Part One of: “Canadian Anthropology or Cultural Imperialism?”
Recent events have called into question how a discipline can be commanded on an international plane, and represented in a singular and universal fashion. Those events are useful for inviting meditation on questions of national traditions, the power to globalize a claim to preeminence over other national traditions, the capital deployed in and acquired from academic-political conflict, and questions of intellectual independence. The ultimate aim of this essay is to renew discussion of what a Canadian anthropology would mean, born in the shadow of US cultural and academic imperialism.
BDS as Prologue
An important precedent has now been established by members of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in an executive meeting in Denver late on Friday, November 20, 2015, who voted in an overwhelming majority to support boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, and specifically targeted Israeli academic Anthropology in a series of panels discussing the boycott motion. They also had presentations focusing on Israeli archaeology, as if this were part of the anthropological discipline in Israel (which it is not), or as part of an effort to demonstrate Israeli universities’ complicity with occupation—as if such complicity does not also pertain to the US, only a grander scale, as it continues to occupy Afghanistan, reoccupies part of Iraq, and invades Syria illegally. Either way, such a critique as was offered was arguably misdirected and meant to stoke vote-mobilizing anger (as is standard in US politicking), where various emergencies and the latest outrages become productive sites for accumulating political capital.
The AAA of course did not invent the idea of an academic boycott, and several associations in the UK and US have already voted on this matter, along with numerous university student unions. However, within the discipline of Anthropology on an international level, this seems like a new development. As we presumably make our way to a more multipolar world, and with continued distrust and antagonism towards US dominance (in some quarters), perhaps the AAA will come to regret flaunting its hegemony in the unlikely event that it might provoke counter-boycotts.
It is against this background, but stemming from deeper roots, that I want to pose some questions in this short series of articles, dealing with US academic imperialism, Canadian Anthropology and intellectual self-reliance.
“America the Good,” Just Got Gooder Again
It seems that the AAA has set a formal precedent among academic anthropologists internationally. AAA members have legitimated the principle that we can now boycott each other over political differences, that is, over our inevitable complicity, and usual complacency, with the politics of our respective states’ foreign and domestic policies. The mistake made by the AAA is to pretend that it owns morality and can sit in judgment over others, while not being held to the same standards.
To maintain this fiction of moral supremacy, AAA supporters of the boycott had to invent a new history of their discipline, one more congenial to their pronouncements. What we witnessed was the reinvention of (US) anthropological traditions. Yet, while some sharply denounced histories of anthropology that cast it as a “war-fighting discipline,” none have denounced the recent construction of the mythical opposite.
Inventing the Human Rights Tradition
So it was that some claimed the AAA has had a long-standing commitment to “human rights”:
“The principles reflect values that have long been at the core of the AAA’s orientation to public engagement: a commitment to human rights and academic freedom; a commitment to advocate for minorities, disadvantaged groups, and indigenous groups; and a critical awareness of how the U.S. has been implicated in global conflicts”. (Allen & Subramanian, 2015)
But that is misleading. Let us consider how the current AAA statement on human rights (1999) differs markedly from its 1947 predecessor. Whereas now the AAA statement on human rights broadly endorses the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, its predecessor did not. As Benjamin Gregg pointed out,
“sixty years ago, what the United Nations claimed as universal human rights collided with what the American Anthropological Association interpreted as cultural imperialism. As the U.N. drafted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1947, the American Anthropological Association—a professional organization dedicated to the study of profound and enduring cultural difference—disputed the notion of rights valid across all cultural boundaries. It sought to discourage the drafting committee accordingly: ‘How can the proposed Declaration be applicable to all human beings and not be a statement of rights conceived only in terms of values prevalent in the countries of Western Europe and America?’ After all, ‘what is held to be a human right in one society may be regarded as anti-social by another people, or by the same people in a different period of their history’ (American Anthropological Association 1947, 539, 542)”. (Gregg, 2010, p. 290, emphasis added)
As Gregg also noted, 52 years later the AAA simply changed its position, and did so without offering a public explanation. The AAA, “now claims that every person, regardless of native culture or local community, does indeed possess universal rights simply as humans, regardless of differences among human cultures so intriguingly significant as to justify a discipline of cultural anthropology” (Gregg, 2010, pp. 290-291).
