[Discussion] (no subject)

[Paksoy, Hb]

Chronicle of Higher Education
Wednesday, July 17, 2002

=20

  OPINION

Anthropology and the Search for the Enemy Within
By THOMAS A. GREGOR and DANIEL R. GROSS

The American Anthropological Association has just published the results =
of
an extensive investigation into charges of abuse of the Yanomami =
Indians of
Venezuela and Brazil that=20
------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
----
ALSO SEE:

Anthropological Association's Report Criticizes Yanomami Researchers =
and
Their Accuser=20


------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
----
=20
had been brought by its own members against their colleagues Napoleon
Chagnon and James Neel. The AAA report is a 325-page document, dense =
with
opinion papers, ethical pronouncements, vast but unbalanced background
materials, even the panelists' r=E9sum=E9s. When those materials are =
stripped
away, what remains is a verdict of not guilty on the truly serious =
charge --
genocide -- and guilty on some comparatively minor issues related to
publications and fieldwork. As one anthropologist said in an interview =
with
The Chronicle, "Chagnon was accused of capital murder, and it appears =
that
he's now been convicted of a parking violation." What galls many
anthropologists is a shamefully conducted investigation that should =
never
have happened in the first place.=20

Readers may recall the initial charges, which appeared in the press in =
the
summer of 2000. Terence Turner and Leslie Sponsel, anthropologists at
Cornell University and the University of Hawaii, respectively, had sent =
a
memo to the association warning of the supposed crimes of the late =
James
Neel (a geneticist and member of the National Academy of Sciences) and
Napoleon Chagnon (an anthropologist and author of The Yanomamo, a
best-selling ethnography.) The memo alerted the association to charges =
that
were about to be made in Patrick Tierney's Darkness in El Dorado: How
Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon (W.W. Norton).=20

"We write to inform you of an impending scandal," warned Sponsel and =
Turner,
that "in its scale, ramifications, and sheer criminality and corruption =
...
is unparalleled in the history of anthropology." Going beyond Tierney's
forthcoming allegations, the two professors charged Neel and Chagnon =
with
having started a lethal epidemic of measles among the Yanomami. The =
memo
even compared the scientists to Josef Mengele. Neel and Chagnon, it =
said,
used a "virulent vaccine" to infect the Yanomami with measles in a =
purported
test of a eugenic theory, to see if tribal leaders were more resistant =
than
others.=20

Had those grave allegations withstood early scrutiny, the anthropology
association would have been obliged to investigate them. But the
Turner-Sponsel memo, with its wild accusations and intemperate =
language, was
quickly discredited by medical authorities, including Samuel Katz, a
developer of the measles vaccine. Tierney's book fared little better.
According to the report, "the book contains numerous unfounded,
misrepresented, and sensationalistic accusations. ... These
misrepresentations fail to live up to the ethics of responsible =
journalism
even as they pretend to question the ethical conduct of anthropology."=20

By the fall of 2000, the charges of murder and genocide against Chagnon =
and
Neel had collapsed. Preliminary investigations established that far =
from
conducting cruel experiments on humans, they had safely vaccinated the
Yanomami and saved countless lives. In a normal world, that truth would =
have
punctured the balloon of allegations and left the accusers deflated and
apologetic. But there remained lesser charges in Tierney's book, like
Chagnon's focus on Yanomami aggression and his link to a Venezuelan
foundation associated with self-serving politicians. Those claims, =
which
were not new, did not rise to a level that warranted an investigation =
by the
association.=20

The association does not normally investigate its members. Its ethics
policies "have no legal standing and appear to be on weak moral =
footing" in
their capacity to bind members, it acknowledges. What's more, the
organization is ill-equipped to manage an adjudication. It has neither
specific rules nor case law governing the practice of its members, and =
no
means of ensuring due process for the accused.=20

Recognizing those issues, and with a history of contentious cases in =
the
past, the group's executive board determined in 1995 that "the AAA no =
longer
adjudicates claims of unethical behavior," because of its "inability to
carry out a fair and legally defensible adjudication." Indeed, "no =
ethics
case has ever reached the final hearing stage ... and no sanctions have =
ever
been levied."=20

