Anthropology and Militarism

Anthropology and Militarism
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by CAPES on 10/02/07. For personal use only.
Hugh Gusterson
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030; email: Hgusters@gmu.edu
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:15575 First published online as a Review in Advance on May 31, 2007 The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094302 Copyright c 2007 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0084-6570/07/1021-0155$20.00
Key Words
ethnic cleansing, terror, nuclear, genocide, memory, responsibility
Abstract
Anthropologists selections of topics and eld sites have often been shaped by militarism, but they have been slow to make militarism, especially American militarism, an object of study. In the high Cold War years concerns about human survival were refracted into debates about innate human proclivities for violence or peace. As new wars with high civilian casualty rates emerged in Africa, Central America, the former Eastern bloc, and South Asia, beginning in the 1980s anthropologists increasingly wrote about terror, torture, death squads, ethnic cleansing, guerilla movements, and the memory work inherent in making war and peace. Anthropologists have also begun to write about nuclear weapons and American militarism. The war on terror has disturbed settled norms that anthropologists should not assist counterinsurgency campaigns, and for the rst time since Vietnam, anthropologists are debating the merits of military anthropology versus critical ethnography of the military.
155
INTRODUCTION
Militarism is integral to global society today. It can be seen around the world in the presence of standing armies, paramilitaries, and military contractors; the stockpiling of weaponry; burgeoning state surveillance programs; the colonization of research by the national security state; the circulation of militarized imagery in popular culture; the tendency to regard military efciency as the paramount interest of the state, (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Bacevich 2005, p. 227) and the shaping of national histories in ways that glorify and legitimate military action (Lutz 2002b, p. 723). In militarized societies, war is always on our minds, even if we are technically at peace. No one in the world today is untouched by militarism. However, given the enormous range of local experiences of the phenomenon from the immiserated war refugee of the Congo to the suburban American happily watching Saving Private Ryan on his at panel living room TV, it may be as appropriate to speak of militarisms as of militarism. Anthropologists who work on war, militarism, and violence routinely complain that these subjects receive too little attention in anthropology (Ben-Ari 2004; Hinton 1996; Lutz 1999, 2002a,b; Nagengast 1994; Simons 1999). With a few notable exceptions, anthropologists have barely studied modern wars, writes Simons (1999, p. 74) at the outset of her own Annual Review article on the anthropology of war. Arguably, war and militarism have stood in the same kind of relationship to anthropology as has colonialism. For an earlier generation of anthropologists, colonialism powerfully shaped access to the eld and the choice of research topics but was itself rarely brought into focus as a topic of ethnographic research or reexive self-questioning. Similarly, anthropology has been more or less subtly molded by the priorities of the national security state and the exigencies of other peoples wars, but until recently, anthropologists have written little about militarism or inter156 Gusterson
national conict. They have written still less about their own relations with the national security state. Yet the discipline of modern anthropology crystallized in the context of war. In the United States, anthropology emerged as the state sought to understand and administer native populations in the Indian wars (Borneman 1995). In England, Malinowski a Pole, and therefore an enemy alien during World War Idevised anthropologys signature methodology of extended participant observation when he was advised, for his own good, to extend his sojourn in the Trobriand Islands for the duration of the war. Anthropologists choices of eld sites and research projects were also often shaped by war. Anthropologists have generally sought to avoid eld sites engulfed by war, and in the Cold War, they found the territory of the Soviet bloc largely off limits even as they had easy access to countries controlled by the Western powers (Lutz 1999). Meanwhile, from World War II through the rst decades of the Cold War many anthropologists were sponsored by the national security state to carry out research on places of interest to the national security state, whereas others learned during the McCarthyist years not to ask the wrong kinds of questions about the Cold War order (Lutz 1999; Nader 1997; Price 1998, 2002a, 2004; Yans-McLaughlin 1986). During World War II, a small number of anthropologists were also, in one of the more shameful episodes in the disciplines history, involved in the administration of internment camps for Japanese Americans (Starn 1986). Benedicts (1989) World War II study of Japanese national character is the classic example of ethnographic work commissioned by the national security state. It was followed during the Cold War by more anthropological studies of national character, by the rise of area studies, and by the emergence of a positivistic approach to cultural description that was favored by government agencies. (For analyses of the way the Cold War shaped the academy more generally, see Chomsky et al.
1997, Edwards 1996, Leslie 1994, and Lowen 1997). The World War II generation of anthropologists, their attitudes shaped by the good war against fascism, saw their work for the national security state as relatively unproblematic. By the Vietnam years a new generation of anthropologiststrained, ironically, thanks to the educational largesse generated by the GI Bill and Cold War boom yearsbegan to question anthropologys private bargains with the national security state. This generation had, by and large, no record of military service1 and, in a reprise of Franz Boass (1919) critique of anthropologists who doubled as spies during World War I, they questioned (and, according to their opponents, exaggerated) anthropologists covert work in the service of counterinsurgency in Latin America and Southeast Asia in the 1960s (Berreman 1968; Nader 1997; Price 2000, 2004; Wakin 1992; Wolf & Jorgenson 1970). Anthropology after the 1960s embodied a strong sentiment against war and militarism, and the 1971 American Anthropological Association Principles of Professional Responsibility (http://www. aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm) took a clear stand against the kind of covert anthropological work the national security state had sponsored in the past. Given the geopolitical context in which anthropology grew to maturity, some striking gaps exist in the targets of the ethnographic gaze during the Cold War. Anthropologists hardly wrote about nuclear weapons, about the U.S. military bases in the countries where they did their eldwork, or about the Cold War as a cultural system. And, although the Vietnam War fractured the American Anthropological Association in the late
1
1960s, anthropologists have written very little about Vietnamese culture or about the Vietnam Warthe dening event for the generation of anthropologists now nearing retirement (although see Kwon 2006 and Petersen 1992). Instead, during the Cold War, anthropologists struck an informal bargain with political scientists, ceding to them the international state system while taking for themselves the tribal zone. This article proceeds by surveying briey the anthropological work on primitive war during the high Cold War years, arguing that such work did not so much escape the Cold War as displace its concerns onto the savage slot. As the Cold War ended, anthropologists began to dissolve the traditional division of labor with political science and to write about war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, nuclear weapons, and the international security system as a whole. More recently, September 11, 2001, and the emergence of the so-called war on terror have raised anew the question of whether anthropologists should consult for the national security state.
AGGRESSION, HUMAN NATURE, AND PRIMITIVE WAR

