L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

RENALEDERMAN

ETHICS:PRACTICES,PRINCIPLES,AND
COMPARATIVEPERSPECTIVES
INTRODUCTION:DISCIPLINEMATTERS
InJune,2008,theUSNationalEndowmentfortheHumanities(NEH)
beganaprogramtosupportthedevelopmentofcoursesaddressing
EnduringQuestions(e.g.Whatisevil?).Accordingtothecompetition
description,enduringquestions
arequestionstowhichnodisciplineorfieldorprofessioncan
layanexclusiveclaim.Inmanycasestheypredatethe
formationoftheacademicdisciplinesthemselves.Enduring
questionscanbetackledbyreflectiveindividualsregardlessof
theirchosenvocations,areasofexpertise,orpersonal
backgrounds.(NEH2009)
Thefollowingyearscompetitionannouncementwasmetbyfrustrated,not
tosayinfuriated,commentarybyphilosophersonPEASoup(aphilosophy,
ethics,andacademiablog).Commentatorsconstruedquestionsliketheseto
bephilosophical,notinacontingenthistoricalsensebutessentiallyso,
andthereforetreatedthecompetitionasevidenceoftheNEHsprofound
ignoranceoftheirdiscipline.
Againstthepredisciplinarytag,BenBradleyarguedthatthe
philosophicalfieldof
ethicshasbeendevotedtoansweringthesequestionsfor
centuries.Ithinkthisgivesus,ifnotanexclusiveclaim
(whatevertheymeanbythis),atleastsomereasontothink
thatwehavespecialexpertiseinteachingcoursesonthese
subjects.(ThisandthefollowingcommentariesareinBradley
2009.)
Agreeingthattheprogramdescriptionreflectedapopularmisconception,
anotherasked,Afterall,howcanethicsbeaseriousacademicdisciplineif

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

nospecialskillisrequiredtodoitwell?Athirdcommentatorobserved:
Onemight,forinstance,studyhowethicalattitudeswere
expressedthroughfictioninaLiteraturecourse....Andsoon.
However,toasktheseenduringquestionsdirectlyandattempt
toanswerthemoneselfistobegintodophilosophy,and
expertiseinphilosophyisrequiredtoeffectivelyteacha
coursedirectlyaddressinganenduringquestion.
Boundaryworriesarecommonamongprofessionaldisciplinary
communities.Thesephilosophersidentificationwithenduringquestions
shouldremindanthropologicalreadersoftheirownfieldsanxietyover
Englishprofessorsplayingfastandloosewithcultureormarket
researchers,say,playingfasterandlooserwithethnography.Worriesof
thissortcanbeoverplayed:disciplinaryborders,likeculturalones,are
normalsitesofcultural,social,andmaterialexchanges;scholarlycreativity
oftentakestheformofinadvertenttrespassing,playfulexploration,or
strategiccrossborderraids,alliances,andmigrations;anddisciplinary
regenerationreliesonthetransformativeeffectsofthesemaneuvers.Andof
courseintellectualworktakesplaceallthetimein(academically)
undisciplinedspaces(seeMillsinfra).
Whilethephilosophyanthropologyborderisnotastraffickedas
someothers,itishardlyawasteland.Withrespectspecificallytoethical
questions,philosophershavebeenprovokedbyanthropologicalwork(e.g.
Hacking1998);philosophersandanthropologistshavecollaborated(e.g.
EdelandEdel1968);andseveralgenerationsofanthropologistshave
adopted,adapted,andengagedwithavarietyphilosophicaltraditions(e.g.
Read1955;Geertz1968;Rappaport1999;Faubion2001,2011;Laidlaw2002;
Lambek2010b).Nevertheless,theacknowledgmentofdisciplinary
distinctionscanalsobeacriticalmove,apointtowhichthischapterwill
returninitsfinalsections;andforsocioculturalanthropologyparticularly,
attentivenesstoboundariesisitselfpartofthedisciplinaryproject.Inthat
way,thischaptersapproachisanthropologicalandwithoutphilosophical
designs(andseeespeciallyLambek2010a:p.7ff).

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

ETHICSINPRACTICE
Amonganthropologists,ethicstendstorefertosociablepractices
andculturallylegibleframesforassessingandindexingthegoodnessor
rightnessofhumanconduct:thatis,itreferstothequalityofhumanselves
visvisotherpersons(seeKeane2010;Rumsey2010;compare,e.g.,
Silverstein1976;Foucault1984).Anthropologicalethicstalktendstosituate
ethicsandpoliticsinaninternalrelation(e.g.Ackeroyd1984;Armbruster
andLaerke2008;Price2009a):thatis,anethics,inthesenseofmoral
evaluationswortharguingabout,impliesapolitics,inthesenseof
alignmentsgivingthoseargumentssociomaterialformandimpact. 1
MichaelLambek(2010a,2010c:61)construesethicsasapropertyof
speechandactionratherthanadiscreteobject(andseeRumsey2010,
whodemonstratesthatpointandmapsitsbiopsychologicaldimensions).
Fromthisperspective,theethicaliswovenintothehumaninsofarashuman
beingisirreduciblysociableandethicalassessmentsindextherelationsin
termsofwhichpersonsact.
Becausesocialrelationalityisboththemediumandobjectoftheir
research,anthropologistshavefoundmorality/ethicsachallengingtopicto
delimit.Durkheimsinfluencehasbeenblamedforthisdifficulty(Laidlaw
2002;Zigon2008),althoughthereareotherwaysofreadinghisworkand
Lambek(above)pointstoamoreprofoundandinterestingobstacleblocking
projectsofdelimitation.
Inanycase,thischaptersreferencestothesocialandthemoral
orderingofrelationsarenotmeantnarrowlytoconnoteobligationor
collectiveforms:theyarenotmeanttoforeclosecreativity,ambiguity,
inconsistency,andtheopenindeterminacyofhumanexperienceandits
ethicalchallenges(seeLambek2010a:913).Nevertheless,ethicaljudgment
andchoicethespacesofpersonalfreedom(e.g.Laidlaw2001;andsee
Faubion2001re:Foucault)becomesignificantbothforselvesandothers

Thischapterfollowsthecommonanthropologicalpracticeofusingethicaland
moralmoreorlessinterchangeably(e.g.EdelandEdel1968;Lambek2010a:
89).Faubion(e.g.2011:204)hasproposedfreshlysharpeneddistinctionsin
responsetotheinconsistenciesbuiltupincrossdisciplinarywritingon
ethics/morality(butcompare,e.g.,Howell1997orZigon2008,whoreaffirmone
oranotherfamiliarmodeofdistinguishingethicsfrommorality).

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

insofarastheycometobesituatedin,andhaveimplicationsfor,socio
historicalcontextsthatoftentimesrepositionintentionalvalues(seeSahlins
1981;FernandezandHuber2001).
ETHICALPROMISESAND PREDICAMENTSOFFIELDWORK
Foroveracentury,culturaltranslationhasbeenattheheartofsocial
anthropologysproject,bothintellectuallyandethically(e.g.Beidelman
1971;Boon1982,1999:Chap.4;Asad1986;Fox2000).Itsfoundational
conditionofpossibilityhasbeenfieldworktheimmersivesocial
engagementanddisciplined,closelisteningtovernacularnativepointsof
viewinunfamiliarsocialfields.Anthropologicalfieldworkhasinformed
andbeeninformedbyadistinctivecomparativistsensibility,attentiveto
contextualizedpracticesandbeliefsand,overitshistory,progressively
skepticaloftheuniversalizing,naturalizing,andnormalizingofWestern
folkcategoriesandpractices(e.g.Sahlins1972,2000,2004;Strathern1990;
Lederman2005).Itsintendedeffectwastodisplaceorremovereaders
fromtheirhomeculturalbeliefsenablingthemtodevelopacritical
consciousnessof[their]ownculturefromtheaccountofanother(Fox2000:
45).
Culturalrelativism,commonlyassociatedwithBoasiancultural
anthropology,issimilarlycharacterized(e.g.M.Wax1987;Kelly2008;see
Boas1896;Boon1982,1998;Vanninfra).Insofarasanthropologistshave
typicallystudiednonWesternculturesandconstruedtheirstudentsand
readerstobeEuroAmericans,culturalrelativismofferedacriticalchallenge
specificallytoWesternvaluesandbeliefs(e.g.Engle2002).Unfortunately,
Boasianrelativismhasalsobeencaricatured,byanthropologistsandothers,
asaglobalinjunctionagainstresearchershavingtheirownvaluesandeven
aprescriptionforembracingthoseoftheirhosts.Contradictorily,relativism
isalsocaricaturedasanassertionoftheinsularity,ineffability,and
untranslatabilityofunfamiliarworldviews(foroneambivalentexample,see
Hatch1981;compareGeertz1984).Butanthropologistsdonotgonativeto
docrediblework;andiftheyarenative,theirdisciplinarysensibility
makesthemsomethingelseagain.
Eitherway,immersiveinvolvementinwithsomeotherswaysof