How, then, did the association, in violation of its own rules, become =
the
lead prosecutor in an investigation of what it eventually found were
"sensationalistic" charges leveled by a "deeply flawed" and =
journalistically
"unethical" book? Our answer is that the leadership was swept away by a
riptide of political righteousness so powerful that not even the
association's established policies and the demolition of the most =
scurrilous
charges could withstand its force.=20

Under what circumstances should a scholarly association investigate its
members? Our view is that such a step is appropriate when the integrity =
of
the profession as a whole is at stake or when a group licenses its =
members
for professional practice -- as in a medical society or bar association =
--
and then only when it has the political stability and the institutional
capacity to ensure due process. In the case at hand, the most serious
allegations against Chagnon and Neel had been disproved; the =
anthropology
association does not license its members to practice; and it is among =
the
most politicized of associations. Its multiple fault lines include =
residual
political schisms of the 1960s and '70s, and a confusion of the =
discipline's
intellectual goals with advocacy.=20

To this must be added the postmodern worldview, much current in
anthropology, with its penchant for stripping away appearances -- in =
this
case that of a disinterested science in search of the truth -- to =
discover
an evil within, or, at minimum, complicity with powerful elites. In
different guises, these battles roil all of academe. Literary criticism =
and
other branches of the humanities lie in tatters after internecine =
warfare
pitted postmodernists against defenders of traditional scholarship.=20

Such a civil war now threatens anthropology, which is riven with =
divisions
between scientifically oriented, data-driven research and =
interpretative
approaches. What makes the discipline uniquely vulnerable to political
turmoil is the worldwide tragedy of beleaguered indigenous peoples and
ethnic minorities, and the guilt that their suffering evokes. Although =
the
poverty and the oppression are real, academic adversaries may misuse =
them as
swords and shields in their battles. To win a skirmish, one often need =
do no
more than to claim that one's opponents' fieldwork, publications, =
ideas, or
even language damages or demeans native peoples.=20

In the association's report, this exquisite sensitivity extends even to =
the
thoroughly postmodern demand that anthropologists surrender to their
subjects the task of defining the topics to be investigated. "Informed
consent" is not sufficient, says the report. Theoretically significant
topics "may have to be set aside" if they are not of equal interest to
research subjects. This model is "the future of anthropology among
indigenous peoples."=20

All of those issues resonated with the Tierney-Turner-Sponsel =
allegations.
Chagnon's work was sociobiological in orientation, which is anathema to =
many
cultural anthropologists, some of whom find it inherently racist. =
Chagnon
may also have stimulated professional jealousy with his financially
successful publications while infuriating opponents with his =
confrontational
style, occasionally profane language, and pattern of denigrating =
critics as
"left wingers." The publication of Darkness in El Dorado therefore =
ignited
an explosion in a long-smoldering academic vendetta.=20

The anthropology association appears uncomfortable with the obvious
political overtones of its investigation, so much so that it even =
denied
that it had conducted one: "In no sense did we consider our work to be =
an
'investigation,'" reads the report; "nor did we consider the materials =
that
we developed to be 'evidence.'" Moreover, the reader is told that "the
greatest value of this report is not to find fault with or to defend =
the
past actions of specific anthropologists," and that "the most important
finding in the report relates to the urgent health condition of the =
Yanomami
Indians."=20

The association would therefore have us believe that the investigation =
was
mainly about public health and represents a benevolent act of concern =
for
the Yanomami. That is pitifully disingenuous. In the report's 325 =
pages,
there is virtually no discussion of the present health status of the
Yanomami, other than when the topic happens to intersect with the =
various
allegations.=20

Had the welfare of the Yanomami truly been of concern, the report would =
have
focused on the danger to immunization campaigns posed by the accusers'
claims of genocide by vaccination. Had a study of the ethics of =
fieldwork
been the goal (as was also claimed), the report would have examined a
variety of cases. In fact, the report is built around investigative =
chapters
("Some Major Allegations Against Napoleon Chagnon"; "Informed Consent =
and
the Work of James V. Neel"). They consist of witness testimony, =
evidence,
and judicial conclusions about the culpability of Neel and Chagnon. No
matter the disclaimers, the report is a judicial investigation and must =
be
held to that high standard of integrity.=20