Although such estimates are notoriously problematic, according to Ferguson (2006), 180 million people died in war in the twentieth century. As humanity was engulfed by two world wars, then developed weapons capable of extinguishing all human life, the question of whether human beings were inherently warlike became increasingly urgent. As early as 1932, in a famous exchange with Einstein, Freud wrote that war was grounded in intertwined noble and destructive impulses and was essential to human nature. In 1940 Margaret Mead, optimistic despite the eruption of world war in Europe, staked out the other end of the debate. She argued that violence might be universal, but war was a cultural institution, not an instinct, and could be uninvented. These two short pieces dened early on the basic positions in the
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology and Militarism 157
Few contemporary anthropologists have much military experience. One notable exception is the Israeli anthropologist and military ofcer Ben-Ari (1989, 1998). Lt. Colonel David Kilcullen (see Kilcullen 2006), who was appointed chief adviser to the U.S. military on counterinsurgency in Iraq in 2007, was described as an anthropologist in the New Yorker (Packer 2006), although his PhD is in political science.
anthropological debate on war, violence, and human nature. During the high Cold War years anthropologists did not make the Cold War and its tributary conicts a direct object of study, but they refracted the supreme question raised by the Cold War and the arms racecan we get along?into their mappings of the savage slot. Often assuming that primitive man was man in his natural state, anthropologists scoured the ethnographic horizon for warlike and peaceful cultures, argued about the reasons for war in simple societies, and in keeping with the evolutionist strand in anthropology after the 1950s, debated the evolution of war from acephalous to state societies. (For reviews of the voluminous literature produced, see Ferguson 1989, 1990b; Groebel & Hinde 1989; Nagengast 1994; Otterbein 2000; Reyna & Downs 1994; Simons 1999; Sponsel 2000; and Whitehead 2000.) Although societies (allegedly) without war were scarce in the ethnographic record and only became scarcer as the twentieth century progressed, they generated a disproportionate amount of ethnography (Dentan 1968, Gregor 1996, Howell & Willis 1989, Lee 1984, Montagu 1978, Robarchek 1977, Sponsel & Gregor 1994, Thomas 1958, Turnbull 1961). This literature sometimes ignored Meads vital distinction between violence and war, arguing that its ethnographic subjects not only fought no wars, but also were nonviolent. In the Cold War context, this literature on peaceful societies represented a displaced critique of the status quo, the salvage of a different potentiality in human nature. The elaboration of this literature paradoxically intensied just as these peaceful cultures were disappearing into the mists of ethnohistory. The anthropological record also produced bountiful evidence of the human predilection for violence and war (See, e.g., Boehm 1984; Chagnon 1983, 1988; Ferguson & Whitehead 1992; Haas 1990; Keiser 1991; Otterbein 2000; Rosaldo 1980). With the rise of sociobiology in the 1970s and 1980s, debates increasingly turned on the question of whether
158 Gusterson
war was biologically encoded by evolution, with Chagnon (1988) (in)famously arguing from his Yanomamo data that war maximized inclusive tness for the victors. Such arguments offered an interesting parallel to the rise in the international relations literature of realist theories that used the rhetoric of science to naturalize war as inherent to an international system conceived as a Darwinist jungle (e.g., Waltz 1979). The debate between Chagnon and his critics extended into the 1990s and beyond, with questions about human nature and war often focused on arcane details about the dwindling Yanomami people of the Amazonian rainforest. Quite aside from allegations of unreliability in Chagnons data-gathering (Borofsky 2005, Lizot & Dart 1994, Tierney 2000), critics questioned the notion that the Yanomami were an untouched people representing human nature in its essential state. Ferguson (1990a, 1995) argued that Chagnon, by introducing weaponry and scarce resources worth ghting over, provoked the ghting he claimed to have discovered and that this represented a subset of a broader process whereby state encroachment produced war in the tribal zone. The violence modern researchers claimed as essential to the primitive, and therefore the human, condition was a misrecognized artifact of the militarizing processes of the Western state system. By the 1990s, with increasing acceptance that primitive war could not be understood apart from the colonial encounter, discussions took an evolutionist turn (Carneiro 1994, Ember & Ember 1992, Ferguson & Whitehead 1992, Simons 1999, Otterbein 2000). A lively debate also ensued about Turney-Highs (1991) thesis that states ght instrumentally for land and resources, generating high casualties, whereas primitive war is often ritualized conict about honor and status, with few casualties.
THE END OF THE COLD WAR

Starn (1991) argues that Andeanist anthropologists were blindsided by the emergence of the
Maoist Shining Path insurgency in 1980s Peru because they had been attending too closely to traditional cultural forms to notice the back story of conict, violence, and poverty in their eld sites. One could make a similar argument about anthropologys myopia about militarism for much of the Cold War until militarism, terror, and violence nally began to come into anthropological focus in the 1980s. This change was partly because communal violence and terror in ethnographic sites such as Sri Lanka and Latin or Central America were becoming impossible to overlook, and partly because theoretical shifts in anthropology in the 1980s authorized the investigation of new subjects, often by a generation of anthropologists who had come of age during or after the Vietnam War. The end of the Cold War also produced new structures of conict in the international system, stimulating new theoretical and empirical work in response. Early attempts to document and theorize terror and communal violence include Benjamin & Demarest (1988), Manz (1988), and Taussig (1984, 1986) on Latin America; Das (1990), Kapferer (1988), and Tambiah (1986) on South Asia; Feldman (1991) and Sluka (1989) on Northern Ireland; and Lan (1985) on guerilla warfare in Africa. These years also saw attempts to apply some traditional anthropological theories to the international security system as a whole (Foster & Rubinstein 1986, Rubinstein & Foster 1997, Turner & Pitt 1989), as well as compendia on war, violence, and torture (Nordstrom & Martin 1992, Nordstrom & Robben 1995). Something Nordstrom (1997) called warzone culture and warscapes and Gusterson (2004) called securityscapes was coming into ethnographic focus. Depressingly, the most inuential theorizations of the new global order emerging from the ashes of the Cold War were by such popular writers as Huntington (1996) and Kaplan (2001). (Kaplans book grew out of a 1994 Atlantic Monthly article that, remarkably, the State Department faxed to every U.S. embassy in the world.) Huntington
argued that Cold War bipolarity would be succeeded by a seven-cornered struggle between civilizations, exacerbated by globalization, that would throw the West into conict with China and the Islamic world. Kaplan foresaw a combination of weak political structures, resource depletion, and overpopulation in the Third World generating a tidal wave of anarchy that would wash up against the West (compare Homer-Dixon 2001). Although anthropologists criticized Huntington and Kaplan for reifying cultural traditions, for gross overgeneralization, and for exaggerating the extent of anarchy and violence in the Third World (Besteman & Gusterson 2005; Simons 1999, p. 92), they did not produce rival general theories. Still, the postCold War years saw some ne anthropological studies of militarization, war, and violence that, taken together, represent a major ethnographic and theoretical advance. This body of work focused on ethnic violence and genocide; memory work; the phenomenology of violence; nuclear weapons and, at last, American militarism.
ETHNIC VIOLENCE AND GENOCIDE