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

beingintheworldhas,overthepastcentury,enabledsocialandcultural
anthropologiststoraisenovelquestionsnotonlyaboutWesternfolk
understandingsbutalsoaboutthecategoricalfoundationsofacademic
philosophyandsocialtheory.Conceptsofpersonhood,community,andthe
sacred,intentionality,responsibility,andreciprocity,shame,guilt,and
justice,andotherelementsofEuroAmericanethicalandmoraldiscourse
areunpackedanddecomposedduringlongtermfieldwork,then
recontextualizedinethnographicdepictions,andexaminedcomparatively
forwhatislostandgainedintranslation.Thisworkisexplicitbothin
classicalethnographicargumentsandtheirrenovations(e.g.,concerning
witchcraft,sorcery,andgossip,orconcerningformsofexchangeand
implicationsforsocialpersonhood,seeMauss[1925]1990;EvansPritchard
1976;Lindenbaum1979;ParryandBloch1989;StewartandStrathern2004;
Pietil2007)andinmorerecentliteratures(on,e.g.,theculturalpoliticsof
newmedicaltechnologiesandimaginaries,seeSharpe2006andseebelow).
Ironically,theconditionsenablingtheethicalpromiseofcritical
comparativismalsopresentanethicalpredicament.G.N.Appell,whose1978
ethicscasebookisworth(re)readingbothforevidenceofhistoricalshiftsin
thedisciplinesassumptionsandofcontinuitiesamongthedilemmasthat
anthropologistshavefaced,putthepointthisway:
Byitsverynature,crossculturalinquirytakesplaceatan
interfaceofethicalsystems.Asaresult,theanthropologistis
frequentlyforcedtomakeachoiceorselectaplanofactionin
anenvironmentofconflictbetweendifferentcustoms,
principles,andvaluesthatnormallyshapeaction[within
which]noobviousorimmediatesolutionmayexist.
Furthermore,theinvestigatorusuallyhastomakeadecision
withoutadequateinformationorsufficienttime....
Complicatingtheproblem...isthefactthatthe
anthropologistoccupiesmultipleroles[allofwhich]include
moralexpectationswhichcanconflictandmaybe
unreconcilable.Asaresult,ananthropologistcharacteristically
mustbeabletotolerateacertaindegreeofmoralambiguity.In

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

factthebestfieldworkersmaywellbethosewhocan
acknowledgeandlivewiththesemoralambiguities.(Appell
1978:3)
Ethicalpracticeinanthropologicalfieldwork,thus,balances
deliberatelyatthepointofconjuncturebetweeninevitablymultipleand
potentiallydissonantreferenceframes:includingtheanthropologists
disciplinedstance,hisorherculturallyinformedpersonalvaluesand
commitments,andawelterofpartiallyunderstoodvalues,aims,and
commitmentsinformingtheactionsofeveryone(hosts,sponsors,
gatekeepers,ordinarypeople,etc.)withwhomtheanthropologistissocially
entangledwithinhisorherscenesofresearch.ThecasestudiesAppell
assembledoverthirtyyearsago,togetherwithotherspublishedbefore(e.g.
RynkiewichandSpradley1976)andsince(e.g.CassellandJacobs1987;
Caplan2003;MeskellandPels2005)illustrateandreflectonthemoral
predicamentsofanthropologicalfieldworkasinstancesofthemoregeneral
negotiationofcrossculturalencounter,translation,andunderstanding.
ETHICSEVERYWHERE
Inrecentyears,parallelingawiderethicalturnacrossthe
humanitiesandsocialstudies(e.g.Garberetal.2000;DavisandWomack
2001),attemptshavebeenmadetodelimitananthropologyofethicsor
moralityasafocusforethnographicdescriptionandanalysis(e.g.Howell
1997;Faubion2001;Laidlaw2002;Fassin2008;Zigon2008).Theseprojects
agreeaboutthevalueofbringingethnographicaccountsofethicaljudgment
intotheforegroundinordertosharpenanthropologicalcontributions(see
particularlyLaidlaw2002).Tothisend,theyhavesoughtintellectual
resourcesfromoutsideanthropology,especiallyinphilosophyandsocial
theory(notablyAristotle,Kant,Foucault,Heidegger,AlisdairMacIntyre,
andBernardWilliams).
Overthepastcoupleofgenerations,anthropologistshaverenovated
theirdisciplineonseveralfrontsbyturningthecontextsandmeansof
disciplinarypracticeintoitssubstantivecontents.Recentadvocacyforan
anthropologyofmorality/ethicsrecallsearlieradvocacyforan
anthropologyofcolonialismorgender,forexample,eachofwhich

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

assertedthatforegroundingnewethnographicobjectswasnecessaryto
advanceunderstanding,howevermuchwehadbeenstudyingthesethings
allalongasdimensionsofkinship,politics,andotheralreadymarked
topicaldomains.
Theseargumentsarecompellingbutarenotuniversallyjoinedby
thosewhopromotemorefocused,explicit,andphilosophicallyinformed
anthropologicalattentiontotheethical/moral.Notably,severalcontributors
toLambek(2010b)arguepersuasivelyonphilosophicalandbroadly
disciplinary(thatis,evolutionary/developmental,linguistic,andsocio
cultural)groundsthattheethicalissothoroughlyimplicatedinthesociable
natureofhumanbeingastoresistdelimitationasanethnographicobjectin
itsownright.Oddly,theemergentanthropologyofethics/moralityis
limitedinanotherway.Whileproponentshaveassertedtheimportanceof
representinganthropologicalobserversasethicalactorsintheirscenesof
research(e.g.Fassin2008),thisliteraturetendsnottoengageexplicitlywith
anthropologicalwritingsontheethicsofanthropology.
Ifinsteadwetreatresearchethicsnotasanexternalitybutasan
ethnographicallysubstantivedimensionofanthropologicalreflexivity,there
isnoquestionthatreflectionsonethicalpracticehavelongconstitutedboth
afocusedliteratureandamuchwiderfieldofethnographicdescriptionand
debate.Asurveyofthiswiderdiscourseisinorder;afterwhich,thischapter
willconsiderhowananthropologyofethicsmighttreatresearchpractice
asaproperlyethnographicobject,asabasisforforginglinkagesamong
theseliteratures.
ETHICSINTRANSFORMATION
Duringthe1960sand1970s,whenarticles,monographs,andcase
booksexplicitlydevotedtoanthropologicalethics,likeAppells,beganto
appear,ethicalissueslikechoicesconcerningselfrepresentations(e.g.
classorsexualidentities)inlightoftheirimplicationsforthepower
dimensionsofresearchrelationshipswerealsoevidentthroughoutanew
andexpandingcorpusoffirstpersonnarrativeswithdiversethematicand
analyticalemphases(e.g.Golde[1970]1986;Spindler1970;R.Wax1971;
Rabinow1977;KulickandWilson1995;LewinandLeap1996;Armbruster

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

andLaerke2008).
Theyhavealsobeenpresent,overthepastthreedecades,in
politicallychargedcriticalreflectiononanthropologyslineagesandpresent
configurationswritteninlightofthemultifariouseffectsofpostWorldWar
IIdecolonization,includingtheUSCivilRightsmovement,oppositionin
EuropeandtheUStothewarinSoutheastAsia,activistandacademic
feminisms,andwidespreadconcernwithglobalinequalitiesevidentamidst
resurgentglobalization(e.g.Hymes1972;Asad1973;RosaldoandLamphere
1974;Reiter1975;Fabian1983;MarcusandFischer1986;Fox1991;Harrison
1991,2008;Sahlins1992,2000;Carrier1995;Baker1997;CooperandStoler
1997;Amit2000;Moore2000).Ethicalmotiveshavebeenprominentaswell
incriticalcommentaryonthedisciplinesformsofrepresentation(e.g.
CliffordandMarcus1986;BeharandGordon1996)andotherdimensionsof
professionalpractice,includingpedagogyandmentoring(e.g.Cerwonka
andMalkki2007;FaubionandMarcus2009).
PatCaplan(2003:5,followingAppell1978and,afterafashion,
anticipatingZigon2008re:moralbreakdown)offeredonewayofmaking
senseofthepervasivenessofethicstalk:
itispreciselyatthemomentwhentheboundariesofa
disciplineareredefinedthatethicaldiscourseincreases....In
otherwords,debatesaroundthetopicofethicsarepartofthe
wayinwhichanthropologistsseektoconstitutethemselvesas
amoralcommunity.
Thesevariedwritingscohereasasustainedmoralargumentovertheform
andcontentofsocioculturalanthropologyinapostcolonialera
characterizedbyglobalinterconnections,conflicts,andinequalities.Callsfor
makingpracticalethicalengagementapriorityandforembedding
ethicsinmethodologicalreflectionandpractice(MeskellandPels2005:1,
2125)arebeingansweredinmultiplequarters;andworriesthat
anthropologistsdonotactivelyread,discuss,oruseethicalresources
(FluehrLobban2009)cansurelybelaidtorest.
Anumberofthemesrecurthroughoutthisteeminglandscape.They
directlyreference(a)thechangingcircumstancesforenactingethical

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

fieldworkinadecolonizedThirdWorldandforrevaluingfieldworkin
metropolitancenters,(b)apervasiveinterestininequality,oppression,and
contestationwithinandaffectingthecommunitieswhereanthropologists
work.
Thus,LauraNaders(1969)influentialargumentaboutstudyingup
inspiredmanytodofieldworkamongelites.Theymatchedstudiesof
colonizedsubjectswithstudiesofcolonialsinThirdWorldcountriesand
backinEurope;andtheyextendedattentiontoawiderarrayof
metropolitanactorsincluding,forexample,doctors,scientists,andbankers.
Relatedly,theyextendedtopicsandvenuesforfieldworkinEuropeandthe
USandarguedforitstheoreticalimportance.Simultaneously,theybrought
fieldworkinarchetypaloutofthewayplaces,likePapuaNewGuineaand
Kalimantan,tobearonthesetrends(e.g.Lederman1998).
Insofarasanthropologysmoralprinciplesandmostethicswriting
stillpresumethedisciplinesclassicsubjectsmarginalizedpeoplewith
whomresearchershopetocollaborateandmakecommoncause(e.g.Lassiter
2005)orforwhomtheyseektoadvocate(e.g.FluehrLobban2008)theyare
notaneatfitforanthropologistsshiftingorientations,includingasharper
focusonmetropolitanactorsandtechnicalandpoliticaleconomicelites(see
especiallyMeskellandPels2005),onsocialfieldsencompassingmutual
antagonistsamongwhomthefieldworkerwasneverneutral(e.g.Martin
1995),andonsocialactorswhomtheanthropologistfindsproblematicor
offensive(Handler1988;Holmes2000;Harding2001).Nevertheless,the
disciplinesmethodologicalcommitmenttoanethicsofintimacyis
surprisinglydurable,inthesensethatevenamilitantanthropology
entailsdisclosureoftheresearchersidentityandinterestsinbackstage
spaces(ScheperHughes2000,2004).
Thesesamechangeshavehadimplicationsfortheconceptsof
culture(especiallyintheUS)andsociety(especiallyintheUK)that
longorientedanthropologicalwork.Inanearlierera,culturesandsocieties
werecommonlyrepresentedasifbounded,internallyhomogeneous,and
timeless.Incontrast,greaterexplicitnessincontemporarywritingaboutthe
sociallyembeddedcharacterofethnographicunderstandingasaprojectof