The investigation itself was a model of ineptitude. Two of the members
appointed to the investigatory panel were tainted by close association =
with
the principals, including one member who was both a former doctoral =
student
and a friend of Terence Turner, one of the accusers.=20

The investigators published prejudicial remarks as to Chagnon and =
Neel's
culpability in the midst of the investigation. The panel confined its =
field
interviews to a few native witnesses who were children at the time of =
the
Chagnon-Neel research, and who were closely linked to Tierney, Turner, =
and
other accusers. The interviewer admitted that her interviewees were
unrepresentative of the Yanomami, and that she did not speak their =
language.
No one represented Chagnon or Neel before the panel. Neel was deceased.
Chagnon would not participate, saying early in the process that he =
refused
to take part "in a feeding frenzy in which I am the bait."=20

The results were predictable. The report concludes that the Yanomami
experienced "psychological suffering" caused by Chagnon and Neel's =
work,
without presenting any evidence for that claim beyond the testimony of
unrepresentative witnesses. It finds that Chagnon gave comfort to the
enemies of the Yanomami by depicting the tribe as violent, but the =
panel did
not seriously contest the accuracy of his portrayals or demonstrate any
material damage that the villagers might have suffered from them. It =
claims
that Chagnon was associated with persons engaged in an aborted scheme =
to
create a bioreserve that was supposedly a cover for a mining operation.
However, the linkages are largely conjectural and based on guilt by
association.=20

Finally, the panel attacks Chagnon and Neel's blood-sampling procedures =
in
the 1960s but acknowledges that their methods were in accord with =
common
practice at the time. That complaint is ironic, given the association's
stated interest in Yanomami public health, since Neel's analysis of the
samples led him to vaccinate 2,000 of the villagers on a subsequent =
research
trip to Venezuela. In all this, the investigatory panel simultaneously
assumed the roles of lawgiver, prosecutor, judge, and jury, and, not
surprisingly, hanged the defendants, all under the auspices of the =
American
Anthropological Association.=20

In Venezuela and Brazil, as we write, the Yanomami are dying from =
malaria,
tuberculosis, and malnutrition. In the face of this tragedy, the =
association
has squandered its moral capital and its civility on an ad hominem =
attack on
Napoleon Chagnon and the late James Neel. While the Yanomami die, the
association debates whether Neel's lifesaving research and immunization
campaign in 1968 met standards of informed consent.=20

In the search for the enemy within, there is more than a measure of =
perverse
grandiosity. Accusers and investigators seem to attribute as much =
importance
to their prosecutorial venture as to the continuing decimation of the
Yanomami. For it was not Napoleon Chagnon's words or James Neel's =
research
that savaged the Yanomami. It was the lawless gold prospectors who had
invaded their lands, who brought with them infectious diseases, who =
degraded
the environment, and who brutalized the villagers -- all without =
adequate
response from the Venezuelan and Brazilian authorities. The =
association's
investigation draws attention away from the real risks faced by the =
Yanomami
and other indigenous people.=20

Darkness in El Dorado and its misguided investigative spinoff could not =
have
come at a worse time for anthropology. As politically volatile as any =
field,
the discipline is less cohesive than most. Subdivided into archaeology,
linguistics, biological anthropology, and cultural anthropology, it is =
so
broad that it lacks an intellectual core to contain its centrifugal
elements. A rich tradition of fieldwork and common purpose is badly =
frayed.=20

The association is fertile ground for new allegations and further =
rending of
the fabric of civility that holds the profession together. Ominously, =
the
report calls for the creation of new task forces to pursue additional
miscreants. But even in the absence of further investigations, there is =
no
way to undo the damage to due process, open inquiry, and the =
individuals
concerned. Without self-reflection and principled leadership in this
politically immature association, the shadow of darkness over the =
profession
may become a long night.=20

Thomas A. Gregor is a professor and chair of the anthropology =
department at
Vanderbilt University. His latest book, edited with Donald F. Tuzin, is
Gender in Amazonia and Melanesia: An Exploration in the Comparative =
Method
(University of California Press, 2001). Daniel R. Gross is lead
anthropologist at the World Bank and the author of many papers and
publications on the native people of Amazonia.=20
=20