The political scientist Kaldor (1999) argues that the 1990s saw the emergence, especially in Africa and Eastern Europe, of what she calls new war, characterized by a blurring of the distinctions between war . . . organized crime . . . and large-scale violations of human rights (p. 2). Kaldor argues that new war was produced by the conuence of neoliberal globalization and the end of the discipline enforced by Cold War bipolarity. Globalization eroded the states old monopoly of legitimate violence from abovethrough the transnationalization of military forces (p. 4)and from below, as force was increasingly privatized (compare Singer 2004). The old legitimating ideologies of the Cold War were replaced by reinvented ethnonationalisms, and wars took shape in which the stake was identity. Partly because these wars
sought to settle the identities of entire populations, 80%90% of the casualties were civilianthe exact inverse of the militarycivilian casualty ratio at the start of the twentieth century. Such wars have taken place in former Yugoslavia (Bringa 1993; Denich 1994; Hayden 1996, 2000; Olujic 1998), Chechnya (Rigi 2007, Tishkov 2004), Sri Lanka (Daniel 1996, Tambiah 1996), Somalia (Besteman 1996a,b, 1999; Lewis 1998), and Rwanda/Burundi (Barnett 1999; Gourevitch 1999; Malkki 1995, 1996; Mamdani 2002; Taylor 1999, 2002). Much of the work on these wars critiqued the popular common sense, based on essentialist notions of identity, that such wars were caused by an eruption of ancient tribal identities in countries that were somehow decient in their pursuit of modernity. Malkki (1995, 1996) shows how hard Hutu and Tutsi had to work to tell each other apart. Denich (1994) and Hayden (1996, 2000) argue that ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia was so vicious precisely because many parts of the Federation had become so multiethnic that it took great violence to disaggregate populations, and Bringa (1993) offers vivid documentary evidence of Croats moving within a few months from convivial friendship with their Muslim neighbors to burning down their houses. Meanwhile Appadurai (2002), Borneman (1998), and Hayden (2000) suggest that mass rape is often used to dele and separate minority populations in ethnically mixed, contested territory. Besteman (1996a,b, 1999) argues that clan mobilization in Somalia glossed more powerful and novel fracture lines of class and race, and the literary journalist Gourevitch (1999) suggests that the 1994 Hutu slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda, largely with machetes, was the product of Belgian colonial divide-andrule policies, the social agonies caused by structural adjustment, and malevolent political entrepreneurship more than ancient tribal hatreds. This body of work is subtle and historically sensitive in its deconstruction of popular deterministic assumptions about ancient
160 Gusterson
hatreds (Appadurai 2002). Still, it begs the question of why identities that, according to this literature, are manufactured and contingent are nevertheless so powerful in mobilizing populations for mass murder, and why when nations fractured in the 1990s they so often did so along ethnic lines. It is no coincidence that these years, when genocide reemerged in central Europe and Africa, saw a urry of articles on the Nazi Holocaust (Connor 1989; Lewin 1992, 1993; Wolf 2002; see also Kuper 1981, 1990). At the same time Hinton (1998, 2002a,b, 2004) produced a powerful body of work, centered on the Cambodian genocide under Pol Pot (which killed 1.53 million out of a population of 7 million), revisiting some of the psychological lessons to emerge from the Nazi holocaust about processes of dehumanization and obedience to authority and integrating them with an analysis of particular Cambodian cultural processes that facilitated genocide although the cultural internalism of this analytic frame arguably goes too far in absolving the United States of its responsibility for this Asian holocaust (see Shawcross 1979).
MEMORY WORK
War and memory are inextricably bound. Mobilization for war often involves a collective mobilization of memory about past injuries (Wallace 1968); meanwhile the end of war involves the selective memorialization and forgetting of wars pains (Fussell 1975, Scarry 1985, Shaw 2007, Sturken 1997, Yoneyama 1999). Arextaga (1997), Denich (1994), and Hinton (1998, 2004), writing about Ireland, Yugoslavia, and Cambodia, emphasize the importance of atrocity memories in creating what Denich calls a sense of unnished business that justies the resort to war. Such memories can be exploited by leaders seeking war. They often attach to sites of past atrocities, especially if bodies are exhumed (Aretxaga 1997, Denich 1994, Sanford 2004). Refugee communities may play a particularly important role in keeping alive memories of
past injuries (Ballinger 2003; Bryant 2004; Malkki 1995, 1996; Slyomovics 1998). Meanwhile ethnic cleansing and genocide often involve a deliberate destruction of sites of collective memory and identity, as in the Serbs targeting of cultural sites in Sarajevo in the 1990s. When ghting ends, collective memory of war and suffering is controlled through an institutionalized interweaving of remembrance and, on the other hand, what Yoneyama (1999) calls amnesic elisions and Lifton & Mitchell (1995) call historical cleansing. This can occur in civil conicts through Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, tried by South Africa at the end of apartheid and in several other countries subsequently. Such commissions mobilize the testimony of victims and executioners to create a new public memory archive that acknowledges past injuries, although the process is often in danger of cooption by regimes whose legitimacy rests on selective disclosure. Ofcial narratives at the end of war always stand in ambiguous relation to subcultural performances of memory that may carry more emotional force (Shaw 2007)as with Moroccan human rights activists mock trials and poetry documented by Slyomovics (2005), or the Vietnamese village rituals analyzed by Kwon (2006) to honor the women and children killed in the Vietnam War2 whose deaths were seen by the government as insufciently heroic. War memories are also institutionalized through ofcial memorials and museums. These are inevitably partial in their memorialization of suffering. Thus the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, DC, erases the suffering of the Vietnamese (Sturken 1997), the Hiroshima Memorial erases the South Korean victims of the Bomb (Yoneyama 1999), and the Holocaust Museum in Washington erases much non-Jewish suffering in the Holocaust (Linenthal 2001). Museums and memorials can provoke intense conict and revitalize injured nationalisms, especially among war
2
survivors, as in controversies over Japanese politicians visits to World War II Shinto shrines and in the public pillory and eventual collapse of the Smithsonian Museums attempted 1995 exhibit on Hiroshima and the end of World War II (Lifton & Mitchell 1995, Linenthal & Englehardt 1996, Nobile 1995). Once battlegrounds and memorials lose their eruptive emotional power, they become sanitized sites of war tourism (Lisle 2000). Anthropologists have been doing their own memory work, often feeling a duty to bear witness to suffering endured by communities they studied. Especially in Central and Latin America, after two decades marked by widespread torture, death squad activity, and guerilla insurgency, some anthropologists have sought (often at risk to themselves) to ensure that their writing speaks for the dead and bereaved and does not contribute to the culture of silence that often enabled the killing in the 1980s and 1990s (Binford 1996; Daniel 1996; Falla 1994; Green 1994, 1999; Manz 1988, 2005; Sanford 2004; Schirmer 1998; Sluka 2000; Suarez-Orozco 1990; Warren 1993). Such work often builds on and revoices in a more theoretical register an indigenous tradition of testimoniovivid, rst-person eyewitness accounts of terror and violence (such as Menchu et al. 1987).
FEAR AS A WAY OF LIFE

