Theory: Cultural Athropology as Intelligence Tool

An Open Letter to My Favorite Anthropologists 5/7/07

The Problem with Cultural Anthropology:

The Problem with Cultural Anthropology can be summed up in two phrases: "Que Bono (Who Benefits)?" and "Actionable Intelligence."

In the first quote we are asking the question "Who benefit's from ethnographies about cultures" but more importantly "who benefits, the most?" The Anthropologists I have surveyed say that the scientific community benefits from this knowledge. This is undoubtedly the case, but is this the only interest group that benefits from ethnographies and what is the power relationship between these different groups?

The second quote comes from literature dealing with Military Intelligence Operations. "Actionable Intelligence" is information which is gathered about a certain culture, ethnicity, region, political, interest, or ethnic group which can be used to manipulate that group to the will of the Military Operation. Hence "Actionable" here means data that can be used to perform actions. The primary duty of every Intelligence Agency in the USA (CIA, DIA, NSA, OSI, ONI, NRO, etc) is to produce "Actionable Intelligence" to be used by policy makers to better inform their decisions (cite-able).

The Problem with Cultural Anthropology is that it creates "Actionable Intelligence." I take for granted the assumption that the individual aims of most Anthropologists are ideologically pure, but that does not speak to the ideology of those who will use the information that the Cultural Anthropologist has gathered. It is my singular opinion that the power of a Global Military-Industrial Complex is far greater than that of the Academic Anthropology Society and this power imbalance influences the nature of all Cultural Anthropology Ethnography toward creating "Actionable Intelligence." In congressional research circles this is known as "Project Drift," which occurs in complex operations when one aspect of an operation begins to drift unbidden into others and eventually dominates(cite-able).

This became most apparent to me in my repeated attempts to advocate a fuller appreciation of the Emic viewpoint in tribal religious ceremonies. It seems to me a matter of simple and obvious truth, that the best way to study a culture is to become a part of it. I have been repeatedly informed that this is called "going native" and is generally frowned upon in Anthropology. Dan Everett , a noted Linguistic Anthropologist who recently returned from Brazil is being accused of similar charges and his name smeared in academic circles (cite-able). His paper was purely about Linguistics, but the fact that he has openly converted to a native religion was enough to entail a full on attack on his character in the some of the Academic Media. Smear attacks are also a historical tool of Intelligence Operations, used to discredit those who are a threat to the status quo (cite-able). It sparked the question in me: "what does the academic establishment have against knowledge?"

I have also been studying the culture of intelligence agencies for several years and it occurred to me that they share this single facet with Cultural Anthropology. As an espionage agent one of the worst things which can happen, from an oversight perspective, is for you to sympathize with those you are infiltrating. The very worst thing is for you to switch sides and join the group you are studying. This is the same tone I find widely espoused in modern day Cultural Anthropology (cite-able).

I honestly do not know what to think about all this. It's hard to see why ethnographies would not be used as "Actionable Intelligence"; it would be a waste of Intelligence capital if Interest Groups were not using them for private gain. So that leaves me with the philosophical question of whether the weight of "Salvage Archeology," which in this case includes ethnographies of quickly vanishing cultures, outweighs the harm to these very cultures by the use of the military-industrial complex. Is it possible that Cultural Anthropology is contributing drastically to the downfall of the very societies it claims to preserve and honor?

I will appreciate any and all responses. This email was sent to many people I respect in the field of Anthropology, but if you press reply it will come only to me. Thank you for your time.