At the University of British Columbia in Vancouver last Saturday morning (16 May 2009) more than two dozen individuals gathered within the setting of the joint conference of the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) and the American Ethnological Society (AES), for an “open session” titled, “Canadian Responses to the Militarization of Anthropology,” which followed from the previous day’s panel (see Report #1). The description of the event as stated in the conference program was as follows:
In conjunction with the symposium, “The Use of Culture and Anthropology in Counter-Insurgency and Peacekeeping Operations,” this session invites free discussion for all CASCA members to consider possible Canadian responses to the spread of programs such as the Human Terrain System and the Minerva Research Initiative, especially in light of the Canadian government’s own engagements in Afghanistan, in the so-called “war on terror,” and with domestic spying. Pentagon funding is already available to Canadian anthropologists, and Canadian Forces in Afghanistan already incorporate at least one American Human Terrain Team. How prepared are we to meet the challenges of possible/further attempts to coopt the Canadian academy in (further) service of the state, and military and intelligence agencies? What can or should we do as an association, as individuals? No papers will be presented at this session, and opening remarks will be offered by the moderator.
Support from CASCA
The CASCA Executive Committee was also interested in supporting the event: a message to all conference participants was sent out shortly before the conference began, encouraging people to attend, and noting that it would take place immediately before the Annual General Meeting of CASCA.
The incoming CASCA President, Dr. Deirdre Meintel, as well as the CASCA Anglophone Member at Large, Dr. Craig Proulx, attended the session. The outgoing CASCA President, Dr. Regna Darnell, was also very supportive and raised the topic of the open discussion during the AGM. Subsequent to the conference, and arising from the AGM last Saturday, the CASCA Executive decided to revive its “resolutions committee” which was set up to bring forward issues to the membership that deal with controversial public and political questions. This committee will serve as the conduit for any resolutions/initiatives that may come out of the sub-committee that we spoke of organizing during the open discussion session. The Executive has asked me to serve on the resolutions committee, and I accepted. Finally, CASCA has also been supportive not just in hosting the open discussion session, but also in publishing an article of mine in preparation for events at this conference related to the militarization of anthropology.
It was very important to have had the participation of Dr. Greg Feldman, a founding and active member of the U.S. Network of Concerned Anthropologists, present at the discussion, to share his notes and insights based on his experience with the NCA. For example, I had no idea of how the NCA actually went about being established in the first place, what means were used, and so forth. Aside from those already identified, I will not identify any of the other participants. I should note that a member of the Human Terrain System, Dr. Christopher A. King, was also present for the discussion (see report #1). (Following the conference, some were concerned whether HTS undertook any recruitment, focused on AES members, at the venue as this could affect the nature of future collaborations with American anthropological bodies. Dr. King was certainly not barred from the session, and it was open to all who had registered for the conference.)
Already one might perceive a certain bifurcation in the aims of the open session. Was it meant to create a Canadian chapter of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists? Yes, originally that was our purpose, except that hardly anyone from the NCA was able or willing to actively pursue this possibility, and it was almost canceled outright, until I decided that a “Canadian response” does not require that our hand be held by our American partners. Was the session designed to mobilize CASCA into taking some action or making a formal declaration? Yes, and this was discussed. However, clearly these are two separate aims — one being the formation of a sub-group, and the other being action to be taken by the association as a whole.
While there was some limited support in the session for going through a formal CASCA declaration as the primary route (for example, a declaration in support of the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, in its 2007 repudiation of HTS), the consensus was that we should form our own private network to work on any possible resolutions over the coming year, possibly in time for the next CASCA conference and AGM, which will coincidentally take place in Montreal. (Incidentally, for those interested in attending, you should note that the 2010 CASCA conference will take place in conjunction with the gigantic mega-conference of the Federation of the Humanities and Social Sciences — “the Learneds” — and that even hotel space might be problematic. The conference will once again take place at Concordia, although this time I will not have the pleasure of being a local organizer as I was in 2006.)
It was also made clear that CASCA could not issue any formal public pronouncements, in a top-down manner, speaking for the association as a whole, until the membership as a whole had the chance to provide feedback, and therefore the only immediately available option was to form this private network, which for the time being, until we come up with our own name, we can call the Canadian NCA as a shortened reference.
