Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08

Expand Messages
  • George Thomas
    Sorry about my first attempt to send this debate in Foreign Policy (journal), between Hugh Gusterson and political scientist Peter Feaver, re. tainted
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry about my first attempt to send this debate in Foreign Policy (journal), between Hugh Gusterson and political scientist Peter Feaver, re. "tainted" funding.
      As initially sent to SACC, the three titles were URL "buttons."
      You should have better luck with these.
      George

      1:
      When Professors Go to War .... Hugh Gusterson
      www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php
      2:
      Political scientist's critique: Peter D. Feaver
      Pentagon Funding? Bring it On.
      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4410.php
      3:
      Hugh Gusterson's reply:
      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4410&page=1


      Hugh Gusterson debates "tainted funding" in Foreign Policy journal.
      Posted by: "George Thomas" broruprecht@... broruprecht
      Date: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:55 pm ((PDT))

      This might be of some interest. Our most visible advocates for or
      against "embeddedness" in these politically dicy times, continue to push
      the issues.
      Note how H. Gusterson stresses that a so-called "purist" argument is
      based primarily on practical considerations.
      George


      Should Professors Go to War?
      Is Bob Gates’s new plan to fund academic research is just what the
      doctorate ordered, or a dangerous delusion? Two leading professors
      debate Project Minerva.


      Hugh Gusterson: Why the Ivory Tower and the Pentagon Don’t Mix
      Peter D. Feaver: Pentagon Funding? Bring it on.
      Gusterson responds: "Why Pentagon Money Is Tainted"




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • anthropmor@AOL.COM
      Thanks! Mike Pavlik **************Looking for a car that s sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 12, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks!
        Mike Pavlik



        **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
        Read reviews on AOL Autos.
        (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Lloyd Miller
        Hey George, The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass n is also voting on
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 19, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey George,

          The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are
          interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass'n is also
          voting on a resolution that its members should refuse to work in
          interrogation settings where torture is present (e.g., Guantanamo,
          etc.).

          I think that Gusterson's point that the source of funding inevitably
          influences the study irrespective of intentions is persuasive. I
          wonder if Gates would actually consider his suggestion of placing the
          money with NSF instead. It would be interesting to hear his reasons
          for not doing so. On the other hand, Feaver does make a point that
          many scholars would simply follow the money (it's their livelihood,
          they must put their kids through college, etc.), thus the Pentagon's
          Minerva project would be successful and the so-called leftist
          anthropologist dissenters would be seen as largely irrelevant.

          In the final analysis, though, I side with the irrelevant ones.

          Lloyd

          On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, George Thomas wrote:

          > www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Kip Waldo
          So it is just the source of the funding, not the purpose of the study? Operation Phoenix, centered at MSU, was a problem of misreading the situation? The
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 20, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            So it is just the source of the funding, not the purpose of the study? Operation Phoenix, centered at MSU, was a problem of "misreading" the situation? The U.S. is doing what in Iraq and Afghanistan?

            We have learned nothing from the past? I guess if following the money is the guide I don't have much to say to my students who could make much more than I do by slinging crack on the corner or cooking up some meth in the kitchen.

            kip

            >>> Lloyd Miller <lloyd.miller@...> 08/19/08 11:09 PM >>>
            Hey George,

            The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are
            interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass'n is also
            voting on a resolution that its members should refuse to work in
            interrogation settings where torture is present (e.g., Guantanamo,
            etc.).

            I think that Gusterson's point that the source of funding inevitably
            influences the study irrespective of intentions is persuasive. I
            wonder if Gates would actually consider his suggestion of placing the
            money with NSF instead. It would be interesting to hear his reasons
            for not doing so. On the other hand, Feaver does make a point that
            many scholars would simply follow the money (it's their livelihood,
            they must put their kids through college, etc.), thus the Pentagon's
            Minerva project would be successful and the so-called leftist
            anthropologist dissenters would be seen as largely irrelevant.

            In the final analysis, though, I side with the irrelevant ones.