US anthropology, assertions of “universal” human rights, and imperialism, are intimately connected—in many more ways than can be described here alone. Gregg maintains that the AAA is engaging in cultural imperialism, in part because of its a priori assertion of human rights as universal, which necessitates acts of coercion to impose such rights, thereby undermining the very premise of human rights: “To treat them as universally valid a priori is to pursue the human-rights project in a way that undermines it: coercively” (Gregg, 2010, p. 292). When it was still relatively safe to say “imperialism” in US anthropological circles, Julian Steward denounced any effort to create a human rights statement for the AAA: “a declaration about human rights can come perilously close to advocacy of American ideological imperialism” (1948, p. 352). The “human rights tradition” in US anthropology is not only relatively recent, it is one that has departed significantly from its prior foundations, and from prior debates about those foundations.
Inventing the Anti-Colonial Tradition
Other supporters of the BDS action in the AAA proclaimed themselves and other anthropologists to be, “heirs to a long tradition of scholarship on colonialism”. What do they mean by “long”? When did this “tradition” begin? Were a representative and significant number of anthropologists (which nationality?) engaged in such scholarship? Certainly Anglo-American anthropologists are heirs to a long tradition of participation in colonialism—but they rarely, if ever, turned their analytical lens on themselves or the colonial regimes for which they worked. Sometimes any meaningful distinction between “the anthropologist” and “colonial administration” was more than just blurred, since the two roles could be fused into one. But what do these people mean by a long tradition of scholarship on colonialism? And was it a critical tradition? I would not suggest that US and UK anthropologists have completely neglected colonialism and written little over the past century that is useful for studying the effects of colonialism on Africans, Asians, Australians, Pacific Islanders, West Indians, and Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. What I am challenging is the idea that colonialism itself was somehow ever a central focus of Euro-American anthropology—that is simply not the case. Anthropologists have certainly carried out a vast amount of research among the colonized, but have generally been far less interested in the colonizer, or in the colonialist complex. Just as Anglo-American anthropology programs tend to never have courses on imperialism (the unspeakable word—because it refers to what we do), there are hardly any courses on colonialism as such in anthropology departments—these days, the subject is usually relegated to “post-colonial studies” programs where the subject can be safely sequestered.
It is important to correct the suggestion that anthropologists have studied colonialism. Indeed, as I have noted before, it seems that the first concerted attempt to even define colonialism, in any Euro-American anthropology journal, dates back no further than 1972, and even then the author was not an anthropologist (see Horvath, 1972). As for Euro-American anthropologists’ own deeply rooted and intertwined connections with colonial imperialism, that is a subject that is continuously unfolding in the broader academic literature, and on Zero Anthropology.
Inventing the Anti-Racist Tradition
It would seem relatively uncontroversial and straightforward to point out that, by and large, the overwhelming majority of US anthropologists not only are overtly anti-racist in the present, they have been anti-racist for most of the past century, even with a discipline that itself emerged from within the fold of nineteenth-century scientific racism. Nonetheless, just as police forces across the US are exposed for their daily routines of targeting, subjugating, harassing, beating, framing and often murdering black Americans, the AAA chose to focus its sights on Israel. US universities and US academics collaborating with such police forces were not subject to any ban or boycott. Indeed, there is absolutely no reason why—even when supporting BDS—that the AAA should not have moved to condemn US racial policing and openly support the Black Lives Matter movement, which itself should be broadened to include highlighting and denouncing the destruction of black lives in Libya thanks in part to the facilitation of US and NATO military intervention which turned a very supportive blind eye to anti-black ethnic cleansing.
Beyond that, US anthropology and its Canadian derivative, consist mostly—almost entirely—of white faculty and students. A 1997 report in The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE, 1997) found that only a tiny minority of US faculty in anthropology were black, and that most historically black colleges and universities themselves did not have anthropology departments, in part because of the US discipline’s historical roots in scientific racism. A decade later, the AAA convened a Commission on Race and Racism in Anthropology in 2007, with the results not being any prettier than what the 1997 report just cited offered (see the CRRA’s full report: Smedley & Hutchinson, 2012). One of the key studies published from this commission, defines US anthropology as a “white public space” (see Brodkin, Morgen, & Hutchinson, 2011). The authors found that US “anthropology departments have not done well when it comes to decolonizing their own practices around race” (Brodkin, Morgen, & Hutchinson, 2011, p. 545). The best one can do then, as the authors of the report do, is to say that at the very least US anthropology has had a “contradictory history” when it comes to racism.