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

understandingrelationsbymeansofrelations(Strathern2004)more
readilysuggeststheopenendedness,reflexivity,andindeterminacyoffield
practicewhileconstruingculturesandsocietiesasunbounded,internally
heterogeneous(notshared),andhistoricallycontingent.
Forallthesereasons,ithasalsobecomeincreasinglyunpersuasiveto
approachculturaltranslation,includingitscriticalimpact,asamovement
betweeninterlocutorsinthefieldandreadersandaudiencesathome,
becausethetwoarelikelyoneandthesame(Brettell1996).Notonlydo
anthropologistsworkinalreadyfamiliarsettingsamongliteratepeople,but
acceleratedglobalmovementandnewcommunicationmediahaveenabled
ourclassicinterlocutors,literateornot,toengageuswhentheychoose,
ratherthanatourpleasure.Thedistinctionsbetweenresearchworkand
personallife,alwaysblurredduringfieldwork,weakenedfurther,forcing
ustobecomemoreconsciousofeverydayethics(Silverman2003)in
descriptionsoffieldencounters(e.g.Ackeroyd1984;Lederman2006a;
McLeanandLeibing2007;seealsoGeertz1968).

ETHICSINPRINCIPLE
Incontrasttoaccountsofquotidianethicaldilemmas,whenpublic
controversiesmobilizeprofessionalcommunitiestheyareconstrainedto
movefrommessy,multiperspectival,andpolarizingparticularstoan
outcomeofsomesort:acriticalanalysis,definitive(evenifmutually
inconsistent)summations,anotherrevisionofprofessionalprinciplesand
codes,anofficial(howevercontested)report,apolicystatement.Especially
afterWorldWarII,professionalbodiesliketheAmericanAnthropological
Association(AAA)draftedpositionpapersandethicscodesarticulating
principlesthatmemberscoulduseinexplainingtheirworktotheirpublics,
includingfunders,governmentregulators,andnonacademicemployers. 2
PUBLICCONTROVERSY
Socioculturalanthropologysbestknownwritingonprofessional
ethicshasfocusedonhighprofilecasesandlongarcsofcrisisdriven

Asthischapterwasbeingcompleted,themostrecentoverhauloftheAAAethics
codewasenteringafinalphaseofmembershipvetting.

10

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

controversythatengagednationalandcrossnationalanthropological
communitiesandprofessionalassociations(e.g.FluehrLobban2003;Mills
2003;Nugent2003).Theseburstintoviewpubliclyoutsideofprofessional
circleswithconsequentialeffectsonpublicperceptionsofthediscipline(e.g.
Gledhill2000)promptingformalpolicystatements(e.g.AAA1947,1999,
2007)andethicscodes(e.g.AAA1971,2009;AssociationofSocial
AnthropologistsoftheUKandCommonwealth2011;May2005;and
generallyStoerger2005).
Thesecriseshavenotablyconcernedtheinvolvementof
anthropologistsingovernmentandmilitarysponsoredcounterinsurgency
research:FranzBoass1919publicdenunciation,inTheNation,of
anthropologistsasspiesandhisprofessionalcommunityscritical
response;revelationsduringthe1960sconcerningtheabortiveProject
CamelotinLatinAmerica(Horowitz1967)andcounterinsurgencyresearch
inSoutheastAsia(Wakin1992)thatoriginallypromptedtheAAAtoforman
ethicscommitteeandadoptaprincipledstancein1971.Morerecently,on
goinginvestigations,publications,andorganizingbysociocultural
anthropologists,withinandoutsideoftheAAAandtheAssociationofSocial
AnthropologistsoftheUKandCommonwealth,respondedtointensified
interestinsocialscientificand,particularly,culturalknowledgebytheUS
militaryandnationalsecurityestablishmentaftertheattacksonNewYork
andWashingtonin2001(e.g.CEAUSSIC2009;Price2009b;Gledhill2006;
Moosn.d.;seealsoAlbro2010).Thesepresentorientedinvolvementshave
beencomplementedbyretrospectiveinvestigationsintotheactivitiesof
anthropologistsduringWorldWarIIandtheColdWar(e.g.Price2008).
Majorcontroversieswithethicalresonanceandpublicimpactwere
alsopromptedbyrevelationsaboutprominentdisciplinaryfigures,
particularlyconcerningtheirvariouslycompromisedfieldrelationships.
TheseincludetheposthumouspublicationofBronislawMalinowskis
TrobriandIslandsfielddiary(Malinowski1967;M.Wax1972),controversy
overtheaccuracyandsocialcompetenceofMargaretMeadsSamoan
researchandofDerekFreemanscritique(Freeman1983;Shankman2009),
andextendedcriticaldiscussionofNapoleonChagnonsresearchwiththe

11

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Yanomami(Nugent2003;seeStoerger2005forlinkstoawiderarrayof
controversies,andbelow). 3
PROTECTINGAND PROBLEMATIZING PROFESSION
ThereisanemphasisonprofessioninAmericanethicswriting(e.g.
FluehrLobban2003;seeMeskellandPels2005:126);BritishandEuropean
perspectivesonmajordisciplinarycrisesaremoreattentivetopostcolonial
anthropologicalresponsibilities(e.g.Caplan2003).All,however,consider
ethicalentailmentsofthemovementofmanyanthropologistsoutofthe
academytoworkfornongovernmentalorganizations,corporations,and
governments,wheretheirresearchandproductsaregovernedby
conventionsdifferentfromthoseofacademia.Theregulatoryformalization
ofprofessionalethicsemphasizedinFluehrLobbans(2003)collectionhas
metwithsuspicion,nottosayhostility(e.g.Caplan2003),including
denunciationsofethicscodesasscreensprotectinganthropologistsrather
thanthepeopletheystudy(Nugent2003;seealsoPels1999).
Theseincongruentstancesmayreflectthedifferentclimatesof
academicworkintheUSandUK.Suspicionsconcerningtherationalizing
impactsofbureaucraticoversightmakesenseinthefraughtfinancial
circumstanceofBritishuniversitiessufferingtheadministrativesurveillance
ofauditculture.Theimpositionofonlyapparentlyneutralaccounting
standardsevaluatingexcellence,intheformofstandardsblindto
disciplinaryvariationandwhichhaveinhibitedcriticalscholarship(e.g.Van
denHoonaard2011),bearsdownheavilyonthenotoriouslyifnecessarily
slowpaceoffieldwork(Strathern2000;seealsoMarcusandOkely2008).
Inanycase,Caplan(2003),MeskellandPels(2005),andotherrecent
worksreinforcethecautionconcerningmoralambiguitythatAppell
articulateddecadesago.Insofarastheyrepresenttheprofessionscore
principlessuccinctlyasrationalizedabstractions,codesandformalpolicy
statementscanbehelpfultoanthropologistsinsomeoftheir
communicationswithnonanthropologists,includingcollegestudents(our

WhileMalinowskiandMeadaredisciplinaryicons,Chagnonsprominencederives
fromtherelianceofintroductorycoursesonpublicationsandfilmsassociated
withhisresearch,whichhascometorepresentanthropologytogenerationsof
students.

12

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

futurepublics),membersofethicsreviewpanels,journalists,andemployers
inthepublicandprivatesectors.However,theyareinadequatewithinthe
disciplineforpreparingstudentsforfieldwork.TheAAAhasexplicitly
considereditsaccumulatedethicscasesanditscodeaseducational
devices,bothbeforeandespeciallyafterendingtheadjudicatoryfunctions
ofitsCommitteeonEthicsinthemiddleofthe1990s.Butunlikecase
materials,thenecessarilyabstractprinciplesarticulatedinacode(e.g.do
noharm)sidestepallthekeyquestionsofpractice.Anthropologicalethics
mustbetaughtandlearnedexperientiallyinsituationsthatsimulate
fieldworksvariedandunpredictable,thereforeunroutinizable,conditions. 4
Foralltheirabstraction,disciplinarycodesofethicshavealsoproved
inadequateasmeansforsquaringtherealitiesofresearchpracticewith
abstractlyframedethicalstrictureswrittenintolegalcodesgoverning
researchintheUSandelsewhere.IntheUSsincethe1970s,academic,
medical,andotherinstitutionsthatacceptfederalgovernmentfundingare
expectedtocomplywithrulesgoverninghumansubjectresearch(see
Lederman2006aandreferencestherein).Complianceisoverseenbylocal
InstitutionalReviewBoards(IRBs:alsoreferredtoashumansubject
committees,similartoresearchethicsboardsorcommitteesinCanada,the
UK,andtheEU).IRBsarecomposedofresearcherswithbiomedical,
behavioral,andsocialscienceexpertise,andcommunitymembers
representingresearchsubjectinterests.Whileithadothermotivationstoo,
overthepastgenerationethicstalkinanthropologyandneighboringfields
respondedtotheexpansionofregulatoryoversight.Notably,sincethe1990s
regulatorylanguage(e.g.informedconsent)hasbeenincorporatedinto
professionalethicscodes. 5
TheregulationsadministeredbyIRBsenactphilosophically
abstractedethicaluniversalsjustice,beneficence,andrespectfor