Recent years have seen considerable work by anthropologists on what we might call the phenomenology of war and violence: how violence works as a set of cultural practices and what it does to people to live in a society wracked by civil war or state-sponsored terror (Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois 2003). In a much-cited article Green (1994) says routinization allows people to live in a chronic state of fear with a fac ade of normalcy, while the terror, at the same time, permeates and shreds the social fabric (p. 231). We now know that in societies where fear is a way of life one often nds the following
Or, as the Vietnamese call it, the American War.
phenomena: a disabling uncertainty as to what might get one killed and which neighbors and friends might turn into enemies (Strathern et al. 2005); a sense of loss of the future (Nordstrom 2004, p. 59); the use of pain and terror to hyperindividuate and socially disconnect victims (Daniel 1996, p. 144); a public culture of silence and denial about atrocities that are public secrets (Skidmore 2003, Warren 1993); a pervasive militarization of daily life often lived under surveillance (Orr 2004, Stephen 2000); waves of violence that, taking people out of everyday mundane reality, create a perverse sense of communitas among perpetrators (Feldman 1991, Tambiah 1996); the sundering of families by death, forced conscription, or eviction (Green 1994, 1999; Hinton 1996, 2004; Vine 2004); brutal forms of bodily discovery that take the body apart . . . to divine the enemy within (Appadurai 2002, pp. 29192; Feldman 1991); dead, mutilated, and tortured bodies intended by the perpetrators as semiotic messages in a context where victims experience terror and bodily suffering at the very boundaries of representability (Daniel 1996, Feldman 1991, Gusterson 1996); and exaggerated ideologies of masculinity among perpetrators and the feminization of male victims, often achieved in part by the rape of their women [Gill 1997; Peteet 1991, 1994; Stephen 2000; see also the extraordinary analysis of Nazi Freikorps gender identity by Theweleit (1987) and the important body of work on gender and militarism by the prolic feminist international relations theorist Enloe (1983, 1990, 1993, 2000, 2004)]. In situations of prolonged military occupation and resistance (in Northern Ireland, the West Bank, and Gaza, for example) such conditions become internalized in processes of cultural reproduction. Arextaga (1997) and Peteet (1991, 1994) write about the ways in which prison detention and torture at the hands of security forces become rites of passage into adulthood among subordinate populations, often effecting shifts in the balance of power between the sexes and the generations
162 Gusterson
in the process. In the Occupied Territories, for example, the young men of the Intifada have parlayed beatings and detentions into enhanced authority within communities that formerly accorded greater respect to an older generation. Meanwhile, with 300,000 child soldiers worldwide at the end of the twentieth century,3 weapons training and combat are increasingly common teenage and even preteen experiences, especially in Africa (Singer 2005). Anthropologists have focused largely on the world of terrors victims. However, as studying up becomes more common, anthropologists are writing about the cultural reality of the perpetrators (Bickford 2003, Feldman 1991, Gill 2004, Mahmood 1996, Schirmer 1998, Suarez-Orozco 1990). Although it is important work, Robben (1995) warns of the danger of ethnographic seduction by military ofcers and torturers (see also Gusterson 1993). A decade that has seen increasing anthropological interest in globalization has also produced more studies exploring the transnational linkages of cultures of violence and terror: Gill (2004) analyzes the training at the U.S. School of the Americas of Latin American military ofcers involved in human rights violations. If such violations were once legitimated by the U.S. struggle against communism, the organizing frame is now the war on drugs. Nordstrom (1997, p. 5), saying the whole concept of local wars is largely a ction, explores the enabling of local wars by a globalized shadow economy of arms trafckers, diamond smugglers, and even nongovernmental organization workers. Singer (2004) probes the connection between wars in the Third World and the recent growth of the new mercenaries in the burgeoning military services industryan industry whose rise is undermining the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence that Weber saw as essential to the modern state.
3
http://www.child-soldiers.org/childsoldiers/questionsand-answers
NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND U.S. MILITARISM

From 1940 to 1996 the U.S. spent $5.5 trillion (in 1996 dollars) on nuclear weapons (Schwartz 1998, p. 3), and yet anthropologists hardly wrote about these potentially omnicidal weapons until the Cold War was almost over. When anthropologists did nally write about nuclear weapons, they produced, rst, studies of what Kuletz (1998) calls the geography of sacrice (largely by indigenous peoples) inherent in nuclear weapons production, and second, studies of the culture of nuclear weapons scientists and war planners. U.S. nuclear weapons testing and production particularly harmed Pacic Islanders and residents of the American Southwest, who have suffered environmental contamination and high rates of cancer and birth defects. Their plight has been documented by Barker (2003), Johnston (2007), Kuletz (1998), Masco (2004a, 2006), and ORourke (1986). In the 1960s, U.S. plans to use hydrogen bombs to excavate a harbor in Alaska and a canal through Central America posed a gross danger to indigenous populations. These plans were halted by technical problems and by an upsurge of activist opposition (Kirsch 2005, ONeill 1995). The next generation of antimilitary activists, in the 1980s, was documented by Epstein (1991), Gusterson (1996), Krasniewicz (1992), Masco (1999, 2006), and Wilson (1988), with McCaffrey (2002) studying the more recent upsurge of protest against the U.S. base in Vieques, Puerto Rico. Anthropologists have not studied the nuclear weapons programs in France, the United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel, although Abrahams (1998) account of the Indian program is anthropologically inected. In the Soviet context Dalton et al. (1999), Garb (1997), and Garb & Komarova (2001) have written about the horrendous environmental damage wreaked by the Soviet nuclear weapons program, and Guillemin
(2001) has written on a deadly outbreak of anthrax around the bioweapons facility in Sverdlosk. (Other anthropological accounts of bioweapons include Guillemin 2006 and Lakoff et al. 2004). In the 1990s American nuclear weapons laboratories were the subject of ethnographic studies by Gusterson (1996, 2004, 2005), Masco (1999, 2002, 2004a,b, 2006), and McNamara (2001). These ethnographies have focused on the web of local relationships within which weapons laboratories are embedded and on the dynamics of simulations in nuclear weapons scientists scientic practicesa theme also analyzed by the sociologists of science, Eden (2005) and MacKenzie (1990). Nuclear ethnographers, with other social scientists, have also been interested in the public discourses that legitimate nuclear weapons (Chilton 1996, Cohn 1987, Franklin 1988, Gusterson 1999, Klare 1995, Manoff 1989, Nathanson 1988, Slayton 2007, Taylor 1998). Nuclear ethnography was part of the emergence, nally, of systematic anthropological work on U.S. militarism itselfthe unmarked category. U.S. militarism was almost invisible in anthropology until recent years, despite the fact that the United States accounts for roughly 50% of all military spending and arms sales in the world, while stationing half a million troops, contractors, intelligence agents, and their dependents on more than 700 overseas bases in 130 countries ( Johnson 2004, 2007; Lutz 1999, 2006). Militarism, working through a permanent war economy (Melman 1974), provides a powerful set of processes for structuring U.S. economy and society, organizing U.S. relationships with allies and adversaries, shaping the ow of information in the public sphere, and molding popular culture. In an important body of work Lutz (1999, 2002a,b, 2006) shows how military bases abroad exacerbate inequality and human rights abuses while military bases at home deplete local resource bases, inect asymmetric race and gender relations, and create a privileged category of militarized
supercitizens. At the same time, military contracting shifts resources away from the old industrial heartland and from human needs (Markusen et al. 1991, Nash 1989, Peattie 1988). Less tangible but equally damaging is the way militarist apologetics have distorted U.S. media coverage of international affairs (Hannerz 2004, Herman & Chomsky 2002, Gusterson 1999, MacArthur 1992, Pedelty 1995) and helped shape a degraded popular culture saturated with racial and nationalist stereotypes, aestheticized destruction, and images of violent hypermasculinity (Der Derian 2001, Feldman 1994, Gibson 1994, Weber 2005). In this cultural milieu, the toxic combination of a smoldering backlash against national humiliation in Vietnam and the hubris of being the worlds only superpower, aggravated by the injuries of 9/11, has produced a virulent militarist nationalism that threatens both the American way of life and the stability of the international security system (Bacevich 2005; Carroll 2006; Johnson 2004, 2005; Gibson 1994). If the deformative features of American militarism are being mapped by an emergent critical anthropology of militarism, recent years have seen the parallel emergence of anthropology contracted to, enabled by, or in a broad sense allied with the military. Although such work is not always uncritical of the military, it is not grounded in a critique of militarism, and it is marked by the more empirical orientation of contract work and by privileged access to military institutions. Examples include Hawkins (2001) on U.S. military culture in Germany, Simons (1997) on the culture of U.S. special forces, Johnstons (2005) study of weaknesses in the organizational culture of the intelligence community leading up to 9/11, and Frese & Harrells (2003) compendium on military culture.
9/11 AND BEYOND