            Lloyd

            On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, George Thomas wrote:

            > www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • George Thomas
            Clearly the source-of-funding aspect has taken on massive influence, while the research design, intentions, scope of the study take a back seat. Any narrow
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 21, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Clearly the source-of-funding aspect has taken on massive influence, while the research design, intentions, scope of the study take a back seat. Any narrow research focus should now come as spin-off perks from massive Defense contract work.
              I thought Gusterson's approach represented some sort of breakthrough, but only because SecDef Gates has proven to be a cabinet officer capable of paying attention. As far as "human terrain," shadowy funding via the CIA, and integrity of informed consent/trust, there seems to be some sort of growing awareness that these are issues at least as important as sending the marines wherever there's some crisis. It's crucial to remember that the political reaction has become institutionalized: one always questions source of funding regardless of the research intentions. Old 1963 mistakes (and Pres. Kennedy killed Project Camelot) served as one stimulus, assuring that anthro research would be suspect.
              And hey, the meth lab option is out there. I haven't heard about that kind of loot becoming available through some government contract.... (Some suppressed info from Halliburton and KBR notwithstanding..... we're talking about us LITTLE peeps). It's just that other sources of funding have been far more exclusive and harder to get.
              And as the "purist" argument becomes more irrelevant (cheers, Lloyd), we also move away from that most anthropological of areas: culture & personality and its descendants. If we forget about the irrationality within movements and the variations in motivation, we'll ignore that knee-jerk assumption that our funding source necessarily means disaster for the subjects of anthro study.
              And keep an eye out for American Psych Ass'n pronoucements. They are also the source of that ban on "polygraph" evidence in court. As anthros inch closer to irrelevant political side-issues, we might do well to remember that the magic "lie detector" is but an interrogation tool.
              G


              SACC-L@yahoogroups.com wrote:
              Date: 21 Aug 2008 11:08:53 -0000
              From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
              To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [SACC-L] Digest Number 1642

              There is 1 message in this issue.

              Topics in this digest:

              1a. Re: Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08
              From: Kip Waldo


              Message
              ________________________________________________________________________
              1a. Re: Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08
              Posted by: "Kip Waldo" kwaldo@... kipandfei
              Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:04 am ((PDT))

              So it is just the source of the funding, not the purpose of the study? Operation Phoenix, centered at MSU, was a problem of "misreading" the situation? The U.S. is doing what in Iraq and Afghanistan?

              We have learned nothing from the past? I guess if following the money is the guide I don't have much to say to my students who could make much more than I do by slinging crack on the corner or cooking up some meth in the kitchen.

              kip

              >>> Lloyd Miller 08/19/08 11:09 PM >>>
              Hey George,

              The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are
              interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass'n is also
              voting on a resolution that its members should refuse to work in
              interrogation settings where torture is present (e.g., Guantanamo,
              etc.).

              I think that Gusterson's point that the source of funding inevitably
              influences the study irrespective of intentions is persuasive. I
              wonder if Gates would actually consider his suggestion of placing the
              money with NSF instead. It would be interesting to hear his reasons
              for not doing so. On the other hand, Feaver does make a point that
              many scholars would simply follow the money (it's their livelihood,
              they must put their kids through college, etc.), thus the Pentagon's
              Minerva project would be successful and the so-called leftist
              anthropologist dissenters would be seen as largely irrelevant.

              In the final analysis, though, I side with the irrelevant ones.

              Lloyd

              On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, George Thomas wrote:

              > www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              Messages in this topic (4)



              Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/

              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Yahoo! Groups Links



              ------------------------------------------------------------------------





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • bdlqvcc
              As one who has actively questioned anthropologists engagement in research (applied or otherwise) for efforts such as the so- called Human Terrain Project, I
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 21, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                As one who has actively questioned anthropologists' engagement
                in "research" (applied or otherwise) for efforts such as the so-
                called Human Terrain Project, I think it amazing how we can
                rationalize such engagement when the powers that be dangle funds in
                front of us. And how this then shapes any subsequent discourse, as
                if "purists" are the ones to be called into question. A recent death
                of a "social scientist" in the Human Terrain program was reported not
                long ago and became another facet of the "humanitarian contribution
                of social scientists" discourse, that continues to cloud the issues
                involved in this whole matter.