Indeed,thisistrueofpracticeintheprofessionsmoregenerally,Forexample,
GardnerandShulman(2005)arguethatakeymeasureofprofessional
competenceisthecapacityforethicaljudgmentamiduncertaintyanddoubt.
5Becausetermslikeinformedconsentcanhavedivergentmeaningsin
neighboringdisciplines,apparentsimilaritiesamongethicscodesusingthis
languagecanbemisleading:seeLederman(2009)foracomparisonof
socioculturalanthropologyandexperimentalpsychology,focusingon
contrastingstancesregardingtheuseofdeception.
4

13

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

personsarticulatedintheBelmontReport(NationalCommission1979),
whichdrewoninternationalagreementsliketheNurembergCode
(Nuremberg1949:1812)andtheDeclarationofHelsinki(WorldMedical
Association1964).IRBworkisalsoguidedbyanethicoffairness
operationalizedaroundthebureaucraticvalueofconsistency:onesetof
rulesforresearchinbiomedicine,behavioralscience,andsocialscience.
Theproblemwithallthisisthatresearchpracticeisnotgeneric,and
neitherareresearchethics,howevermuchtheircodifiedrepresentations
appearthesameintheabstractacrossthedisciplines(Lederman2007,2009;
cf.FluehrLobban2009).Thedifficultiesanthropologistsandotherscholars
havehadintranslatingaccuratedepictionsoftheirresearchconductinto
regulatorylanguagearenotorious.Thesedifficultiestestifytothe
consequentialityofdifferencesamongtheresearchstylesandethical
infrastructuresofdisciplinarycultures.Thechallengeistofindwaysof
locatingthisdiversitycomparativelyinthisethicoepistemological
landscape.
Onewayofaddressingthatchallengeistoincorporatean
understandingofanthropologicalethics(fieldpracticesandprofessional
principles)intoacomparativeanthropologyofethicsexpansiveenoughto
includeethicaldiscoursesandpracticesacrossthedisciplines. 6
Sofar,recentcallsforananthropologyofethics/morality(referredto
above)haveadvocatedrenewinganthropologysdialoguewithphilosophy
whilepayingmorefocusedattentiontotheethicalorientationsand
moralitiesoffieldcommunities.Butwhiletheyhaveproblematizedethics
invariousways,proponentshavetakenthedisciplinarypracticesandvalues
ofanthropologyalongwiththoseofotherepistemiccultures,
philosophyincludedlargelyforgranted.
Thefollowingnecessarilybriefdiscussionismeanttoadvancethe
projectofamoreinclusivecomparativeanthropologyofethics,capableof
incorporatingacademicpracticesandvaluesamongitsethnographicobjects

Acomparativeanthropologyof(disciplinary)ethicsmightjuxtaposeacademic
philosophysprofessionalethicscodesandpracticeswiththatofneighboring
fields,thebettertounderstandtheirrespectivesocialrelationalconditionsof
possibility.

14

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

(butseeMeskellandPels2005).

ACOMPARATIVEPERSPECTIVEONTHEETHICSOF
RESEARCH
Whatmightananthropologyofethicslooklikethatincluded
anthropologicalandotherresearchpracticesandprofessionaldiscoursesas
objectsofethnographicattention?Attheleast,itwouldneedtodevelop
comparativeunderstandingsoftheethicalunderpinningsofdisciplinary
knowledges:treatingdisciplinaryculturescriticallyashistorically
contingentmoralorders(e.g.followingSahlins1981).Withouta
comparativeframing,closeattentiontoonesowndisciplinesresearch
practicecanonlyofferprimarydataconcerningnativepointsofviewthat
riskseitheroverorunderestimatingtheuniquenessofdisciplinary
practicesandprinciples,andreifyingtheirdistinctivefeatures.
RELATIONALITYAND CONTROLINBEHAVIORALAND SOCIALSCIENCE
Malinowskisfoundationalmoveofftheverandahpointedthe
disciplineinadirectionthatothersocialorbehavioralscienceshaverarely
traveled.Toadapttheanthropologicaltrope,whensociologistsand
psychologistsmovedofftheverandah,theytooktheirworkindoors.Most
dramatically,psychologistsadoptedanexperimentalmethodmodeledon
physicalscience;inthesamespirit,iflessdramatically,sociologistsadopted
theinterviewasaprivilegedtoolforcontrollinginteractionsbetweenthe
researcherandresearchedsothattheresultingdatawouldbeamenableto
quantitativeanalysis.
Anthropologistssocialproximitytotheirsources,theirmethodof
openingthemselvestobeingsociallydefinedbythefolkstheyaimto
understand,appearstothemasselfevidentlyedifyingdespiteitsethical
risks.Butopenendedintimacyasascholarlyknowledgepracticeappearsas
uncontrolled,sloppy,andevenperversefromtheperspectiveofmainstream
sociologyandsocialpsychology(Lederman2006b,2009).Practitionersin
thesefieldshaveworkedtolimitandcontroltherelationalcharacterof
researchencountersintheinterestofobjectivity,evenwhentheyare
investigatinghumansociality.

15

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Whatismore,bothscientific(positivist)andinterpretive
anthropologistsunderstandtheepistemologicalvalueofpersonal
engagementwithothersinsocialspacestheydonotthemselvescontrol.In
contrast,objectivistsocialscienceiscommittedtoanapparentlyendless
battletosociallydecontaminationthespaceofresearch.Itskeydevicetothis
endistheresearcherscontrolovertheinformationavailabletoresearch
participants.
Considersocialpsychology.Sincethe1920s,whenexperiments
expandedbeyondtestingtheworkingsofmemoryandperceptiontotackle
socialproblemsofpublicconcern,deceptionhasbeenacentralresearchtool.
Incompleteoractivelymisleadingcommunications,technicalillusionsin
StanleyMilgramsterms,weredevelopedintoelaboratelystagedscriptsin
the1950sand1960s.Milgramhimselfwasanexemplar,famousand
notoriousforaseriesofliterallyshockingexperimentsconcerningobedience
toauthority.Theseexperimentshaveadirectbearingonthesociohistorical
understandingofeverydayethics.InspiredbyeventsoftheHolocaust,they
exploredhowpsychologicallynormalpeoplecouldbeinducedtoperform
reprehensibleacts.MilgramconstruedhisexperimentstosupportHannah
ArendtsanalysisofAdolfEichmannasanuninspiredbureaucrat:
Afterwitnessinghundredsofordinarypeoplesubmittotheauthority
inourownexperiments,ImustconcludethatArendtsconceptionof
thebanalityofevilcomesclosertothetruththanonemightdare
imagine.Theordinarypersonwhoshockedthevictimdidsooutofa
senseofobligationaconceptionofhisdutiesasasubjectandnot
fromanypeculiarlyaggressivetendencies.(Milgram1974:6,original
emphasis;seeArendt1963)
Disciplinedusesofdeceptionmadesocialpsychologyscientificinthesame
wayasclinicaltrialsinvolvingplacebocontrolgroups,alsoethically
controversial,arethegoldstandardinbiomedicine(Morawski1988;Korn
1997;McQuayandMoore2005).Despitefivedecadesofcontroversyoverits
uses,deceptioncontinuestobeanintegralfeatureofexperimentaldesign:
theAmericanPsychologicalAssociationsethicscodeparagraphson
informedconsentallowsdeceptionwhenexperimentershavedetermined

16

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

thattheuseofdeceptivetechniquesisjustifiedbythestudyssignificant
prospectivescientific,educational,orappliedvalueandthateffective
nondeceptivealternativeproceduresarenotfeasible(American
PsychologicalAssociation2010:8.07a;seeLederman2009). 7
Theexplicitjustificationforexperimentalmisdirectionistheneedto
controlresearchsubjectsreactivity,theirtendencytoactasactualsubjects
whocannothelpbutdeviseinterpretationsofthecircumstancesinwhich
theyfindthemselvesasbasesfortheirbehavioralchoices.Instead,
misdirectionenablessubjectsbehaviortobeconstruedasresponsiveonlyto
variablesdeliberatelyintroduced.Ifsubjectsarenotnaveconcerningthe
studyhypotheses,thentheymightcapriciouslyworkeithertosupportorto
frustrateexperimentalexpectations.Eitherway,psychologistsconstruetheir
datatobeinvalidatedbyresearchparticipantsforeknowledgeofthe
experimentalsituationandefforttoenterintoarelationshipwiththe
experimenter,howeveroneway. 8
Whileitmaybecounterintuitivetoanthropologists,thelastthingan
experimenterwantsistobesurprisedbyunplanned,uncontrolledstimuli
conjuredintothelabbyimaginativeresearchparticipants.Psychological
researchdesignaimstosimulatenaturalbehavior,nottoprovokeit.
Constructingconvincingexperimentalenvironmentsenablesresearchersto
makesecureclaimsaboutthestimulitowhichsubjectsarerespondingand
generateresultsthatarereproducible,thereforeauthoritativeandcredible
(Orne1962:776;Adair1973).
Towardthatend,researchersalsoworktoexcisethepersonalintheir

TheAmericanSociologicalAssociations(1999)ethicscodealsorecognizes
deceptionasanintegralfeatureofthedesignandconductofresearchand
retainsaplaceforitinitsinformedconsentparagraphs(seealsoLederman
2009).Whetherexposingshroudedcornersofsocietyethnographicallyor
revealingunseensocialpatternsstatistically,sociologyismethodologicallyand
ethicallycommittedtothedemystificationofeverydaypersonalexperience.
Whenanthropologistsdothis(e.g.ScheperHughes2004),theirworkruns
countertomainstreamdisciplinarysentiment.
8Inotherwords,priorfullyinformedconsentisnottechnicallypossibleinhuman
experimentationbecausestudyvaliditydependsonresearchparticipants
ignoranceofthestudyhypotheses.Asthefollowingsectionofthischapterwill
imply,priorfullyinformedconsentisnotpossibleforparticipantsin
anthropologicalfieldworkeither,butforquitedifferentreasonsrelatingtothe
emergentandintersubjective(evenifnotfullycollaborative)natureofthe
fieldresearchrelation.
7

