Tyrone Schiff

Cultural Anthropology 330

Necessary Evil

For an undergraduate in liberal arts, the application of anthropology to modern

day life seems outdated and without consequence.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 sufficiently

fulfilled a function in society. However, if one considers military activity, this begins to

raise some interesting ideas as to how anthropology can involve itself with meaningful

contributions to the world; as well as benefiting the academic community. For close to

100 years now the debate continues on as to what anthropologists’ place and

responsibility 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 anthropological

community. Furthermore, our journey leads us to a post-9/11 world, and anthropology’s

role in understanding and dispelling false truths from the media. While there has been

much 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 a

special kind of intelligence that can prove to be vital to the success or failure of a

mission. 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 role

of an anthropologist involved in military affairs. Jeremy Keenan of Bristol University

provides the following, “The role of the anthropologist in such situations [military] (as in

all his/her work) must be to provide field-based information that can counter the

1
propaganda emanating from the ever growing (and now increasingly privatized)

intelligence and other war agencies” (Keenan 2006:9). Intrinsic to this definition is the

idea that anthropologists possess a tremendous capacity to understand other cultures. This

understanding is the result of a unique relationship that the anthropologist forms with the

other culture. Furthermore, it is an anthropologist’s obligation in military situations to

dispel preconceived or false notions about a culture they are familiar with. This puts

anthropologists in precarious positions a lot of the time.

Franz Boas provides one of the earliest portrayals of anthropologists contributing

to military endeavors. In a letter published by The Nation on December 20, 1919 , Boas

suggests 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 be

one of the key elements to Boas’ dissatisfaction is the method through which an

anthropologist acquires information. Boas states, “A person […] who uses science as a

cover for political spying, who demeans himself to pose before a foreign government as

an investigator […] prostitutes science in an unpardonable way and forfeits the right to be

classed as a scientist” (Boas 2005:27). Boas suggests that anthropologists use trickery

and deception in order to gain information that can be used and harnessed by government

intelligence. He believes the long-term consequences of this to be dreadfully harmful to

the anthropological community, because it renders anthropology untrustworthy. Heike

Schaumberg of the University of Manchester echoes Boas’ sentiments in saying,

2
“Scholarly collaboration with intelligence services in support of neo-colonial pursuits

consequently implicates the entire global research community” (Schaumberg 2006:24).

As a result of this letter, Boas was asked to leave the American Anthropological

Association. While Boas raises excellent points, it is important to remember that the

acquisition of knowledge is central to a successful military campaign. One also has to

assume 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 directly

against the other side, Brian Morris reminds us that, “Their [Anthropologist’s] reports are

now an important source of historical information […]” (Morris 2007:28). The process

and 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 purpose

of anthropology still remains the same; gathering information about another culture, but

the audience and interpretation are the only differences. Anthropological research needs

to occur during military conflict or else destruction is practically guaranteed.

“The War on Terror” is an ongoing military affair that anthropology is finding

itself further entrenched in as time goes on. While anthropologists have the ability to

assist governments, they are also capable of falsifying their unwarranted allegations. In

Algeria, anthropology provides the greatest evidence for a conflict that may have been

fabricated. As Keenan retells the experience, “the US had identified a banana-shaped

swath of territory across the Sahelian regions of the southern Sahara that it presumed was

harboring 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 needed

3
an event that would substantiate and legitimize their attention in this region. Almost on

command, there was a hostage situation that came fully assembled with an evil

mastermind, ‘El Para’, and an Islamist terrorist organization, the Group Salafiste pour la

Prédication et le Combat. This was more than enough evidence to support entry into this

region and “within a year, the United states and its allies had transformed the Sahara-

Sahel region into a second front in the global ‘war on terror’” (Keenan 2006:6). The only

problem with all of this is that it just was not true (Keenan 2006:6).

Anthropology plays a critical role here in defining truth from lies. Anthropologists

spend tremendous amounts of time acquiring evidence and developing a “detailed

anthropological framework” (Keenan 2006:8). In this case, the indigenous people from

the area, based on interviews, observations, and facts reveal that this was indeed a ploy

for the US to enter into this region (Keenan 2006:8). This is quite the accusation to make,

especially against the US government, and especially when there are thousands of

documents supporting the US claim, and only a handful for the anthropologist. One also

has to be wary of the fact that initially there was no evidence to enter this region, but all

of a sudden catastrophe hit, and the US had the justified cause they were hoping for. One

could argue that Keenan’s story was merely a conspiracy theory. To counter this point,

one ought to remember that an anthropologist maintains his or her credibility due to first

hand experience.

The US government’s stance in Algeria becomes even more tenuous when one

considers the favorable remarks of Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at the

American University. Ahmed states that there has been, “the emergence of a new breed of

instant media expert” (Houtman 2007:17). Ahmed suggests that the average person looks

4
to the media for quick and easy answers, yet, in reality, only through the hard work and

sweat of anthropology can one truly acquire those answers. Therefore, although there is

limited evidence, an anthropologist’s account carries significant weight. Ultimately, it is

hard to determine which side is really telling the truth, but the fact that there are options

is a privilege, and further reason for anthropologists to involve themselves in military

action. Anthropology, at the very least, provides another perspective and insight into a

situation.

Anthropology and military affairs have a long history together. As early as 1919,

Franz Boas was raising a criticism that still persists today about the involvement of the

anthropological community. What this paper suggests is although Franz Boas was

completely against anthropological involvement in military affairs, it is far too important

to the outcome of a military operation to forsake it. Involving anthropologists in the

military process is critical. Moral arguments may make the case that anthropologists

doubly act as spies, which may hurt relations and academic progress in times of peace,

yet the benefits of knowledge far outweigh the costs of destruction. Another way that

anthropologists get involved in military affairs is through debunking certain ideas about

other cultures. In a vastly interconnected world, the mass media dictates a large majority

of public opinion. Anthropologists make it their duty to try and educate and set the record

straight, even if it’s the US government that they are going up against. Anthropologists

are intense scholars of civilization, customs, and traditions and military operations often

deal with an outside group from a different location and culture. With this in mind,

anthropology is an extremely worthwhile proficiency to have and ought to be utilized in

military action.

5
 Bibliography

Boas, Franz
2005 From the archive. Anthropology Today. 21(3) 27.
Houtman, Gustaaf
2007 Islam in today’s world. Anthropology Today. 23(1) 17-19.
Keenan, Jeremy
2006 Conspiracy theories and ‘terrorists’. Anthropology Today. 22(6) 4-9.
Morris, Brian
2007 Spying and Fieldwork. Anthropology Today. 23(1) 28.
Schaumberg, Heiker
2006 Colonialism in the 21st Century. Anthropology Today. 22(5) 24-25.