Inventing the Anti-Complicit Tradition
The BDS Resolution passed at the AAA’s recent meeting, endorses the call to “boycott Israeli academic institutions until such time as these institutions end their complicity in violating Palestinian rights” (AAA, 2015a, p. 2). The same Resolution also acknowledged the fact that, “U.S. academic institutions facilitate Israeli academic institutions’ complicity” (p. 1)—thus US universities are not innocent parties in the case of Israeli occupation, and further admits that some “Israeli scholars and students” themselves “criticize Israeli state policies” (p. 1), which then raises a question about what their alleged “complicity” is supposed to mean. Instead, the Resolution reverts back to stating: “Israeli academic institutions have been directly and indirectly complicit in the Israeli state’s systematic maintenance of the occupation and denial of basic rights to Palestinians, by providing planning, policy, and technological expertise for furthering Palestinian dispossession” (p. 1). No sanctions or boycott against US institutions are mentioned in the Resolution. Instead, US academics are the ones to mete out justice. The Resolution also makes the US-centric error of associating archaeology with anthropology in Israel (p. 1)—while the AAA Task Force that visited Israel did in fact point out that the two are separate (AAA, 2015b, p. 68). The AAA also claims to have the right to represent “Anthropology as a profession” (2015a, p. 1).
By the AAA’s own standards, does the AAA and do its US members pass the complicity test? Absolutely not. Indeed, when it comes to the complicity of US anthropologists with military and intelligence agencies, even the strongest among the US critics made all sorts of excuses that allowed for degrees of collaboration, as long as they did not violate professional ethics—even if those military and intelligence institutions are responsible for routinely violating the rights of multitudes around the planet.
Note how very different, when compared to the position on Israel, is the AAA’s position on the complicity of US anthropologists with the Pentagon, CIA, and other military and intelligence units:
“We do not oppose anthropologists engaging with the military, intelligence, defense, or other national security institutions or organizations; nor do we endorse positions that rule such engagements out a priori. Neither, however, do we advocate that anthropologists actively seek employment or funding from national security programs. We see circumstances in which engagement can be preferable to detachment or opposition, but we recognize that certain kinds of engagement would violate the AAA Code of Ethics and thus must be called to the community’s collective attention, critiqued, and repudiated. At the same time, we encourage openness and civil discourse on the issue of engagement, with respect and attention paid to different points of view as part of our collective professional commitment to disciplinary learning. While the Commission has reached agreement on this position statement, there remain differing views among its members on specific issues (e.g. the appropriate transparency of such engagements)”. (CEAUSSIC, 2007, pp. 5-6, emphasis added).
In the same report, US anthropologists who refused any sort of engagement with military, intelligence, and security agencies, were said to be “neglecting” an “intellectual responsibility” to “understand” such institutions (CEAUSSIC, 2007, p. 23).
Far from seeking any form of punishment, here the AAA was demanding respect, and engaging in preemptive tone policing that always serves to preserve the status quo and the functionaries who benefit from it. The AAA’s CEAUSSIC statement is almost the exact opposite of what is produced on Israel, and CEAUSSIC makes no reference to the human rights of non-US citizens that are routinely violated by US military and intelligence institutions. All that matters are professional ethics and the image and reputation of the US discipline—and it is a reputation that confuses what ought to be with what was, because US anthropology has never been a morally impeccable, politically upright profession unmoved by powerful external influences. The media took note of passages such as the one above, reproducing it in full, as well as noting CEAUSSIC allowed for cases of clandestine research (e.g. Jaschik, 2007a).
There are many examples where US anthropologists critical of the Human Terrain System and militarization were also not too keen to be seen as totally anti-complicity:
“Supporters of the Human Terrain program have often claimed that those opposed to working in the wars are advocating total academic disengagement from the military and a retreat to the ivory tower. This could not be further from the truth. Most opponents of the Human Terrain program, myself included, are not categorically opposed to work and engagement with the military. To the contrary, many believe that anthropologists can ethically teach soldiers in classrooms, train peacekeepers, or consult with military and other government officials about cultural, social, historical, and political-economic issues”. (Vine, 2009, emphasis added)
On at least two occasions, Hugh Gusterson opined that one could do ethical work for the Pentagon or the CIA, and was not against “engagement” (read: complicity) outright (see Jaschik, 2007a, 2007b).