                Recently it was also reported that the supposedly "spectacular"
                rescue of hostages in Colombia, and a proposed "false flag" shoot
                down of a plane over Iran, each used or proposed the use of the
                identity of ostensibly neutral NGO's (the Red Cross and the UN) to
                carry out covert operations. These are clearly offenses (legal or
                otherwise) against the very nature of these organziations, and most
                people will see the potential for damage such actions could have
                toward the integrity of such organizations. Anthropologists as
                professionals, who present themselves as 'researchers,' looking for
                the trust and openness of those with whom they study, as the bedrock
                of their profession, can't affort to be any less circumspect than
                such NGO's about the integrity of what we do. And "following the
                money" abolutely has to be part of this.



                --- In SACC-L@yahoogroups.com, George Thomas <broruprecht@...> wrote:
                >
                > Clearly the source-of-funding aspect has taken on massive
                influence, while the research design, intentions, scope of the study
                take a back seat. Any narrow research focus should now come as spin-
                off perks from massive Defense contract work.
                > I thought Gusterson's approach represented some sort of
                breakthrough, but only because SecDef Gates has proven to be a
                cabinet officer capable of paying attention. As far as "human
                terrain," shadowy funding via the CIA, and integrity of informed
                consent/trust, there seems to be some sort of growing awareness that
                these are issues at least as important as sending the marines
                wherever there's some crisis. It's crucial to remember that the
                political reaction has become institutionalized: one always questions
                source of funding regardless of the research intentions. Old 1963
                mistakes (and Pres. Kennedy killed Project Camelot) served as one
                stimulus, assuring that anthro research would be suspect.
                > And hey, the meth lab option is out there. I haven't heard about
                that kind of loot becoming available through some government
                contract.... (Some suppressed info from Halliburton and KBR
                notwithstanding..... we're talking about us LITTLE peeps). It's just
                that other sources of funding have been far more exclusive and harder
                to get.
                > And as the "purist" argument becomes more irrelevant (cheers,
                Lloyd), we also move away from that most anthropological of areas:
                culture & personality and its descendants. If we forget about the
                irrationality within movements and the variations in motivation,
                we'll ignore that knee-jerk assumption that our funding source
                necessarily means disaster for the subjects of anthro study.
                > And keep an eye out for American Psych Ass'n pronoucements. They
                are also the source of that ban on "polygraph" evidence in court. As
                anthros inch closer to irrelevant political side-issues, we might do
                well to remember that the magic "lie detector" is but an
                interrogation tool.
                > G
                >
                >
                > SACC-L@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                > Date: 21 Aug 2008 11:08:53 -0000
                > From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
                > To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [SACC-L] Digest Number 1642
                >
                > There is 1 message in this issue.
                >
                > Topics in this digest:
                >
                > 1a. Re: Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08
                > From: Kip Waldo
                >
                >
                > Message
                >
                ______________________________________________________________________
                __
                > 1a. Re: Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08
                > Posted by: "Kip Waldo" kwaldo@... kipandfei
                > Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:04 am ((PDT))
                >
                > So it is just the source of the funding, not the purpose of the
                study? Operation Phoenix, centered at MSU, was a problem
                of "misreading" the situation? The U.S. is doing what in Iraq and
                Afghanistan?
                >
                > We have learned nothing from the past? I guess if following the
                money is the guide I don't have much to say to my students who could
                make much more than I do by slinging crack on the corner or cooking
                up some meth in the kitchen.
                >
                > kip
                >
                > >>> Lloyd Miller 08/19/08 11:09 PM >>>
                > Hey George,
                >
                > The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are
                > interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass'n is
                also
                > voting on a resolution that its members should refuse to work in
                > interrogation settings where torture is present (e.g., Guantanamo,
                > etc.).
                >
                > I think that Gusterson's point that the source of funding
                inevitably
                > influences the study irrespective of intentions is persuasive. I
                > wonder if Gates would actually consider his suggestion of placing
                the
                > money with NSF instead. It would be interesting to hear his reasons
                > for not doing so. On the other hand, Feaver does make a point that
                > many scholars would simply follow the money (it's their livelihood,
                > they must put their kids through college, etc.), thus the
                Pentagon's
                > Minerva project would be successful and the so-called leftist
                > anthropologist dissenters would be seen as largely irrelevant.
                >
                > In the final analysis, though, I side with the irrelevant ones.
                >
                > Lloyd
                >
                > On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, George Thomas wrote:
                >
                > > www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Messages in this topic (4)
                >
                >
                >
                > Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/
                >
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                ----
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                ----
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.