The Ethics of Embedded Anthropology

The articles I have assigned all deal with the involvement of anthropologists in the armed forces of the United States and Canada operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US called it the “Human Terrain System”; the Canadian Armed Forces called it “White Situational Awareness Team”. In both cases, it was an effort to integrate anthropologists or cultural ‘coaching’ into the decision structures of troops on the ground. The hope was that it would make those decisions, and the military personnel who would implement them, more aware of the cultural values of the people they were dealing with. The intent was to ‘win hearts and minds’ and reduce civilian casualties by promoting cultural this awareness or sensitivity. 

Anthropology in general has long been uncomfortable with its colonial past, when anthropologists from colonial powers were ‘embedded’ with colonial administrations. More recently, American anthropology has forbidden such involvements in its ethics code, due to their experiences in the Vietnam War (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Camelot if you want to know more). The opposition to this current initiative asserted that it was unethical and had as much potential to increase harm as to reduce it. Making the invaders more culturally sensitive really did not make it any less of a, well, invasion. Similar to criticism of the ethics and objectivity of embedded journalists.

The style of the paper will be an argumentative essay. You will be taking a position early and attempting to argue or prove it in the paper. Your task, once again, is to assess the points made in each of the articles, and the data used to support them. You are then to provide your own, reasoned and supported, views on whether the articles argue their positions successfully. Many of the authors are critical of the initiatives, but there is also some supporting material. Quite effective arguments exist on either side.

• “An argumentative paper makes a claim about a topic and justifies this claim with specific evidence. The claim could be an opinion, a policy proposal, an evaluation, a cause-and-effect statement, or an interpretation. The goal of the argumentative paper is to convince the audience that the claim is true based on the evidence provided.”
• https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/essay_writing/argumentative_essays.html for more information on this and other types of essay.

If you feel that this practice was a bad idea, state that up front and explain what you feel are the major problems with it. If you think this was a good idea, state this and explain what you see as the advantages and benefits of the initiative. If you cannot argue strongly on either side and think it is some of both, state that and explain why.

Remember that you are assessing their arguments to make an argument of your own, and that your argument is the one that interests me the most. Do not waste my time simply repeating what they said. Decide what position you will take and then concentrate on extracting the points that will support your argument.

1. How well and efficiently you summarize what you see as the important points in each of the assigned articles. If you do not cite or at least refer to every article, you lose marks.
2. How well and clearly you cite (using APA style) each of the four articles below. Are all quotes marked as such, and do you note which article made which point?
3. How well you organize those points to support your argument.
4. How clearly stated and consistent your position is throughout the paper.
5. How well you separate unsupported opinion from reasoned argument. 
6. How well you used APA style in both in-text citation and in the bibliography (on separate page).

See marking sheet for more tips

Format (marks will be deducted if you do not follow these instructions)

The paper should be 700-1000 words (2-3 pages), double spaced with 1”/25cm margins all around, and in 12pt Times New Roman font. APA citation and bibliography are required.
You must upload a copy in MS Office  .doc or .docx format or PDF format (and no other format) to the Brightspace folder Assignment 2 by 6PM October 23rd. That file should have the filename in this format: Yourlastname_Yourfirstname_Anth1120-001.

Below are six sources. Some are supportive, some are critical of embedding anthropologists. You are required to choose any 4 to support your paper. You can use more from this list or any others that you find as well. There is some discussion about ethical research in your text, which may be useful. But 4 from below is the minimum

Please remember that these links may not be openable in one browser but will be in another. Try different browsers and different machines before emailing me that you are having problems. Please do not wait until the night before to discover these problems.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/anthropological-intelligence-supports-military-occupation-engineering-trust-of-the-indigenous-population/13643  (note that this one is tricky, and may require copy/paste to open)

http://zeroanthropology.net/2008/11/24/canadas-own-human-terrain-system-white-situational-awareness-team-in-afghanistan/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/07/07/army-shuts-down-controversial-human-terrain-system-criticized-many-anthropologists

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947095,00.html

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/28/the-army-needs-anthropologists-iraq-afghanistan-human-terrain/

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3295

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html