17

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

researchrelationships.Thefundamentalconditionofobjectivityinsocial
research,applyingequallytopsychologicallabexperimentsandformal
surveyinterviewing,isthatvariableresultsshouldnotbefunctionsofthe
idiosyncrasiesofinvestigatorsandtheirrelationshipswithsubjects.Any
investigatorsfollowingthesameprotocolwiththesamecategoriesof
subjectsoughttobeabletoreplicatetheircolleaguesresults.Thatis,for
researchpurposes,neitherexperimentersandnortheirsubjectsare
persons.Avoluminousliteratureproducedbypsychology,sociology,and
relatedfieldsreportsandanalyzesthedifficultiesencounteredin
approximatingtheidealofnonreactivity.Wholesubfields(Rosenthaland
Fode1963:491)aredevotedtodevisingstrategiestocompensatefor
experimenterbiasandrelateddistortions.TheseHerculeaneffortsto
controltheresearchencountertestifytotheirrepressiblysociablecharacter
ofhumansensemaking.
Refiningourdistinctions:likeanthropology,mainstreamsocialand
behavioralsciencesstudyrelationsbymeansofrelations;however,theydo
sobyconstructingspecializedresearchrelationswithheavilymanaged,
conventionalizedexpectationsconcerningcontactwithresearchparticipants.
Theyconstrueundesignedrelationalityintheresearchsituationasnoise
distortingreliable,objectiveresults.Reversingfigureandground,
anthropologistsmakeknowledgebytuninginwhatthoseothersworkso
hardtotuneout.
RELATIONALITYAND CONTROLINSOCIOCULTURALANTHROPOLOGY
Relativetosociologyandpsychology,akeydistinctivefeatureof
anthropologicalresearchconventionshashistoricallybeenadeliberate
relinquishmentofcontroloverresearchconditions.Movingfromverandah
tovillage(socialnetwork,boardroom,clinic),anthropologistsenterdomains
controlledsociallyandculturallybythefolkswhoselivestheyhopeto
understand.Correspondingly,theirmotivatingthemeshavetypically
openedoutwardtowardunaskedquestionsandopportunitiespresentedby
thecontingenciesoffieldwork.Unlikesocialscientistssituatedasexperts
withtheoriestotest,anthropologistsfindculturallyappropriatewaysof
becomingtheirinformantsstudentsorapprenticeswhiletheyworkto

18

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

acquirelinguisticandsocial,andthereforeethical,competence.Inthatsense
theyaresociallyonedown,nomatterwhattheirstructuralpositionor
personalstylemightbe(Agar[198x]1996;seealsoBriggs1986).Thisapplies
bothtorecentfieldwork(e.g.insciencelabs)andtotheclassickind
famouslyexemplifiedbyE.E.EvansPritchardsrationaleforbecoming
cattlemindedinNuerland(although,certainly,methodologicalhumility
asaprofessionalstanceneedstobedistinguishedfromthepersonalor
sociopoliticalkind;seeM.Wax1972).
Relatedly,thedisciplinehaslongvaluedcollaborativerelationships
withresearchparticipants(Lassiter2005:26ff;e.g.Majnepetal.1977).Inthe
past,explicitcollaborationsbetweenanthropologistsandtheirinterlocutors
appearedasrelativelyuniquerelationships(e.g.FranzBoasandGeorge
HuntorMarjorieShostakandNisa).Incontrast,thepastgenerations
refashioningofthedisciplinaryprojecthascomeclosertorealizingthe
ethicalpossibilitiesoftruepartnerships,particularlyastheprinciplehas
extendedfromindividualrelationshipstowholecommunities(e.g.Lassiter
etal.2004).
Nevertheless,longstandingconventionsofethnographicwritingand
authorship,inwhichclaimsconcerninganthropologicalexpertiseassert
themselvesovermethodologicalhumility,havequalifieditsethical
implications.Theyinvestthescholarwithexplanatoryorinterpretive
agencywhilefilteringanalogous(nottosayopposed)creativeformsof
thosebeingwrittenabout.Theyobscuredthenecessarilyintersubjective
characterofanthropologicalpractice:itsdependence,soobviousduring
fieldwork,onthequalityofanthropologistsrelationshipswiththeir
interlocutors(Clifford1983;Fabian1983).
AllthatwasgivenasharpkickinthepantsbyVineDeloria(1969),
whosescathingsatiricalcritiqueofAmericanistanthropologistsneocolonial
relationswasproclaimedanepochalcallingtoaccountintheAAAs
HandbookonEthicalIssuesinAnthropology(CassellandJacobs1987).
PropelledbythesameworldhistoricalforcesthatmadeDeloriasmanifesto
possible,overthepastfortyyearsthedisciplinarystructureoffeelinghas
shifted.Itisnownormal(ifnotuniversallyapplauded)foranthropologists

19

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

torecognizetheintersubjectivityoffieldworkastheenablingcondition,
bothethicallyandepistemologically,ofethnographicproductionandto
writethatconditionintotheirethnographies.Notonlydocontemporary
worksopenthemselvestocollaborativecoproduction,buttheyalso
acknowledgethecontributionsofquiteuntraditionalinterlocutors(e.g.
ScheperHughes2004;HolmesandMarcus2008).
Intheend,thethreadconnectingolderandnewerstylesof
methodologicalhumilityandthepastgenerationscriticalimpactmaybe
anthropologystypicallyselfdirectedortrueirony(e.g.Boon2001;
FernandezandHuber2001;Robbins2004;Lambek2010b).Whetheroneis
studyingupordown,whetheraimingforapprenticeship,collaboration,
orevenexpos,theethicalvalenceoffieldrelationshipsisnotunderthe
anthropologistscontrol.Ethnographicqualitymayrestonhowwellwriters
graspthoserelationshipsbothfromtheirownsociomaterial,cultural,and
ethicalperspectives,andfromthoseoftheirinterlocutors.Acquiringethical,
linguistic,andethnographiccompetencetakestime:itaccountsforthe
unbearableslownessoffieldwork(cf.MarcusandOkely2008)andit
inevitablyinvolvesmakingmistakes.However,likeotherdisciplines
anthropologydistinguishesbetweenordinaryfumblingandthescandalous
sort.
SCANDALOUS RELATIONSAND OVERBEARINGCONTROLIN
ANTHROPOLOGICAL FIELDWORK
Socioculturalanthropologyspubliccontroversieshaveinvolved
instancesofsystematicdeparturefromtheinformalprincipleof
relinquishingcontrolandofseriousstrayingfromthedisciplinaryidealsof
competentsociableengagement,backstageintimacy,andworking
collaborations.Accusationsconcerningtheusesofdeceptionresonate
differentlyinanthropologythantheydoinneighboringdisciplinesbecause
thedisciplineaccordsdeceptionnoconventionalizedmethodological
justification.Wemightbrieflyrevisittwoexamplesmentionedpreviously.
DARKNESSINELDORADO

NapoleonChagnonsresearchhasbeenatthecenterofcrossnational
anthropologicalcontroversyfordecades,wellbeforethecrisiswentpublic

20

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

withthepublicationofDarknessinElDorado(Tierney2000). 9
Asananthropologistcommittedtosociobiologicaltheory,Chagnon
haslongpracticedahypothesistestingstyleoffieldwork.Toanswerhis
researchquestions,hehadtogainaccesstokinshipinformationthat
Yanomaminormallyconsiderprivate.WhenYanomamideflectedhis
questionswithmisleadingresponses,Chagnondidnotadapthisprojectto
hishostsconstraintsandopenings.Instead,hefoundwaysofmanipulating
theirethicalconventionstoinduceindividualstorevealoneanothers
secretsandheusedhisknowledgeofintergroupandinterpersonal
rivalriestogainaccesstoinformationcentraltohisresearch.
Ineffect,despitelivinginYanomamicommunitiesduringyearsof
fieldvisits,hisstyleofresearchhadmoreincommonwithfieldexperiments
inpsychology,politicalscience,andeconomicsthanithadwithnormative
ethnographicfieldwork.Initialquestionsaboutwhetherheandhisbiologist
collaboratorhadconductedexperimentsthatintentionallyharmed
Yanomamihealthprovokedparticularlyheateddebate.Whilethose
accusationswerelaidtorest,theirmomentumwaslikelydrivenbythe
goodnessoffitbetweenscandalousimputationsofactiveexperimentation
andthemorepassiveformsofhypothesistestinginwhichChagnonappears
tohaveengaged.Competenthypothesistestingrequiresthescientistto
manipulateandcontrolresearchconditions.Giventhenatureofhis
manipulations,itcouldnothelpbeingjudgedproblematicbythestandards
ofmainstreamanthropologicalethics.
A NTHROPOLOGISTSASS PIES

Severalofanthropologysmostnotablescandalshaveconcernedthe
usesofanthropologists,anthropologicalpublications,andanthropological
identitiesasfrontsforcounterinsurgencyintelligencework(seeWinslow
andKykinfra).Inthesecontexts,defendingtheethicopoliticalvalueof
whatisandisnotanthropologycanhavepracticalbearingonthewell

ThefollowingdiscussioncanbereadinprovocativetensionwithDAndradeand
ScheperHughes(1995):aparticularlysharprehearsalofrecurrent
anthropologicalargumentsover,amongotherthings,theethical/moralvalues
ofscientificandvariouslyengagedanthropologies.Foralongeraccountof
thisargumentanditswiderdisciplinary(andextradisciplinary)resonance,see
Lederman(2005).

