of tension within the anthropologicalcommunity. Furthermore, our journey leads us to a post-9/11 world, and anthropology’srole in understanding and dispelling false truths from the media. While there has beenmuch tumult as far as what anthropologists ought to do when it comes to military affairs,it is clear that their inclusion and involvement is necessary. Anthropologists possess aspecial kind of intelligence that can prove to be vital to the success or failure of amission. Therefore, anthropology should be considered an integral part of military affairs because of the valuable information that the government can gain from it.For the sake of clarity, I think it is important to define my expectations for the roleof an anthropologist involved in military affairs. Jeremy Keenan of Bristol University provides the following, “The role of the anthropologist in such situations [military] (as inall his/her work) must be to provide field-based information that can counter the1

propaganda emanating from the ever growing (and now increasingly privatized)intelligence and other war agencies” (Keenan 2006:9). Intrinsic to this definition is theidea that anthropologists possess a tremendous capacity to understand other cultures. Thisunderstanding is the result of a unique relationship that the anthropologist forms with theother culture. Furthermore, it is an anthropologist’s obligation in military situations todispel preconceived or false notions about a culture they are familiar with. This putsanthropologists in precarious positions a lot of the time.Franz Boas provides one of the earliest portrayals of anthropologists contributingto military endeavors. In a letter published by

The Nation

on December 20, 1919 , Boassuggests that the role of an anthropologist has been reduced to that of a spy acting as a pawn for American autocracy (Boas 2005:27). The letter is written with a great deal of angst and one can really get the sense that Boas is disappointed in his colleagues. Boas,so horrified by the way these anthropologists have shamed the discipline, is no longer willing to even consider his contemporaries scientists (Boas 2005:27). What appears to beone of the key elements to Boas’ dissatisfaction is the method through which ananthropologist acquires information. Boas states, “A person […] who uses science as acover for political spying, who demeans himself to pose before a foreign government asan investigator […] prostitutes science in an unpardonable way and forfeits the right to beclassed as a scientist” (Boas 2005:27). Boas suggests that anthropologists use trickeryand deception in order to gain information that can be used and harnessed by governmentintelligence. He believes the long-term consequences of this to be dreadfully harmful tothe anthropological community, because it renders anthropology untrustworthy. HeikeSchaumberg of the University of Manchester echoes Boas’ sentiments in saying,2

“Scholarly collaboration with intelligence services in support of neo-colonial pursuitsconsequently implicates the entire global research community” (Schaumberg 2006:24).As a result of this letter, Boas was asked to leave the American AnthropologicalAssociation. While Boas raises excellent points, it is important to remember that theacquisition of knowledge is central to a successful military campaign. One also has toassume that the opposing side is trying to gather sufficient knowledge about their enemy,so it would be detrimental to not proactively obtain information about the opposition first.Furthermore, whether or not the information gathered by anthropologists is used directlyagainst the other side, Brian Morris reminds us that, “Their [Anthropologist’s] reports arenow an important source of historical information […]” (Morris 2007:28). The processand procedure of anthropology still goes on regardless of whether or not it is considered“spying.” Academia is still the chief profiteer of an anthropologist’s actions. The purposeof anthropology still remains the same; gathering information about another culture, butthe audience and interpretation are the only differences. Anthropological research needsto occur during military conflict or else destruction is practically guaranteed.“The War on Terror” is an ongoing military affair that anthropology is findingitself further entrenched in as time goes on. While anthropologists have the ability toassist governments, they are also capable of falsifying their unwarranted allegations. InAlgeria, anthropology provides the greatest evidence for a conflict that may have beenfabricated. As Keenan retells the experience, “the US had identified a banana-shapedswath of territory across the Sahelian regions of the southern Sahara that it presumed washarboring Islamic militants on the run from Afghanistan. There was no hard evidence for this assumption […]” (Keenan 2006:5). The US wanted to enter into this area, but needed3