Thanks a lot for this reflexive video on the collaboration between anthropologists and the military. To me the big question is the embeddedness of science in military engagement in general. War has a lot to to with technology and knowledge, so everyone who provides military useful contributions to that is somehow engaged in 'war as conflict solution'. The word 'somehow' makes it possible to easily oversee the link that is discussed in the video. I think this is why so many affords are being made to define wars as 'peace missions' so that the involvement of whole western societies (including human sciences) in abroad wars feels just. One example: Germany is worlds third biggest arms exporter and its troops are engaged in battles in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the media and politicians avoided the word 'war' as long as they could. Because as soon as Germany is engaged in a war, it becomes obvious that massive killing industries are contributing to Germany's GDP/wealth. That is why I am concerned with the management of information on wars through media (including social sciences) to the western public. And I believe that embedded anthropology suffers from a pygmalion effect, that is to uncritically accept violence as a solution for power, dominance, religion and resource conflicts. FE
"And I believe that embedded anthropology suffers from a pygmalion effect, that is to uncritically accept violence as a solution for power, dominance, religion and resource conflicts."I agree with you there. And that is a serious problem that turns social science into little more than a PR mouthpiece.
Post a Comment