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the war on terror that followed intensied American militarism while also stimulating both the
164 Gusterson
critical ethnography of militarism and military contract ethnography. 9/11 was followed by a massive attempt by scholars in many disciplines, anthropology included, to make sense of the attacks. With the exception of Hirsch (2006) the anthropological literature this produced (a special issue of Anthropological Quarterly at the end of 2001; Kapferer 2004a,b; Tsing 2004) was largely ungrounded in longterm eld research projects and tended to be more sharp than deep. Meanwhile, deciding that anthropology might be to the war on terror what physics was to the Cold War, the national security apparatus took a cultural turn (Packer 2006). Some anthropologists responded enthusiastically. Moos (2005) helped win Congressional funding for the Pat Roberts Intelligence Program (PRISP)a sort of ROTC for spiesand McFate (2005a,b), calling anthropology a discipline invented to support warghting in the tribal zone, advocated weaponizing culture. The CIA and a plethora of military institutes, colleges, and contractors began advertising for anthropologists, and a listserv emerged for anthropologists consulting for the military (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mil Ant Net/). Some anthropologists warned that such initiatives would compromise the open exchange of knowledge within the discipline, harm the research of all anthropologists by raising suspicions that they were secretly consulting for the CIA, breach the covenant of trust between ethnographers and informants, and militarize a discipline more often aligned with social critique (Gonzalez 2007; Gusterson & Price 2005; Price 2000, 2002a,b). Not since World War II had military consulting been endorsed so publicly; not since Vietnam had it been condemned so ercely. These developments made clear that the existing AAA ethics code is inadequate for a situation where anthropology is of great interest to the national security state and where a sizeable community of practicing anthropologists may encounter ethical dilemmas ill
addressed by a code written largely for academic anthropologists. New rules of the road, and a debate within the profession about the perils inherent in the militarization of our discipline, are overdue.
CONCLUSION
In anthropology and cognate disciplines, a rich body of theory has emerged to analyze capitalism, (post)colonialism, globalization, and identity politics. By comparison, militarism is undertheorized. Mainstream security studies, a eld that arose in response to the needs of the national security state, often offers little more than weakly theorized, putatively scientic, repetitive rationalizations for U.S. military policies. What we need is a body of work that offers us what we now have for capitalism, colonialism, and globalization: a set of texts that analyze militarism in relation to nationalism, late modern capitalism, media cultures, and the state while mapping the ways in which militarism remakes communities, public cultures, and the consciousness of individual subjects in multiple geographic and social locations. Militarism, like capitalism, is a life world with its own escalatory logic that takes different local forms while displaying fundamental underlying unities. Despite these underlying unities, local processes of militarization are invariably defended as defensive reactions to someone elses militarism from which they therefore differ in moral character. One task for anthropological analysis is to unmask such ideological processes of legitimation. Besides the work described here within anthropology, one sees partial theorizations of militarism elsewhere with which interested anthropologists might engage. Thompson (1982) uses Marxism to theorize exterminism. Fornari (1975) theorizes militarism from a Freudian perspec-
tive. Virilio (Virilio & Lotringer 1983, 1989) foregrounds speed and processes of mediation as essential to todays pure war. Gray (1997, 2005) and Ignatieff (2000) theorize the emergence of postmodern war and virtual war. Sontag (2004) analyzes the ambiguity and instability of visual representations of war. Above all, anthropologists should read the existing rich but neglected body of literature in critical security studies (Campbell 1992; Der Derian 2001; Enloe 1983, 1990, 1993, 2000, 2004; Gregory & Pred 2007; Klare 2001; Krause & Williams 1996; Shapiro 1997; Shapiro & Alker 1996; Weldes et al. 1999). More empirically, certain subjects are urgently in need of ethnographic study. In war-torn countries: life alongside landmines, the role of diasporic communities in inciting war, the cultural consequences of childhood soldiering, war orphans, the new mercenary companies, suicide bombing and insurgency, the role of religion in combat, the efcacy of truth and reconciliation commissions, and resource conicts and war. Within the United States: veterans groups; the cultural dynamics of basic training; ROTC; military blogs; the debate on gays and the military; the Senate Armed Services Committee; military contractors and lobbyists; the militarization of public health since 9/11; video games; Hollywood war cultures; and activist campaigns against military recruiting, landmines, and new weapons systems. Anthropology has much theoretical and empirical work to do to illuminate militarism, the source of so much suffering in the world today. If we sell our skills to the national security state, we will just become part of the problem.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Robert Albro, Catherine Besteman, Andy Bickford and Catherine Lutz for commenting on an earlier draft of this essay.
LITERATURE CITED
Abraham I. 1998. The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb. London: Zed Books Appadurai A. 2002. Dead certainty: ethnic violence in the era of globalization. See Hinton 2002b, pp. 286304 Aretxaga B. 1997. Shattering Silence: Women, Nationalism and Political Subjectivity in Northern Ireland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Bacevich A. 2005. The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Ballinger P. 2003. History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Barker H. 2003. Bravo for the Marshallese: Regaining Control in a Post-Nuclear, Post-Colonial World. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Barnett M. 1999. The UN security council, indifference, and genocide in Rwanda. Cult. Anthropol. 12:55178 Ben-Ari E. 1989. Masks and soldiering: the Israeli Army and the Palestinian uprising. Cult. Anthropol. 4:37289 Ben-Ari E. 1998. Mastering Soldiers: Conict, Emotions and the Enemy in an Israeli Military Unit. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Ben-Ari E. 2004. The military and militarization in the United States. Am. Ethnol. 31:34048 Benedict R. 1989. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston: Houghton Mifin. 2nd ed. Benjamin P, Demarest W. 1988. The operation of a death squad in San Pedro La Laguna. In Harvest of Violence, ed. R Carmack, pp. 11954. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press Berreman G. 1968. Is anthropology alive? social responsibility in anthropology. Curr. Anthropol. 9:39196 Besteman C. 1996a. Representing violence and othering Somalia. Cult. Anthropol. 11:12033 Besteman C. 1996b. Violent politics and the politics of violence: the dissolution of the Somali nation-state. Am. Ethnol. 23:57996 Besteman C. 1999. Unraveling Somalia: Race, Violence, and the Legacy of Slavery. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Besteman C, Gusterson H, eds. 2005. Why Americas Top Pundits Are Wrong. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Bickford A. 2003. The militarization of masculinity in the former German Democratic Republic. In Military Masculinities: Identity and the State, ed. PR Higate, pp. 15773. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood Binford L. 1996. The El Mozote Massacre: Anthropology and Human Rights. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press Boas F. 1919. Anthropologists as spies. The Nation, Dec. 20:797 Boehm C. 1984. Blood Revenge: The Anthropology of Feuding in Montenegro and Other Tribal Societies. Lawrence: Univ. Kans. Press Borneman J. 1995. American anthropology as foreign policy. Am. Anthropol. 97:66372 Borneman J. 1998. Subversions of International Order. Albany: State Univ. NY Press Borofsky R. 2005. Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
166 Gusterson
