Academics in the military

Funny that I decided to write about women in the military last night because that topic carries over into what I'm looking at today, which is the position of academics in the military. I wrote a paper last semester about transnational feminism that included a section on its practical applications, one of which I believe is to assist in better understanding the gender relations within the countries with which we are at war or are occupying.

Tonight I attended the Reves Center's McSwain-Walker Lecture given by anthropologist Montgomery McFate. She was discussing the military's new Human Terrain System, a program that basically amounts to deploying people with cultural knowledge(read: people with PhDs) into the field with the military in an attempt to reduce the negative impact of the military. After listening to McFate's lecture, I was inclined to believe that it was a worthwhile program. It seems to make sense that if you're walking into a room with open eyes you're going to bump into fewer things than if you go in blindfolded. Having people in the field who actually know something about understanding the culture of Iraq means that they can work smartly instead of just slinging around big fists. At the same time, though, there are a number of people who are against the HTS including the friend I attended the talk with who discusses it on his blog where he mentions the Network of Concerned Anthropologists who are also pretty anti-HTS.

I guess I hadn't really thought about how complicated the practical application of things could be. The point the anti-HTS crowd stands firm on is that since these anthropologists (and other social scientists) are working for, therefore becoming a tool of, the military, they are complicit with the imperialist system. Their data is used to further the military's purpose which generally seems at odds with the academic discipline of anthropology. Their conclusion is that this can in no way be a good thing. Now, I don't know enough about it to say for certain, but I guess my own personal feelings are mixed.

My way of looking at it is this: while perhaps the entire system has flaws, most systems have flaws, and while it may be true that there are many evils in war, I don't think the HTS necessarily has to be one of them. If you have good people who go in and gather information and try to do some good with it, maybe some good will happen. War isn't ever good, but in the long run, if we have a bit of help with cleaning up the mess we've made over there that doesn't seem so bad. Surely the information gathered is not in itself bad or good, it is knowledge. If that is what the anthropologists are doing, gathering and passing on knowledge, that is a neutral action. It is how that knowledge is then used that is the problem. I'm not sure that I want the line between anthropology and military intelligence blurred, but I also think that where this knowledge is being employed to "fix" things or handle things in a non-violent manner, there is some merit.

Looking back to women's studies, though, what I would have to say is this: while I think that it is necessary to understand the customs relating to women of any given country in order to interact with them appropriately out of respect and cultural sensitivity, to act on their behalf or to tell them what they want or need is too much. We must instead seek to provide tools to a community that will allow them to act for themselves. When I think about how I personally want to shape my interactions with people from other cultures, I know that I want to try to facilitate workshops and programs that are desired by the participants rather than force upon them my own ideas about female empowerment, but I know that is easier said than done.