21

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

beingofbothanthropologistsandthosetheystudy.
Bothduringthe1960sandrecently,theAAAactedtodistinguish
disciplinarypracticefromgovernmentintelligencework.In1965,public
exposureofProjectCamelot,asoonabandonedUSgovernmentplanfor
counterinsurgencyoperationsinLatinAmerica,promptedtheAAAto
commissionareport(Beals1967),formanethicscommittee,anddrawupits
firstethicscode.ProjectCamelotdidnotsingleoutanthropologistsfor
recruitment,butcounterinsurgencyoperationsinThailandafewyearslater
implicatedtheirworkmoredirectly.Adoptedin1971,thePrinciplesof
ProfessionalResponsibilityassertedthatanthropologistsparamount
responsibilityistothosetheystudy.Whenthereisaconflictofinterest,
theseindividualsmustcomefirst,astatementwidelyunderstoodto
condemndeceptiveinteractionwithfieldcommunities.AstheBealsreport
putit,theinternationalreputationofanthropologyhasbeendamagedby
theactivitiesofindividuals...whohavepretendedtobeengagedin
anthropologicalresearchwhilepursuing...intelligenceoperations.It
declaredtheseactivitiesnotanthropologyregardlessofthecredentialsof
thoseresponsible.
Thispositionwasechoed40yearslaterinthefinalreportofthe
AAAsCommissionontheEngagementofAnthropologywiththeUS
SecurityandIntelligenceCommunity(CEAUSSIC2009).Thereport
reviewedtheDepartmentofDefensesHumanTerrainSystem(HTS),
originallysetuptoprepareteamsofsocialscientists,including
anthropologists,toworkwithinbattalionsactiveinIraqandAfghanistan.
Thereportsharplydistinguishedanthropologicalethicalpreceptsand
conceptofculturefromthoseinplayinHTSdocuments.Whilethereport
wasatpainstorecognizethelegitimacyofanthropologicalworkwithin
governmentsecurityandintelligencesettings,itconcludedthattheactivities
ofTeammemberswithincombatunitsisnotanthropologyandoughtnot
totradeonitsintellectualormoralcredibility.

CONCLUSION
Anthropologyhasalonghistoryofinterestintheordinaryor

22

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

everydayethicsoffieldcommunities:ethicshasbeenafocusbothof
ethnographicdescription(e.g.instudiesofreligion,law,andexchange,and
ofcolonial,gender,andclasshierarchies)andofentwinedmethodological
reflexiveconcerns(e.g.inautobiographicalandprescriptivediscussionsof
fieldwork).Somerecentcontributionshaveworkedtoimproveour
understandingofthesocialembeddednessofethicsbydrawingmore
widelyonresourcesfromacrossthesubfields,includingsophisticated
integrationsoflinguisticandsocioculturalanthropology.Pullingbothwith
andagainstthat,otherrecentcontributionshavesoughttodemarcatethe
anthropologyofethics/moralitytointensifytopicallyfocusedethnographic
attentionanddebate;towardimprovinganthropologysanalyticalresources,
theyhavealsoseriouslyreengagedmoralphilosophy.
Thischapterhassuggestedthatwhilethisworkhasusefully
problematizedethics,ithastendedtobracketanthropologyandthe
contemporarycontextsofscholarlypractice.Inparticular,ithasdistanced
itselffromanthropologyswelldevelopedcriticaldiscourseonitsownethics
(practices,codes,andcontroversies)and,morerecently,bothpracticaland
ethnographicdiscourseontheregulatoryandothernonacademic
environmentswithinwhichresearchacrossthedisciplinesisembedded.A
moreinclusiveanthropologyofethics/moralitymightintegratethese
themes.
Amongotherrationalesforsuchanintegration,ethnographicand
comparativestudiesoftheethicalstructuringofdisciplinaryknowledges
canilluminatehowresearcherswithdifferentprofessionaltrainingevaluate
oneanothersworkongrantcommitteesandInstitutionalReviewBoards,in
promotioncases,andinothercontexts(e.g.Brenneis2004,2005);theyhave
implicationsforcollaborativeresearchwhereoutcomesdependonshared
expectationsaboutresearchdesign,datasharing,authorship,andthelike.
Aswell,acomparativeunderstandingofthevaluesorienting
anthropologicalpractice,makingclearbothitsconjuncturesand
disjunctureswithmainstreamsocialscience,cancontributeto
anthropologistspublicengagementsinclassrooms,massmedia,and
workplaces.

23

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Socialscienceconventionsarelearnedinschoollongbeforestudents
arriveatuniversity,andtheyareassimilatedimplicitlythroughavarietyof
media.Teachingfieldresearchethicsispowerfulevidenceinparticularof
anthropologysanomalousness;butthiscannotbeappreciatedifonesimply
discussescodifiedprinciplesorevencaseswithstudents.Everyyear
withoutfail,whenmystudentsreadaboutthehistoricalrationalesforIRBs
andfortheAAAsethicscode,theydenouncetheuseofdeceptioninsocial
researchandapplaudtheprincipleofinformedconsent.Nothingappears
amisswhentheybeginclassfieldprojects,unlessonekeepsclosetrackof
whattheyareactuallydoing(orrestrictsthemtoconventionalresearch
styles,likeinterviewing).Everyyearwithoutfail,halftheclassspends
weekslurkingintheireverydayidentitiesengaginginpassive
observation,eavesdropping,andinteractingwithpeopleinfamiliarways
ratherthanmarkingthemselvesinwordsanddeedsasanthropologists.
Outingtheanthropologistmeansarticulatingnotjusttheircuriosity
butalsotheirapproach.Theyfearthatthepeoplewithwhomtheyhopeto
interact,misunderstandingthemselvesasresearchsubjectsandfeeling
likelabrats,willrejectbeingputunderthemicroscope.Andquite
reasonably:expectationsconcerningtheobjectificationsofnormativesocial
sciencearechallengingfornovicefieldworkerstoovercomebothintheir
interlocutorsandinthemselves.Withencouragementtheyfindaroute,from
experienceandoneanother,pasttheScyllaandCharybdisofsubjectivity
andobjectivity,twinnedconceitsofresearchercontrolledwork.Thatrouteis
toanintersubjectiverecognitionmadepossiblebythepredictably
unpredictabledevelopmentofrealworldrelationshipsofvaryingquality
anddepththatarethehallmarksofanthropologicalparticipant
observation. 10
ThedisciplinaryhistoriesofbothBoasianandMalinowskian

TeachingstudentsaboutIRBapplicationstendstounderminethisfragile
understanding:fillingoutapplicationsandgettingconsentformssignedfeel
likeaccomplishments,whereasethicalfieldworkisalwaysaworkinprogress.
Novicefieldworkersareburdenedwithunderstandingboththedistinctive
valuesofanthropologicalprinciplesinpracticeandtheotherwiseprincipled
practicesonwhichregulatoryethicsarebased,whilealsoappreciatingtheir
mutualcontradictions.

10

24

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

anthropologyarerepletewithconflictsandcrises.However,ifwe
understandthemassocialprojectsratherthanascongeriesofindividual
careers,thenweareinabetterpositiontoappreciatehow,overthepast
century,theyhavecreatedadistinctiveapproach.Anthropologiststodayare
beneficiariesandcustodiansofthishistorysspecificvalue,byturns
complementaryandsubversiverelativetoitsepistemologicalneighbors.
Whetherservingparticularcommunities,employers,andsponsorswith
activistorappliedresearch,orcontributingtoacommonhumanself
understandingwithcuriositydrivenresearch,anthropologistswillcontinue
tocontendovertheshapeofdisciplinedintersubjectivityasafoundationfor
ethicalfieldworkandpersuasiveethnography.

NOTES
Thischapterwasdraftedandeditedinmid2009.Whileits
bibliographiccitationsreflectthathistory,Iamverygratefultotheeditors
forindulgingmydesiretoupdateitsargumentand(toamuchlesserextent)
itscitationsattheendof2011,asthiscollectiveprojectfinallywenttopress.

REFERENCES
AAA:seeAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation
Ackeroyd,AnneV.1984.EthicsinRelationtoInformants,theProfession,
andGovernments.InR.F.Ellen(ed.),EthnographicResearch.London:
AcademicPress.
Adair,JohnG.1973.TheHumanSubject:TheSocialPsychologyofthe
PsychologyExperiment.Boston:Little,Brown.
Agar,Michael.[198x]1996.TheProfessionalStranger:AnInformalIntroduction
toEthnography.(2nded).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Albro,Robert.2010.AnthropologyandtheMilitary:AFRICOM,Culture
andFutureofHumanTerrainAnalysis.AnthropologyToday,26(1):22
4.
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.1947.StatementonHumanRights.
AmericanAnthropologist49(4,1):53943.

25

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.1971.PrinciplesofProfessional
Responsibility.Arlington,VA:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.
Availableonline:www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.1999DeclarationonAnthropology
andHumanRights.Arlington,VA:AmericanAnthropological
Association.Availableonline:www.aaanet.org/cmtes/cfhr/Declaration
onHumanRights.cfm
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.2007.AmericanAnthropological
AssociationExecutiveBoardStatementontheHumanTerrainSystem
Project.Arlington,VA:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.
Availableonline:www.aaanet.org/about/Policies/statements/Human
TerrainSystemStatement.cfm
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.2009.CodeofEthics.Arlington,
VA:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.Availableonline:
www.aaanet.org/issues/policyadvocacy/upload/AAAEthicsCode
2009.pdf
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.2010.EthicalPrinciplesofPsychologists
andCodeofConduct.Washington,DC:AmericanPsychological
Association.Availableonline:www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
AmericanSociologicalAssociation.1999.CodeofEthics.Washington,DC:
AmericanSociologicalAssociation.Availableonline:
www2.asanet.org/members/coe.pdf
Amit,Vered(ed.).2000.ConstructingtheField:EthnographicFieldworkinthe
ContemporaryWorld.NewYork:Routledge.
Appell,G.N.(ed.).1978.EthicalDilemmasinAnthropologicalInquiry:ACase
Book.Waltham,MA:CrossroadsPressfortheAfricanStudies
Association.
Arendt,Hannah.1963.EichmanninJerusalem:ReportontheBanalityofEvil.
London:Faber.
Armbruster,HeidiandAnnaLaerke(eds).2008.TakingSides:Ethics,Politics,
andFieldworkinAnthropology.NewYork:Berghahn.