The Network of Concerned Anthropologists seemingly bought into the professed “humanitarian” motives of US interventionism, and approved of US anthropologists assisting in efforts that carried this label—without any critique of the concept, its history, and its instrumentalization in US foreign policy (not even after Libya):
“We are not all necessarily opposed to other forms of anthropological consulting for the state, or for the military, especially when such cooperation contributes to generally accepted humanitarian objectives…”. (NCA, n.d., emphasis added)
Even as recently as the last AAA conference at which the BDS Resolution was passed, critics of militarization were still making room for military anthropologists to speak—which itself can be interpreted as another act of collaboration and thus complicity (see Price, 2015).
Why were these many examples of comfort not being afforded to Israeli scholars, whose complicity is denounced in the absolute, regardless of their actual political stances? What accounts for the obvious double standard? How does complicity with the Israeli state compare to complicity with the US state? And if Israel is to be banned, boycotted, and sanctioned for its actions, then what about the US, and US academics and specifically US anthropologists?
The Double Standard of the Exceptionalists
To be aware of repeated expressions of hypocrisy at an official level in the US, with the built-in and durable double standards that place the US above judgment and subject all others to US judgment, is to be aware of a major cultural institution. It is a cultural institution that is routinely misunderstood as if it were merely a mistake, a momentary lapse in self-awareness, or it can be judged harshly as an absurdity, gross dishonesty, or a form of idiocy. Rarely is hypocrisy actually analyzed and understood for the valuable functions that it performs at an official, political level.
The art of the double standard is a key part of what US officials, their academic supporters, and their media parrots call “soft power”. When “America” is defined in advance as “exceptional,” then by definition there can be none that are equivalent—and since equivalence is deemed impossible, relativism is rendered untenable. Also, since “exceptional” connotes superior, it also permits the standards of the exception to be applied to others as a yardstick, proving just how far others lag behind, how inferior they are, and how much they are in need of improvement. Whether they acknowledge it or not (it does not matter either way), whether it was consciously intentional or not (it does not matter either way), US anthropologists lent their collective voices to an expression of exceptionalism in pushing the dual themes of universal human rights and rights to the profession, in their BDS Resolution. The implicit logic of their condemnation is that notwithstanding our own sins we have a right and a duty to sit in judgment over others. Both sides of that formulation—the notwithstanding clause and the logic of right—reveal exceptionalist logic. In addition, the AAA could claim exceptionality due to a perception of its own hegemony: it has everything that Israeli anthropologists “need,” but there is little or nothing it needs from Israel. That certainly “showed Israel a thing or two,” but something was also shown to the rest of us.
The official double standard method has two sides to it:
(a) The standards by which the US judges others, should not be used to judge the US.
(b) The standards by which the US judges itself, should be applied to others as if other societies and cultures were comparable to the US.
The first is about exceptionalism, and the second is about universalism emanating from the exceptional leader. The real artistry behind the double standard is in being able to constantly juggle these two, seemingly opposed principles of difference and sameness.
The double standard stands out doubly when we juxtapose the terms used by AAA commissions of inquiry on questions of US militarization versus Israeli occupation. When it comes to the first, on US anthropologists vis-à-vis US military, security and intelligence agencies, the terms of reference, the descriptors, and suggested outcomes were notably different to those used when speaking of Israeli anthropologists vis-à-vis their own nation’s military, security and intelligence agencies. We can put these in a table: the left side comes from the AAA’s CEAUSSIC reports on US anthropologists and the military, and the right side comes from the AAA’s BDS Resolution on their Israeli counterparts:
|US ANTHROPOLOGY||ISRAELI ANTHROPOLOGY|
|Opportunities & Risks||Violations|
|Self-monitoring||Answer international calls|
|Individual moral choices||Institutional responsibility|
|Civil discussion, respect for different views||Boycott|
What was off limits, and placed there by the double standard, is consideration of the degree to which the social and political role of institutional anthropology in Israel mirrors that of the US. If we are to boycott Israeli anthropology for what it does, then even more so should we boycott US anthropology.
So What? Who Cares?
One could also ask: why does any of this matter? What really matters is that Israel is denounced for its abuses and its illegal occupation—it does not matter who denounces it, or why, what matters is that Israel knows it can no longer count on automatic support, not even from prominent institutions in its patron nation. Israel knows we are witnesses, and we are not staying silent, and that our governments do not speak for us when they grant Israel unquestioning support. It is a wake-up call. That has all of the culturally accepted hallmarks of a good argument: expedient, pragmatic, straight to the point, focusing on ends, and driven by apparent good intentions. I suspect most readers who are sympathetic to BDS will agree with this line, and want to show tremendous consternation toward this essay (my feeling is that what they have pardoned so far, is out of leniency, suspecting it to be a bizarre but hopefully momentary, and in any case inconsequential, aberration). BDS activists themselves have celebrated the AAA motion without question.