Bringa T. 1993. Bosnia: We Are all Neighbors. Granada TV Film Production ITV. Chicago, IL: Public Media/Films Inc. Video Bryant R. 2004. Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus. London: I.B. Tauris Campbell D. 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Carneiro RL. 1994. War and peace: alternating realities in human history. See Reyna & Downs 1994, pp. 327 Carroll J. 2006. House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power. Boston: Houghton Mifin Chagnon N. 1983. Yanomamo: The Fierce People. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. 3rd ed. Chagnon N. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science 239:98592 Chilton P. 1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Lang Chomsky N, Nader L, Wallerstein I, Lewontin RC, Katznelson I, Zinn H, eds. 1997. The Cold War and the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years. New York: New Press Cohn C. 1987. Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals. Signs 12:687718 Connor J. 1989. From ghost dance to death camps: Nazi Germany as a crisis cult. Ethos 17:259 88 Dalton R, Garb P, Lovrich N, Pierce J, Whiteley J. 1999. Critical Masses: Citizens, Nuclear Weapons Production, and Environmental Destruction in the United States and Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Daniel EV. 1996. Charred Lullabies: Chapters in an Anthropography of Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Das V, ed. 1990. Mirrors of Violence: Communities, Riots and Survivors in South Asia. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press Denich B. 1994. Dismembering Yugoslavia: nationalist ideologies and the symbolic revival of genocide. Am. Ethnol. 21:36790 Dentan R. 1968. The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston Der Derian J. 2001. Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Network. Boulder, CO: Westview Eden L. 2005. Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Weapons Devastation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Edwards P. 1996. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Ember CR, Ember ME. 1992. Resource unpredictability, mistrust and war. J. Con. Resolut. 36:24262 Enloe C. 1983. Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Womens Lives. Boston: South End Press Enloe C. 1990. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Enloe C. 1993. The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Enloe C. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Womens Lives. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Enloe C. 2004. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Epstein B. 1991. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Falla R. 1994. Massacres in the Jungle: Ixcan, Guatemala, 19751982. Boulder, CO: Westview Feldman A. 1991. Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in Northern Ireland. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Feldman A. 1994. From Desert Storm to cultural anesthesia. Am. Ethnol. 21:40418 Ferguson N. 2006. The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conict and the Decline of the West. New York: Penguin Ferguson RB. 1989. Anthropology and war: theory, politics, ethics. See Turner & Pitt 1989, pp. 14159 Ferguson RB. 1990a. Blood of the leviathan: western contact and warfare in Amazonia. Am. Ethnol. 17:23757 Ferguson RB. 1990b. Explaining war. See Haas 1990, pp. 2655 Ferguson RB. 1995. Yanomami Warfare: A Political History. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Ferguson RB, Whitehead NL, eds. 1992. War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Fornari F. 1975. The Psychoanalysis of War. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. Foster M, Rubinstein R, eds. 1986. Peace and War: Cross Cultural Perspectives. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books Franklin H. 1988. War Stars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Frese P, Harrell M, eds. 2003. Anthropology and the United States Military: Coming of Age in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Freud S. 1973 [1932]. Why war? In Aggression, Hostility, and Violence: Nature or Nurture?, ed. T Maples, D Matheson, pp. 1626. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Fussell P. 1975. The Great War and Modern Memory. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Garb P. 1997. Complex problems and no clear solutions: difculties of dening and assigning culpability for radiation victimization in the Chelyabinsk region of Russia. In Life and Death Matters, ed. B Johnston, pp. 30729. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Garb P, Komarova G. 2001. Victims of friendly re at Russias nuclear weapons sites. In Violent Environments, ed. N Peluso, M Watts, pp. 287302. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Gibson J. 1994. Warrior Dreams: Violence in Post-Manhood America. New York: Hill & Wang Gill L. 1997. Creating citizens, making men: the military and masculinity in Bolivia. Cult. Anthropol. 12:52750 Gill L. 2004. The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Gonzalez R. 2007. We must ght the militarization of anthropology. Chron. High. Educ. 53:B20 Gourevitch P. 1999. We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories From Rwanda. New York: Picador Gray CH. 1997. Postmodern War: The New Politics of Conict. New York: Guilford Gray CH. 2005. Peace, War, and Computers. New York: Routledge Gregory D, Pred A, eds. 2007. Violent Geographies: Fear, Terror, and Political Violence. New York: Routledge Green L. 1994. Fear as a way of life. Cult. Anthropol. 9:22756 Green L. 1999. Fear as a Way of Life: Mayan Widows in Rural Guatemala. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Gregor T, ed. 1996. A Natural History of Peace. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ. Press
168 Gusterson
Groebel J, Hinde RA, eds. 1989. Aggression and War: Their Biological and Social Bases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Guillemin J. 2001. Anthrax: The Investigation of a Deadly Outbreak. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Guillemin J. 2006. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Gusterson H. 1993. Exploding anthropologys canon in the elds of the bomb: ethnographic writing on militarism. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 22:5979 Gusterson H. 1996. Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Gusterson H. 1999. Nuclear weapons and the other in the western imagination. Cult. Anthropol. 14:11143 Gusterson H. 2004. People of the Bomb: Portraits of Americas Nuclear Complex. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minn. Press Gusterson H. 2005. A Pedagogy of diminishing returns: scientic involution across three generations of nuclear weapons science. In Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. D Kaiser, pp. 75109. Cambridge: MIT Press Gusterson H, Price D. 2005. Spies in our midst. Anthropol. News 46:3940 Haas J, ed. 1990. The Anthropology of War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Hannerz U. 2004. Foreign News: Exploring the World of Foreign Correspondents. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Hawkins JP. 2001. Army of Hope, Army of Alienation: Culture and Contradiction in the American Army Communities of Cold War Germany. Westport, CT: Praeger Hayden R. 1996. Imagined communities and real victims: self-determination and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. Am. Ethnol. 23:783801 Hayden R. 2000. Rape and rape avoidance in ethno-national conicts: sexual violence in liminalized states. Am. Anthropol. 102:2741 Herman E, Chomsky N. 2002. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Hinton A. 1996. Agents of death: explaining the Cambodian genocide in terms of psychosocial dissonance. Am. Anthropol. 99:81831 Hinton A. 1998. A head for an eye: revenge in the Cambodian genocide. Am. Ethnol. 25:35277 Hinton A, ed. 2002a. Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Hinton A, ed. 2002b. Genocide: An Anthropological Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Hinton A. 2004. Why Did They Kill?: Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Hirsch S. 2006. In the Moment of Greatest Calamity: Terrorism, Grief, and a Victims Quest for Justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Homer-Dixon T. 2001. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Howell S, Willis R, eds. 1989. Societies at Peace: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Routledge Huntington S. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster Ignatieff M. 2000. Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. New York: Metropolitan Books Johnson C. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books Johnson C. 2007. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books