26

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Asad,Talal(ed.).1973.AnthropologyandtheColonialEncounter.London:
IthacaPress.
Asad,Talal.1986.TheConceptofCulturalTranslationinBritishSocial
Anthropology.InJ.CliffordandG.Marcus(eds),WritingCulture:The
PoeticsandPoliticsofEthnography.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia
Press.
AssociationofSocialAnthropologistsoftheUKandCommonwealth.2011.
EthicalGuidelinesforGoodResearchPractice.London:Association
ofSocialAnthropologistsoftheUKandCommonwealth.Available
online:
www.theasa.org/downloads/ASA%20ethics%20guidelines%202011.pdf
Baker,Lee.1997.FromSavagetoNegro:AnthropologyandtheConstructionof
Race,18961954.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Beals,RalphL.1967.BackgroundInformationonProblemsof
AnthropologicalResearchandEthics.AmericanAnthropological
AssociationFellowNewsletter,8(1):113.
Behar,RuthandDeborahGordon(eds.).1996.WomenWritingCulture:
Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Beidelman,T.O.(ed.).1971.TheTranslationofCulture.London:Tavistock.
Boas,Franz.1896.Thelimitationsofthecomparativemethodin
anthropology.Science,4(103):90108.
Boon,James.1982.OtherTribes,OtherScribes.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Boon,James.1998AccentingHybridity:PostcolonialCulturalTheory,A
BoasianAnthropologist,andI.InJohnRowe(ed.),Cultureandthe
ProblemoftheDisciplines.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Boon,James.1999.VergingonExtraVagance:Anthropology,History,Religion,
Literature,Arts,...Showbiz.Princeton:Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Boon,James.2001.KennethBurkesTrueIrony:OneModelfor
Ethnography,Still.InJ.FernandezandM.Huber(eds),Ironyin
Action.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

27

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Bradley,Ben.2009.WhatDoestheNEHHaveAgainstUs?PEASoup.
Availableonline:http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2009/07/what
doesthenehhaveagainstuswarningrant.html
Brenneis,Don.2004.APartialViewofContemporaryAnthropology.
Presidentiallecture.AmericanAnthropologist,106(3):5808.
Brenneis,Don.2005.DocumentingEthics.InL.MeskellandP.Pels(eds),
EmbeddingEthics.Oxford:Berg.
Brettell,Caroline(ed.).1996.WhenTheyReadWhatWeWrite.Westport,CT:
GreenwoodPress.
Briggs,Charles.1986.LearningHowtoAsk.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Caplan,Pat(ed.).2003.TheEthicsofAnthropology:DebatesandDilemmas.
London:Routledge.
Carrier,JamesG.(ed.).1995.Occidentalism:ImagesoftheWest.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Cassell,Joan,andSueEllenJacobs(eds).1987.HandbookonEthicalIssuesin
Anthropology.SpecialPublication23.Washington,DC:American
AnthropologicalAssociation.
CEAUSSIC(CommissionontheEngagementofAnthropologywiththeUS
SecurityandIntelligenceCommunities).2009.FinalReportonThe
ArmysHumanTerrainSystemProofofConceptProgram.Arlington,VA:
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.
http://www.aaanet.org/cmtes/commissions/CEAUSSIC/upload/CEAUS
SIC_HTS_Final_Report.pdf(accessed06/20/10).
Cerwonka,AllaineandMalkki,Liisa.2007.ImprovisingTheory:Processand
TemporalityinEthnographicFieldwork.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.
Clifford,James.1983.OnEthnographicAuthority.Representations,2
(Spring):11846.
Clifford,JamesandGeorgeMarcus(eds).1986.WritingCulture:thePoetics
andPoliticsofEthnography.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

28

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Cooper,FrederickandAnneStoler(eds).1997.TensionsofEmpire:Colonial
CulturesinaBourgeoisWorld.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
DAndrade,RoyandNancyScheperHughes1995.Objectivityand
Militancy:ADebate.CurrentAnthropology,36(3):399440.
Davis,ToddF.andKennethWomack(eds).2001.MappingtheEthicalTurn:A
ReaderinEthics,Culture,andLiteraryTheory.Charlottesville:University
PressofVirginia.
Deloria,Vine,Jr.1969.CusterDiedforyourSins.NewYork:Macmillan.
Edel,MayandAbrahamEdel(eds).1968.AnthropologyandEthics:TheQuest
forMoralUnderstanding.Reviseded.Cleveland,OH:PressofCase
WesternReserveUniversity.
Engle,Karen.2002.FromSkepticismtoEmbrace:TheUniversalDeclaration
ofHumanRightsandtheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,
19471949.InRichardShweder,MarthaMinow,andHazelmarkus
(eds).EngagingCulturalDifferences:Themulticulturalchallengeinliberal
democracies.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.
EvansPritchard,EE.1976.Witchcraft,Oracles,andMagicAmongtheAzande.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Fabian,Johannes.1983.TimeandtheOther.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Fassin,Didier.2008.BeyondGoodandEvil?Questioningthe
AanthropologicalDiscomfortwithMorals.AnthropologicalTheory,
8(4):33344.
Faubion,JamesD.2001.TowardanAnthropologyofEthics:Foucaultand
thePedagogiesofAutopoiesis.Representations,74(1):83104.
Faubion,JamesD.2011.AnAnthropologyofEthics.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Faubion,JamesD.andGeorgeMarcus(eds.).2009.FieldworkIsNotWhatIt
UsedtoBe.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.
Fernandez,JamesandMaryHuber(eds).2001.IronyinAction:Anthropology,
PracticeandtheEthnographicImagination.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.

29

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

FluehrLobban,Carolyn.2003.EthicsandAnthropology18902000:A
ReviewofIssuesandPrinciples.InC.FluehrLobban(ed.),Ethicsand
theProfessionofAnthroplogy(2ndedition).WalnutCreek:AltaMira.
FluehrLobban,Carolyn(ed.).2003.EthicsandtheProfessionofAnthropology
(2ndedition).WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMira.
FluehrLobban,Carolyn.2008CollaborativeAnthropologyasTwentyfirst
CenturyEthicalAnthropology.CollaborativeAnthropologies,1(1):175
82.
FluehrLobban,Carolyn.2009.GuidingPrinciplesoverEnforceable
Standards.AnthropologyNews,(September):89.
Foucault,Michel.1984.OntheGenealogyofEthics.InPaulRabinow(ed.),
TheFoucaultReader.NewYork:RandomHouse.
Fox,Richard(ed.).1991.RecapturingAnthropology:WorkinginthePresent.
SantaFe:SchoolofAmericanResearch.
Fox,Richard.2000.HearingWhereWereComingFromEthicallyand
Professionally.AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences925:18.
Freeman,Derek.1983.MargaretMeadandSamoa:TheMakingandUnmakingof
anAnthropologicalMyth.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Garber,Margorie,BeatriceHanssen,andRebeccaWalkowitz(eds).2000.The
TurntoEthics.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Gardner,HowardandLeeSShulman.2005.TheProfessionsinAmerica
Today:CrucialbutFragile.Daedalus,134(3):1318.
Geertz,Clifford.1968.ThinkingasaMoralAct.TheAntiochReview,28(2):
3459.
Geertz,Clifford.1984.AntiAntirelativism.AmericanAnthropologist,86(2):
26378.
Gledhill,John.2000.FindinganewPublicFaceforAnthropology.
AnthropologyToday,16(6):13.
Gledhill,John.2006.OntheMooscontroversy.Availableonline:
www.theasa.org/ethics/discussion1.shtml
Golde,Peggy(ed.).[1970]1986.WomenintheField.Berkeley:Universityof
CaliforniaPress.

30

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Hacking,Ian1998.RewritingtheSoul:MultiplePersonalityandtheSciencesof
Memory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Handler,Richard.1988.NationalismandthePoliticsofCultureinQuebec.
Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress.
Harding,Susan.2001.TheBookofJerryFalwell:FundamentalistLanguageand
Politics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Harrison,Faye(ed.).1991.DecolonizingAnthropology:MovingFurtherToward
anAnthropologyforLiberation.Arlington,VA:AssociationofBlack
AnthropologistsandtheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.
Harrison,Faye.2008.OutsiderWithin:ReworkingAnthropologyintheGlobal
Age.Champaign:UnviersityofIllinoisPress.
Hatch,Elvin.1981.CultureandMorality:TheRelativityofValuesin
Anthropology.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Holmes,Douglas.2000.IntegralEurope:FastCapitalism,Multiculturalism,
Neofascism.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Holmes,DouglasandGeorgeMarcus.2008.CollaborationTodayandthe
ReImaginationoftheClassicSceneofFieldworkEncounter.
CollaborativeAnthropologies,1(1):81101
Horowitz,IrvingLouis(ed.).1967.TheRiseandFallofProjectCamelot.
Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Howell,Signe.1997.TheEthnographyofMoralities.London:Routledge.
Hymes,Dell(ed.).1972.ReinventingAnthropology.NewYork:Pantheon
Keane,Webb.2010.Minds,Surfaces,andReasonsintheAnthropologyof
Ethics.InMichaelLambek(ed.),OrdinaryEthics.NewYork:Fordham
UniversityPress.
Kelly,John.2008.CulturalRelativism.InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocial
Sciences.Availableonline:www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2
3045300498.html
Korn,JamesH.1997.IllusionsofReality:theHistoryofDeceptioninSocial
Psychology.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Kulick,DonandMargaretWilson(eds).1995.Taboo:Sex,IdentityandErotic
SubjectivityinAnthropologicalFieldwork.NewYork:Routledge.