Symbolism and Professionalism
While this counter-argument is a good one, we need to remember that the AAA’s BDS Resolution, should it be passed by a majority of the full membership, itself carries no concrete consequences. It is itself a purely symbolic action, a matter for the record, with no real consequences on the ground. The AAA Executive has already affirmed that Israeli academics will not be banned from meetings, from publishing in AAA journals, or from accessing AAA journals—so there is no boycott as part of this BDS action. We are down to “D” and “S”. The AAA has no investments in Israel, so it cannot divest. It has no power to make universities divest either. So we are down to “S”: the AAA clearly has no power to organize international sanctions, and successive US governments have demonstrated their willingness to veto any UN Security Council resolutions that merely criticize Israel, let alone propose any sanctions. So there is no B, D, or S to this BDS action, and that is why I say it is purely symbolic. Since symbolism matters (note the shrill responses in the Israeli media, from Israeli academics and their US counterparts), it then becomes justifiable and necessary to examine that symbolism, what lies behind it, how it works, and why it gains support. If the intention were to write this with a “happy ending” determined in advance, then it would betray a lack of skepticism necessary for any kind of objective, scientific questioning to proceed.
The question of whether or not a professional association should be a vehicle for political actions, could be done more justice than I do to it here. To be brief, I am skeptical of the wisdom of the move. Becoming more sensitive to the fact that a professional association includes members of a variety of different, even opposing, political perspectives, and that not all of them could be content with resolutions that do not speak for them, it is a fast road to the dissolution of a professional body to become overtly political. Understanding this led me to found Anthropologists for Justice and Peace (AJP), separate from the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA), so as to have greater freedom of action, and not subject CASCA to any internal stresses nor for us to be subjected to CASCA’s restrictions. Indeed, it would be AJP itself that could not handle even its own internal stresses, falling apart as a result. I was the first to leave the group. Why some would think that the AAA as a professional body is the best platform for their political projects is due to the culturally specific fusion of the professional and the personal in the US work context, which is explored further below, a fusion that is rooted in evangelism. In Canada, these two poles—the professional and the activist—are still relatively separate and not integrated.
Finally, while I also support the principles of BDS, I cannot support the bigger monster whitewashing its sins by using BDS, or twisting the quest for independent Palestinian statehood into a patronizing, hegemonic, and liberal-humanitarian exercise, designed to further the ends of the AAA and US anthropology. Support BDS by first being honest about yourself.
Effervescent Exceptionalism: US Solidarity with US Anthropology
Previously I argued that the real message of the BDS Resolution ought to offer little comfort to Palestinian activists, since they were not its true intended beneficiaries, and that it is instead an expression of US solidarity with US anthropology (Forte, 2015). Participants at the AAA Executive Meeting were clearly excited, and not very willing to hear opponents speak. Debate was denounced as “stalling”. The only options were “let’s vote” or just shut up.
What has been exalted in this episode is a pure image of US anthropology, an academic extension and enactment of the “America the Good” principle in US nationalism. This sense of “group solidarity” (Turner & Stets, 2005, p. 80) ought to be familiar to anthropologists, as an example of what Émile Durkheim called “collective effervescence” (Ôno, 2001, p. 158). The explanation for the apparent double standard noted above, rooted in an imperial sense of superiority that occupies a space of absolutes (human rights), without “equivalence” (relativism), is that the BDS Resolution involves solidarity with a collective self. Here the self is one infused with nationalism, with American Exceptionalism, the secular theology of the US.
This secular theology manifested itself in the academic setting thanks in part to the influence of agencies such as the Rockefeller Foundation, which has been especially important in shaping US anthropology in the twentieth-century, as discussed further on. Rockefeller and similar foundations sought to internationalize what Berman (1999, p. 194) refers to as the Social Gospel of American progressivism. As Berman explains, “the foundations’ early twentieth-century international programs clearly reflected the Christian missionary fervor of the time” (1999, p. 194). This Christian-inspired, though secularized missionary project aimed at reforming societies in order to pacify and stabilize them, in the interest of maintaining the capitalist global order, and to protect US interests. The zeal “to do Good” was capitalized by the Rockefeller Foundation, and one of the accomplishments of the Rockefellers was “their secularization of this religious enthusiasm in an effort to build more perfect societies both at home and abroad” (Berman, 1999, p. 194).
