Ethics in Anthropology

Ethics in Anthropology

The use of anthropologists in the war in Iraq is both compelling and troubling. The thought that social scientists could partner with marines to produce results in war extends my understanding of the role of social scientists well beyond the initial limited confines. Social scientists have played dominant roles in business, academia and other sociopolitical arenas. The inclusion on the battle redefines the role and provide new avenue for controversy. The troubling area is the ethics of using social scientists in a war zone. I believe that the role of social scientists will be more beneficial than harmful.

From the reading and the video it was clear that the American Anthropological Association is decidedly against anthropologists providing critical information to assist in military decision making. This position is based on the view that anthropologist in their interaction with other peoples and cultures should do no harm. Consequently, if the anthropologist provides critical intelligence information that leads to the death of civilians and combat persons then that fundamental pillar is broken. This appears to be a directly measurable statement and on the surface beyond contradiction. It is my view however that the work of anthropologist instead of creating harm is actually reducing the destruction done to these civilizations and communities.

When American armies fight wars in foreign locations an immediate concern is the interaction of the soldiers and the local populations. The soldiers are unaware of many of the customs of these communities. The non-material cultural elements of these nations are systematically eroded along with the material elements. War by its very nature is destructive and places cultures in conflict with each other. On this first level anthropologist have a pivotal role to play to assist in the impact of our soldiers on foreign soil. Anthropologists are able to suggest to our troops how to engage in combat without destroying the important elements of another nation's culture.

On a larger scale if anthropologists are involved in providing guidance to the military they could ensure that the cultures of the other nations are not assimilated. The attempts to westernize these states provide an opportunity for anthropologist to step in and suggest how the aims of the conflict can be met without creating western type democracies in these states. There is a clear distinction between winning a war and change the people of the country.

The argument of do no harm fails to accept that the very presence of troops in the country is harm. It is no longer possible to not do any harm as a nation. However, it may be a gross dereliction of duty if as scientists; anthropologists fail to assist in reducing the possible harm. This element appears to be lost in the debate. Whether anthropologists provide the military with intelligence or not, the military will act. The main question is how to reduce harm; since harm will come. Anthropologist can play a pivotal role in reducing cultural harm and shaping the image other nations have of American action and military behavior.