Johnston B, ed. 2007. Half-Lives and Half-Truths: Confronting the Radioactive Legacies of the Cold War. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Johnston R. 2005. Analytic Culture in the United States Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study. Washington, DC: GPO Kaldor M. 1999. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press Kapferer B. 1988. Legends of People, Myths of State: Violence, Intolerance, and Political Culture in Sri Lanka and Australia. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Kapferer B, ed. 2004a. State, Sovereignty, War: Civil Violence in Emerging Global Realities. New York: Berghahn Kapferer B. 2004b. The World Trade Center and Global Crisis: Some Critical Perspectives. New York: Berghahn Kaplan R. 2001. The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post-Cold War. New York: Vintage Keiser L. 1991. Friend by Day, Enemy by Night. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Kilcullen D. 2006. Twenty-eight articles: fundamentals of company-level counterinsurgency. Mil. Rev. MayJune:1038 Kirsch S. 2005. Proving Grounds: Project Plowshare and the Unrealized Dream of Nuclear Earthmoving. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press Klare M. 1995. Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: Americas Search for a New Foreign Policy. New York: Hill & Wang Klare M. 2001. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conict. New York: Metropolitan Krasniewicz L. 1992. Nuclear Summer: The Clash of Communities at the Seneca Womens Peace Encampment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Krause K, Williams M, eds. 1996. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. Minneapolis: Univ. Minnesota Press Kuletz V. 1998. Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West. New York: Routledge Kuper L. 1981. Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press Kuper L. 1990. The genocidal state: an overview. In State Violence and Ethnicity, ed. PL van den Berghe, pp. 1951. Boulder: Univ. Colo. Press Kwon H. 2006. After the Massacre: Commemoration and Consolation in Ha My and My Lai. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Lakoff A, Rabinow P, Collier S. 2004. Biosecurity: proposal for an anthropology of the contemporary. Anthropol. Today 20:37 Lan D. 1985. Guns and Rain: Guerillas and Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Lee R. 1984. The Dobe !Kung. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Leslie S. 1994. The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Lewin C. 1992. The holocaust: anthropological possibilities and the dilemma of representation. Am. Anthropol. 94:16166 Lewin C. 1993. Negotiated selves in the holocaust. Ethos 21:295318 Lewis IM. 1998. Doing violence to ethnography: a response to Catherine Bestemans Representing violence and othering Somalia? Cult. Anthropol. 13:1008 Lifton R, Mitchell G. 1995. Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial. New York: Putnam Linenthal ET. 2001. Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create Americas Holocaust Museum. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
170 Gusterson
Linenthal ET, Englehardt T, eds. 1996. History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past. New York: Metropolitan Lisle D. 2000. Consuming danger: reimagining the war/tourism divide. Alternatives 25:91116 Lizot J, Dart S. 1994. On warfare: an answer to N.A. Chagnon. Am. Ethnol. 21:84562 Lowen R. 1997. Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Lutz C. 1999. Ethnography at the war centurys end. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 28:61019 Lutz C. 2002a. Homefront: A Military City and the American Twentieth Century. Boston: Beacon Lutz C. 2002b. Making war at home in the United States: militarization and the current crisis. Am. Anthropol. 104:72335 Lutz C. 2006. Empire is in the details. Am. Ethnol. 33:593611 MacArthur J. 1992. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. New York: Hill & Wang Mackenzie D. 1990. Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Mahmood CK. 1996. Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dialogues with Sikh Militants. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Malkki L. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, memory and National Cosmology Among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Malkki L. 1996. Speechless emissaries: refugees, humanitarianism and dehistoricization? Cult. Anthropol. 11:377404 Mamdani M. 2002. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Manoff R. 1989. Modes of war and modes of address: the text of SDI. J. Commun. 39:5983 Manz B. 1988. Refugees of a Hidden War: The Aftermath of Counterinsurgency in Guatemala. Albany: State Univ. NY Press Manz B. 2005. Paradise in Ashes: A Guatemalan Journey of Courage, Terror, and Hope. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Markusen A, Hall P, Dietrich S. 1991. The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Masco J. 1999. States of insecurity: plutonium and postcold war anxiety in New Mexico. See Weldes et al. 1999, pp. 20331 Masco J. 2002. Lie detectors: on secrets and hypersecurity in Los Alamos. Public Cult. 14:44167 Masco J. 2004a. Mutant ecologies: radioactive life in postcold war New Mexico. Cult. Anthropol. 19:51750 Masco J. 2004b. Nuclear technoaesthetics: sensory politics from trinity to the virtual bomb in Los Alamos. Am. Ethnol. 31:34973 Masco J. 2006. The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press McCaffrey KT. 2002. Military Power and Popular Protest: The U.S. Navy in Viecques, Puerto Rico. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press McFate M. 2005a. The military utility of understanding adversary culture. Jt. Force Q. 38:4248 McFate M. 2005b. Iraq: the social context of IEDs. Mil. Rev., May-June:3740 McNamara L. 2001. Ways of knowing about nuclear weapons. PhD thesis. Univ. New Mex., Albuquerque Mead M. 1940. War is only an inventionnot a biological necessity. Asia 40:4025 Melman S. 1974. The Permanent War Economy. New York: Touchstone Menchu R, Burgos-Debray A, Wright A. 1987. I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. New York: Verso
Montagu A, ed. 1978. Learning Non-Aggression: The Experience of Non-Literate Societies. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Moos F. 2005. Some thoughts on anthropological ethics and todays conicts. Anthropol. News 46:4042 Nader L. 1997. The phantom factor: impact of the Cold War on anthropology. See Chomsky et al. 1997, pp. 10746 Nagengast C. 1994. Violence, terror and the crisis of the state. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:10936 Nash J. 1989. From Tank Town to High Tech: The Clash of Community and Industrial Cycles. Albany: State Univ. NY Press Nathanson C. 1988. The social construction of the Soviet threat. Alternatives 13:44383 Nobile P, ed. 1995. Judgment at the Smithsonian. New York: Marlowe & Co. Nordstrom C. 1997. A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Nordstrom C. 2004. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Proteering in the TwentyFirst Century. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Nordstrom C, Martin J, eds. 1992. The Paths to Domination, Resistance, and Terror. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Nordstrom C, Robben A, eds. 1995. Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Olujic M. 1998. Embodiment of terror: gendered violence in peacetime and wartime in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Med. Anthropol. Q. 12:3150 ONeill D. 1995. The Firecracker Boys. New York: St. Martins Grifn ORourke D. 1986. Half-Life: A Parable for the Nuclear Age. Los Angeles: Direct Cinema Orr J. 2004. The militarization of inner space. Crit. Sociol. 30:45181 Otterbein K. 2000. A history of research on warfare in anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 101:794 805 Packer G. 2006. Knowing the enemy: Can social scientists redene the war on terror? New Yorker, Dec. 18:6069 Peattie L. 1988. Economic conversion as a set of organizing ideas. Bull. Peace Propos. 19:1120 Pedelty M. 1995. War Stories: The Culture of Foreign Correspondents. New York: Routledge Peteet J. 1991. Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance Movement. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Peteet J. 1994. Male gender and rituals of resistance in the Palestinian Intifada: a cultural politics of violence. Am. Ethnol. 21:3149 Petersen G. 1992. The Vietnam War as an exemplar of American culture. Dialect. Anthropol. 17:21723 Price D. 1998. Gregory Bateson and the OSS; World War II and Batesons assessment of applied anthropology. Hum. Organ. 57:37984 Price D. 2000. Anthropologists as spies. The Nation, Nov. 20:2427 Price D. 2002a. Interlopers and invited guests: on anthropologys witting and unwitting links to intelligence agencies. Anthropol. Today 18:1621 Price D. 2002b. Past wars, present dangers, future anthropologies. Anthropol. Today 18:35 Price D. 2004. Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBIs Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Reyna SP, Downs RE, eds. 1994. Studying War: Anthropological Perspectives. Langhorne, PA: Gordon & Breach Rigi J. 2007. The war in Chechnya: the chaotic mode of domination, violence and bare life in the post-Soviet context. Crit. Anthropol. 27(1):3762 Robarchek C. 1977. Frustration, aggression, and the nonviolent Semai. Am. Ethnol. 4:76279
172 Gusterson