Furthermore, it was also recognized early on in the discussion that we would not be able to speak to the same issues as the U.S. NCA, which is focused on counterinsurgency and the Human Terrain System. HTS cannot hire Canadian citizens, and the American citizens it can hire have to receive security clearance. Therefore, HTS cannot be a Canadian issue, strictly speaking, although as I emphasized that regardless of the international hegemony of American anthropology (which has an impact on the public perception of all anthropologies), Canadian and American anthropology have historically been so closely intertwined — the very setting for the remarks was a joint event with the AES — that HTS should not be read as a “purely” or solely American issue. As to whether the Canadian Armed Forces might be interested in securing the collaboration of academics, that is not altogether clear (see this for more on Canada’s “white situational awareness teams“). Speaking in another context at the conference, Dr. Anne Irwin, who I had the pleasure of meeting as she is the only Canadian anthropologist to have spent time with Canadian troops in Afghanistan and is a former reservist herself, noted that it is not certain that the Canadian Armed Forces has taken any official “hands off” approach to academia, explaining to those of us assembled at the previous day’s panel that she was invited to contribute a chapter to a Canadian military publication on “cultural intelligence,” which she refused to do. The only “hope” then is that the clock will run out: Canadian Forces are supposed to be pulled from Afghanistan in 2011 — however, as we know, there are excellent chances that politicians, of whatever party, will succumb to American pressure to prolong their stay.
Thus, unlike the U.S. NCA, our concerns will be broader, and encompass discussion of the potential impact of the Pentagon’s Minerva Research Initiative on the landscape of Canadian social science funding (since Minerva encourages foreign participation), as well as examining any funding of the Canadian social sciences by the Department of National Defence.
An additional concern of our network will be to discuss the questions raised by open access publishing, self-archiving, and the production of ethnographic websites that can and likely will be read and mined for any data of possible value to military planners, that could threaten the lives of those we work with, or threaten the societies in which they have to live. We will need to discuss whether our obligations to the taxpayers who funded our research overrides our primary ethical responsibility, which is to those at the heart of our research. One thing seemed certain, open access publishing was not seen as a pure and pristine value to be pursued at all costs and without regard to the consequences, and we also realized that we need to further impress on all anthropologists to be extra cautious and vigilant concerning how even small details could acquire significance for future military actions or other forms of pernicious intervention. The same concerns were voiced concerning border crossings by anthropologists, and the possibility that sensitive data in any format could be seized and copied, and possibly put to use.
Given the nearly continuous thread of the discussion held last Saturday, which seemed to have a great deal to do with surveillance, both placing anthropology under surveillance and enlisting anthropology (voluntarily or not) as a tool of surveillance, and that the broader context has to do with the workings of national security states, one participant argued that our focus should not be so much the “militarization” of anthropology, as the “securitization” of anthropology. This appeared to meet with wide approval, and it appears to be the focal concept that will unite our upcoming discussions.
At this point, this is the most that I will share about this discussion. The private discussion to take place within the group, will remain private. However, I will reproduce on this blog any draft resolution that we may produce, especially if it is intended to generate wider discussion and get wider feedback.
Many thanks again to the CASCA Executive Committee, to Greg Feldman, and to all those who came to one of the final events of the conference, when already most conference participants had left. The next posting about this conference in Vancouver will not be a report as such, but rather a copy of the paper I presented (discussed in the last report), along with audio of the paper.
6 thoughts on “Canadian Responses to the Militarization and Securitization of Anthropology: Report #2 from the CASCA-AES Conference in Vancouver”
“One thing seemed certain, open access publishing was not seen as a pure and pristine value to be pursued at all costs and without regard to the consequences, and we also realized that we need to further impress on all anthropologists to be extra cautious and vigilant concerning how even small details could acquire significance for future military actions or other forms of pernicious intervention.”
To target Open Access, which applies only to peer reviewed publications, is probably the wrong approach to take – because there are many who do not want to publish Open Access for other reasons (supporting editors, tradition, prestige, not knowing its allowed, etc…).
I would have liked to see more about what kinds of information are being mined, so that authors can think more about what they are saying, instead of thinking about where they should say it.
Does it really help to distinguish OA publishing from publishing in this debate? Data mining Anthro Source is just as easy as that of an OA journal…
Ethnographic websites however are a whole new mess and I agree 100% with what you are saying in that regard, but I would really like to find a way to clarify the difference between blogging ones research, and publishing Open Access.