If the concept of “secular religion” is appropriate in the case of US anthropology, then it would help to explain the deeply personal attachment to the discipline expressed by many US anthropologists, an attachment that has an air of totalizing conviction that anthropology can change lives for the better, because anthropology possesses basic truths of “what it means to be human”. Anthropology thus becomes deeply personal for many US recruits: anthropology defines who I am, and is not merely a profession, which would simply be what I do. To give just one example of this self-representation, one writes: “I’m an anthropologist….I see anarchism as something you do[,] not an identity[,] so don’t call me the anarchist anthropologist”. I am an anthropologist—it’s an identity. I am not an anarchist—anarchism is just an activity. It is a very peculiar statement, because it could just as well have been reversed: “I am an anarchist. I see anthropology as something I do, but not an identity”. Where anthropology ceases to be simply a domain of inquiry, and becomes fused with a personal state of being, it risks turning into a cult, led by dubious gurus marshalling opinion in favour of the appointed crusade of the moment. Anthropology as personal identity, as a new secular religion for disaffected middle-class people in the US, becomes a way of living, of “living anthropologically” you could say. Anthropology—go get some, “it could change your life”.
In the shadow of this creepy ontology, let’s start exploring what Canadian anthropology could mean, and how to allow it to emerge, hopefully without so many billboards, temples, pastors and prime donne.
References for Part 1
Allen, Lori, & Subramanian, Ajantha. (2015). “Engaged Anthropology: The AAA’s Israel/Palestine Task Force Report #Palestine”. Allegra Lab, October 28.
American Anthropological Association (AAA). (1947). “Statement on Human Rights”. American Anthropologist, 49(4), 539-543.
———- . (1999). “Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights Committee for Human Rights American Anthropological Association”.
———- . (2015a). “American Anthropological ASSOCIATION (AAA) Resolution to Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions”.
———- . (2015b). “Report to the Executive Board: The Task Force on AAA Engagement on Israel-Palestine”.
Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions. (2015). “American Anthropological Association Clears the Way for Final Vote on Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions”.
Berman, Edward H. (1999). “Rockefeller Philanthropy and the Social Sciences: International Perspectives”. In Theresa Richardson and Donald Fisher, (Eds.), The Development of the Social Sciences in the United States and Canada: The Role of Philanthropy (pp. 193-209). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brodkin, Karen; Morgen, Sandra; & Hutchinson, Janis. (2011). “Anthropology as White Public Space?” American Anthropologist, 113(4), 545–556.
CEAUSSIC. (2007). “AAA Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence Communities”.
Forte, Maximilian C. (2015). “BDS, the AAA, and Academic Imperialism”. Zero Anthropology, November 14.
Gregg, Benjamin. (2010). “Anti-Imperialism: Generating Universal Human Rights out of Local Norms”. Ratio Juris, 23(3), 289–310.
Horvath, Ronald J. (1972). “A Definition of Colonialism”. Current Anthropology, 13(1), 45-57.
Jaschik, Scott. (2007a). “Ethics and Engagement With the Military”. Inside Higher Ed, November 29.
———- . (2007b). “Questions, Anger and Dissent on Ethics Study”. Inside Higher Ed, November 30.
JBHE. (1997). “No Surprise Here! Almost No Black Faculty Members in the Field of Anthropology.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (16), 37-39.
Network of Concerned Anthropologists (NCA). (n.d.). “Pledge of Non-participation in Counterinsurgency”.
Ôno, Michikuni. (2001). “Collective Effervescence and Symbolism”. In W.S.F. Pickering (Ed.), Emile Durkheim: Critical Assessments of Leading Sociologists (pp. 152-166). London: Routledge.
Price, David H. (2015). “Naivete, Hope, and Skepticism: Encounters with Diplomatic, Military and Intelligence Agencies”. Session 14722 of the conference of the American Anthropological Association, November 21.
Smedley, Audrey, & Hutchinson, Faye, (Eds). (2012). “Racism in the New Milennium: Additional Findings of the Commission on Race and Racism in Anthropology and the American Anthropological Association”. Report for the Commission on Race and Racism in Anthropology. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Steward, Julian H. (1948). “Comments on the Statement on Human Rights”. American Anthropologist, 50(2), 351-352.
Turner, Jonathan H, & Stets, Jan E. (2005). The Sociology of Emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vine, David. (2009). “Engaging the Military”. Inside Higher Ed, September 21.