Robben A. 1995. The politics of truth and emotion among victims and perpetrators of violence. See Nordstrom & Robben 1995, pp. 81103 Rosaldo R. 1980. Ilongot Headhunting, 18831974. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Rubinstein RA, Foster ML, eds. 1997. The Social Dynamics of Peace and Conict: Culture in International Security. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Sanford V. 2004. Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala. New York: Palgrave Scarry E. 1985. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Scheper-Hughes N, Bourgois P, eds. 2003. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Schirmer J. 1998. The Guatemala Military Project: A Violence Called Democracy. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Schwartz S, ed. 1998. Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press Shapiro M. 1997. Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Shapiro M, Alker H, eds. 1996. Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Shaw R. 2007. Displacing violence: making pentecostal memory in postwar Sierra Leone. Cult. Anthropol. 22:6693 Shawcross W. 1979. Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia. New York: Simon & Schuster Simons A. 1997. The Company They Keep: Life Inside the U.S. Army Special Forces. New York: Free Press Simons A. 1999. War: Back to the future. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:73108 Singer P. 2004. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Singer P. 2005. Children at War. New York: Pantheon Skidmore M. 2003. Darker than midnight: fear, vulnerability, and terror making in urban Burma (Myanmar). Am. Ethnol. 30(1):521 Slayton R. 2007. Discursive choices: Boycotting star wars between science and politics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 37:2766 Sluka J. 1989. Hearts and Minds, Water and Fish: Support for the IRA and INLA in a Northern Irish Ghetto. Greenwich, CT: JAI Sluka J, ed. 2000. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Slyomovics S. 1998. The Object of Memory: Arab and Jew Narrate the Palestinian Village. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Slyomovics S. 2005. The Performance of Human Rights in Morocco. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Sontag S. 2004. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Penguin Sponsel LE. 2000. Response to Otterbein. Am. Anthropol. 102:83741 Sponsel LE, Gregor T, eds. 1994. The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence. Boulder, CO: Westview Starn O. 1986. Engineering internment: anthropologists and the war relocation authority. Am. Ethnol. 13:70020 Starn O. 1991. Missing the revolution: anthropologists and the war in Peru? Cult. Anthropol. 6:6391 Stephen L. 2000. The construction of indigenous suspects: militarization and the gendered and ethnic dynamics of human rights abuses in southern Mexico. Am. Ethnol. 26:82242
Strathern A, Stewart PJ, Whitehead NL, eds. 2005. Terror and Violence: Imagination and the Unimaginable. London: Pluto Sturken M. 1997. Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politics of Remembering. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Suarez-Orozco M. 1990. Speaking of the unspeakable: toward a psycho-social understanding of responses to terror. Ethos 18:35383 Tambiah S. 1986. Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Tambiah S. 1996. Leveling Crowds: Ethnonationalist Conicts and Collective Violence in South Asia. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Taussig M. 1984. Culture of terror, space of death, Roger Casement and the explanation of torture. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 26:46797 Taussig M. 1986. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Taylor B. 1998. Nuclear weapons and communication studies: a review essay. West. J. Commun. 62(3):30015 Taylor C. 1999. Sacrice as Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994. New York: Berg Taylor C. 2002. The cultural face of terror in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. See Hinton 2002a, pp. 13778 Theweleit K. 1987. Male Fantasies, Vol. 1: Women, Floods, Bodies, History. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Thomas EM. 1958. The Harmless People. New York: Random House Thompson EP. 1982. Notes on exterminism, the last stage of civilization. In Exterminism and Cold War, ed. New Left Rev. 121:134. London: Verso Tierney P. 2000. Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon. New York: Norton Tishkov V. 2004. Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. Tsing A, ed. 2004. Shock and Awe: War on Words. Santa Cruz, CA: New Pacica Press Turnbull C. 1961. The Forest People. New York: Simon & Schuster Turner P, Pitt D, eds. 1989. The Anthropology of War and Peace: Perspectives on the Nuclear Age. South Hadley, MA: Begin & Garvey Turney-High H. 1991. Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts. Columbia: Univ. S.C. Press. 2nd ed. Vine D. 2004. War and forced migration in the Indian Ocean: the U.S. military base at Diego Garcia. Int. Migrat. 42(3):11143 Virilio P. 1989. War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception. London: Verso Virilio P, Lotringer S. 1983. Pure War. New York: Semiotext(e) Wakin E. 1992. Anthropology Goes to War: Professional Ethics and Counterinsurgency in Thailand. Madison: Univ. Wis. Cent. SE Asian Stud. Monogr. No. 7 Wallace AFC. 1968. Psychological preparations for war. In War: The Anthropology of Armed Conict and Aggression, ed. M Fried, M Harris, R Murphy, pp. 17382. Garden City, NY: Nat. Hist. Press Waltz K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House Warren K. 1993. Interpreting la violencia in Guatemala: shapes of Mayan silence and resistance. In The Violence Within: Cultural and Political Opposition in Divided Nations, ed. K Warren, pp. 2556. Boulder, CO: Westview Weber C. 2005. Imagining America at War: Morality, Politics, and Film. London: Routledge Weldes J, Laffey M, Gusterson H, Duvall R, eds. 1999. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
174 Gusterson
Whitehead N. 2000. A history of research on warfare in anthropologyreply to Keith Otterbein. Am. Anthropol. 102:83437 Wilson L. 1988. Power and epistemology: rethinking ethnography at Greenham. In Anthropology for the 90s, ed. J Cole, pp. 4258. New York: Free Press Wolf E. 2002. National socialist Germany. See Hinton 2002b, pp. 192208 Wolf E, Jorgenson J. 1970. Anthropology on the warpath in Thailand. New York Rev. Books, Nov. 19:2635 Yans-McLaughlin V. 1986. Science, democracy, and ethics: mobilizing culture and personality for World War II. In Malinowski, Rivers, Benedict and Others: Essays on Culture and Personality, ed. G Stocking, pp. 184217. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press Yoneyama L. 1999. Hiroshima Traces: Time, Space and the Dialectics of Memory. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology and Militarism
175
Annual Review of Anthropology
Contents
Volume 36, 2007
Prefatory Chapter Overview: Sixty Years in Anthropology Fredrik Barth p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1 Archaeology The Archaeology of Religious Ritual Lars Fogelin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 55 atalhyk in the Context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic Ian Hodder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 105 The Archaeology of Sudan and Nubia David N. Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 211 A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientic Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation A. Mark Pollard and Peter Bray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 245 Biological Anthropology Evolutionary Medicine Wenda R. Trevathan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139 Genomic Comparisons of Humans and Chimpanzees Ajit Varki and David L. Nelson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191 Geometric Morphometrics Dennis E. Slice p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 261 Genetic Basis of Physical Fitness Hugh Montgomery and Latif Safari p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 391 Linguistics and Communicative Practices Sociophonetics Jennifer Hay and Katie Drager p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 89
vii
Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis Jack Sidnell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 229 Semiotic Anthropology Elizabeth Mertz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337 Sociocultural Anthropology Queer Studies in the House of Anthropology Tom Boellstorff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 17
Gender and Technology Francesca Bray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 37 The Anthropology of Organized Labor in the United States E. Paul Durrenberger p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 73 Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl: The Political Ecology of the New American West Thomas E. Sheridan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121 Anthropology and Militarism Hugh Gusterson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 155 The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate Raymond Hames p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 177 The Genetic Reinscription of Race Nadia Abu El-Haj p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 283 Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where Are We Now? Susan Charnley and Melissa R. Poe p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 301 Legacies of Derrida: Anthropology Rosalind C. Morris p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355 Indexes Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 2836 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 2836 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 410 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
viii
Contents

Anthropology and Militarism - Gusterson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthropology and Militarism - Gusterson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGGRESSION, HUMAN NATURE, AND PRIMITIVE WAR

THE END OF THE COLD WAR

ETHNIC VIOLENCE AND GENOCIDE

FEAR AS A WAY OF LIFE

Or, as the Vietnamese call it, the American War.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND U.S. MILITARISM

9/11 AND BEYOND

www.annualreviews.org Anthropology and Militarism

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 36, 2007

You might also like