Isn’t the act of publishing something, a way to have it vetted by the discipline (okay, maybe by some grad students for you realists out there). It sounds like the big argument is that peer review isn’t working well enough to protect the communities involved in anthropological research, and not so much that Open Access is a problem…
Especially if these issues were big in Vietnam as well…
btw: can you recommend any good readings that might be more specific about the kinds of information that are being used by intelligence groups?
Thanks Owen. I should clarify that when I speak of “open access” in this context I mean that there is unrestricted electronic access to a given source of information. As you know from our previous discussions, I don’t otherwise think the concept is a very meaningful or unproblematic one, and it seems to have been created specifically to suit the Internet, as if access via the Internet makes something somehow suddenly more “open” than when it was in paper format in a library that participated in inter-library loans, allowed access to members of the public, could be photocopied and mailed, etc.
One set of related questions is: How easy do you want to make it for those who will mine your work regardless of the format it is in? Do you want to eliminate all costs and all barriers? Do you want it in a format that makes it easy to mine electronically? If the answers are: very easy, yes, and yes…then what possibilities are left for “resistance”?
There is of course a whole array of material that can be put out in public that, far from serving the purposes of the national security apparatus, very much collides with it and causes it some headaches. Sider’s, and many indigenous scholars’ notions of research as resistance become very valuable here.
Yes, peer review attends to all sorts of things, except perhaps the kind of problems we are speaking about here. I don’t think the lessons of Vietnam were learned very well…and I say this as someone who has been pressed by anonymous reviewers to reveal more and more and more intimate details about my collaborators in Trinidad, to personalize my story, to delve into personal disputes, something that I found shocking (especially when a certain publisher endorsed the reviewers’ requests), and I did the exact opposite: more arid, less personal, more detached. However, in a discipline that prides itself on displaying the “intimacy” it has achieved with interlocutors, that dwells on “everyday lives”, that manifests this through dense detail that only an ethnographer can manifest…then we are really setting ourselves up as the targets we have been, and are.
Until anthropological consciousness can be deepened on these accounts, I think we need to think about what we are saying, and where we are saying it. Now is definitely not the time to take the approach of, “keep saying what you are saying but at least let’s make it ‘open’ in the meantime.”
Your last question: No, absolutely not. The key point here is that what’s ours is theirs, and what’s theirs is theirs. OSIS, WBIL, etc., do not make available their data and how they use that data — it wouldn’t be good intelligence work otherwise, and I doubt that a Freedom of Information request could be used to override what is defended as in the interest of “national security.” All we know, in part, is what information they do use, and they already mine EbscoHost.
I agree with you, that simply shutting down open access publishing is not really addressing a whole range of deeper problems. What worries me is rushing for greater exposure.
Nice post. Wish I had been able to make the drive up north to the meetings, sounds like good sessions and good developments all around.
I’m a fan of Anne Irwin’s ethnographic work and see her project as being one that can be used to draw important distinctions between the fundamental and irresolvable problems with programs like HTS and other forms of work/engagement with the military. Her work clarifies many of the key ethical distinctions between doing anthropology “of” and “for” the military (though as with all of us doing anthropology “of,” myself equally included, there remains possibilities that the “of” can be transformed into “for” by others).
Personally, I think the idea of a Canadian NCA is a great idea. While not speaking for the NCA steering committee or others, I know that last year when a group of grad students showed an interest in starting a NCA branch, everyone thought it was a great idea, and my own view is that different constituencies may want to take on the problems of the militarization of anthropology in different ways, and the more voices involved in the critique the better.
Many thanks for your visit and your comments, David. I was lucky to have met Anne Irwin…people pointed her out, literally, as I mentioned her name in response to a question, and fortunately that opened the way to her speaking (she is a bit of a low profile person I gather, and the Canadian press has produced one or two articles that created the impression that she was an “embed” working for the military — it was very important to then hear her correct those misrepresentations).
I would expect at some point that we might see equivalents of the NCA in the UK and perhaps Australia, at which point we should definitely form an international network.
In the meantime, the work that you and others have done individually and as part of the NCA has clearly been a major source of inspiration, and I along with many others have to thank you a great deal.
Pingback: News: Militarizing the Social Sciences and Humanities in Canada « OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY
Pingback: Drafting Social Science Research for Canadian Counterinsurgency « One Day for the Watchman
Comments are closed