31

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Laidlaw,James.2002.ForanAnthropologyofEthicsandFreedom.The
JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute,8(2):31132.
Lambek,Michael.2010a.Introduction.InMichaelLambek(ed.).2010.
OrdinaryEthics:Anthropology,Language,andAction,pp.136.New
York:FordhamUniversityPress.
Lambek,Michael(ed.).2010b.OrdinaryEthics:Anthropology,Language,and
Action.Fordam.
Lassiter,LukeEric.2005.TheChicagoGuidetoCollaborativeEthnography.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Lassiter,LukeEric,HurleyGoodall,ElizabethCampbell,andMichelle
NatasyaJohnson(eds).2004.TheOtherSideofMiddletown:Exploring
MunciesAfricanAmericanCommunity.WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMira.
Lederman,Rena.1998.GlobalizationandtheFutureofCultureAreas.
AnnualReviewsofAnthropology,27:42749.
Lederman,Rena.2005.UnchosenGrounds:CultivatingCrosssubfield
AccentsforaPublicVoice.InDanielSegalandSylviaYanagisako
(eds),UnwrappingtheSacredBundle.Durham,NC:DukeUniversity
Press.
Lederman,Rena(ed.).2006a.AEForum:AnxiousBordersBetweenWork
andLifeinatimeofBureaucraticEthicsRegulation.American
Ethnologist,33(4):477548.
Lederman,Rena.2006b.ThePerilsofWorkingatHome.American
Ethnologist,33(4):48291.
Lederman,Rena.2007.ComparativeResearch:AModestProposal
ConcerningtheObjectofEthicsRegulation.PoLAR,30(2):30527.
Lederman,Rena.2009.ComparingEthicsCodesandConventions:
Anthropological,Sociological,andPsychologicalApproaches.
AnthropologyNews,50(6):1112.
Lewin,EllenandWilliamLeap(eds.).1996.OutintheField.Champaign:
UniversityofIllinoisPress.
Lindenbaum,Shirley.1979.KuruSorcery.PaloAlto,CA:Mayfield
Publishing.

32

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Majnep,IanSaem,RalphBulmer,andChristopherHealey.1977.BirdsofMy
KalamCountry.Auckland:OxfordUniversityPress.
Malinowski,Bronislaw.1967.ADiaryintheStrictSenseoftheTerm.London:
Routledge&KeganPaul.
Marcus,GeorgeE.andMichaelJ.Fischer.1986.AnthropologyasCultural
Critique.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Marcus,GeorgeandJudithOkely.2008.Debate:HowShortCanFieldwork
Be?SocialAnthropology,15(3):35367.
Martin,Emily.1995.FlexibleBodies:TrackingImmunityinAmericanCulture.
Boston:Beacon.
Mauss,Marcel[1925]1990.TheGift.London:Routledge.
May,JThomas.2005.TheWayweWere:EthicsandtheSfAA.SfAA
Newsletter,16(2):34.
McLean,AthenaandAnnetteLeibing(eds).2007.TheShadowSideof
Fieldwork:ExploringtheBlurredBoundarybetweenEthnographyandLife.
Oxford:Blackwell.
McQuay,HJandR.A.Moore.2005.Placebo.PostgraduateMedicalJournal
81(953):155160.
Meskell,LynnandPeterPels(eds).2005.EmbeddingEthics.Oxford:Berg.
Milgram,Stanley.1974.ObediencetoAuthority.NewYork:Harper&Row.
Mills,David.2003.Likeahorseinblinkers:APoliticalHistoryof
AnthropologysResearchEthics.InPatCaplan(ed.).TheEthicsof
Anthropology.NewYork:Routledge.
Moore,Henrietta(ed.).2000.AnthropologicalTheoryToday.Oxford:Blackwell.
Moos,Felix.n.d.SomeThoughtsonAnthropologicalEthicsandTodays
Conflicts.Availableonline:
www.aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/prisp/moos.htm
Morawski,Jill(ed.).1988.TheRiseofExperimentationinAmericanPsychology.
NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Nader,Laura.1969.UptheAnthropologistPerspectivesGainedfrom
StudyingUp.InDellH.Hymes(ed.),ReinventingAnthropology.New
York:Pantheon.

33

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

NationalCommissionfortheProtectionofHumanSubjectsofBiomedical
andBehavioralResearch.1979.BelmontReport:EthicalPrinciplesand
GuidelinesfortheProtectionofHumanSubjectsofResearch.Washington,
DC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice.
NEH(NationalEndowmentfortheHumanities).2009.Enduring
Questions.Washington,DC:NationalEndowmentforthe
Humanities.Availableonline:
www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/EnduringQuestions.html
Nugent,Stephen.2003.TheYanomami:AnthropologicalDiscourseand
Ethics.InPatCaplan(ed.),TheEthicsofAnthropology.NewYork:
Routledge.
NurembergCode.1947.TrialsofWarCriminalsbeforetheNurembergMilitary
TribunalsunderControlCouncilLawNo.10,Vol.2.Washington,DC:US
GovernmentPrintingOffice.Availableonline:
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html
Orne,Martin.1962.OntheSocialPsychologyofthePsychological
Experiment:WithParticularReferencetoDemandCharacteristicsand
theirImplications.AmericanPsychologist,17(11):77683.
Parry,JonathanandMauriceBloch(eds).1989.MoneyandtheMoralityof
Exchange.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Pels,Peter.1999.ProfessionsofDuplexity:APrehistoryofEthicalCodesin
Anthropology.CurrentAnthropology,40(2):10136.
Pietil,Tuulikki.2007.Gossip,Markets,andGender:HowDialogueConstructs
MoralValueinPostSocialistKilimanjaro.Madison:Universityof
WisconsinPress.
Price,David.2008AnthropologicalIntelligence:TheDeploymentandNeglectof
AmericanAnthropologyintheSecondWorldWar.Durham,NC:Duke
UniversityPress.
Price,David.2009a.AnthropologicalEngagementswithMilitaryand
IntelligenceAgencies:Ethics,Politics,andongoingDiscourse.
Availableonline:http://blog.aaanet.org/2009/09/11/ceaussic
anthropologicalengagementswithmilitaryandintelligenceagencies/

34

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Price,David.2009b.ObamasClassroomSpies.CounterPunch.Available
online:www.counterpunch.org/price06232009.html
Rabinow,Paul.1977.ReflectionsonFieldworkinMorocco.Berkeley:University
ofCaliforniaPress.
Rappaport,Roy.1999.RitualandReligionintheMakingofHumanity.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Read,Kenneth.1955.MoralityandtheConceptofthePersonAmongthe
GahukuGama,EasternHighlands,NewGuinea.Oceania25(4):233
82.
Reiter,Rayna(ed.).1975.TowardsanAnthropologyofWomen.NewYork:
MonthlyReviewPress.
Robbins,Joel.2004.BecomingSinners:ChristianityandMoralTormentina
PapuaNewGuineaSociety.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Rosaldo,MichelleandLouiseLamphere(eds).1974.Women,Culture,and
Society.PaloAlto:StanfordUniversityPress.
Rosenthal,RobertandKermitL.Fode.1963.PsychologyoftheScientist:
ThreeExperimentsinExperimenterBias.PsychologicalReports,12(2):
491511.
Rumsey,Alan.2010.Ethics,Language,andHumanSociality.InMichael
Lambek(ed.),OrdinaryEthics.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.
Rynkiewich,MichaelA.andJamesP.Spradley(eds).1976.Ethicsand
Anthropology:DilemmasinFieldwork.NewYork:JohnWiley.
Sahlins,Marshall.1972.TheOriginalAffluentSociety.InM.Sahlins,Stone
AgeEconomics.Chicago:Aldine.
Sahlins,Marshall.1981.HistoricalMetaphorsandMythicalRealities.Ann
Arbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.
Sahlins,Marshall.1992.TheEconomicsofDevelopmaninthePacific.Res,
21(Spring):1325.
Sahlins,Marshall.2000.ReportsoftheDeathsofCultureshavebeen
Exaggerated.InH.Marchitello(ed.),WhatHappenstoHistory:The
RenewalofEthicsinContemporaryThought.NewYork:Routledge.

35

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Sahlins,Marshall.2004.ApologiestoThucydides.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
ScheperHughes,Nancy.2000.TheGlobalTrafficinHumanOrgans.
CurrentAnthropology,41(2):191224.
ScheperHughes,Nancy.2004PartsUnknown:UndercoverEthnographyof
theOrganstraffickingUnderworld.Ethnography,5(1):2973.
Shankman,Paul.2009.TheTrashingofMargaretMead.Madison:Universityof
WisconsinPress.
Sharpe,Lesley.2006.StrangeHarvest:OrganTransplants,DenaturedBodies,and
theTransformedSelf.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Silverman,Marilyn.2003.EverydayEthics.InPatCaplan(ed.),TheEthics
ofAnthrology.London:Routledge.
Silverstein,Michael.1976.Shifters,linguisticcategories,andcultural
description.InKeithBassoandHenrySelby(eds),Meaningin
Anthropology.Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress.
Spindler,George(ed.).1970.BeinganAnthropologist:FieldworkinEleven
Cultures.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart,andWinston.
Stewart,PamelaandAndrewStrathern.2004.Witchcraft,Sorcery,Rumors,and
Gossip.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Stoerger,Sharon.2005.EthicsinAnthropology.Availableonline:
www.webminer.com/anthroethics.htm
Strathern,Marilyn.1990.Negativestrategies.InR.Fardon(ed.).Localizing
Traditions.Edinburgh:ScottishAcademicPress.
Strathern,Marilyn(ed.).2000.AuditCultures:AnthropologicalStudiesof
Accountability,Ethics,andtheAcademy.NewYork:Routledge.
Strathern,Marilyn.2004.CommonsandBorderlands:WorkingPaperson
Interdisciplinarity,AccountabilityandtheFlowofKnowledge.Wantage
(UK):SeanKingstonPublishing.
Tierney,Patrick.2000.DarknessinElDorado.NewYork:W.W.Norton.
VandenHoonaard,WillC.2011.TheSeductionofEthics:Transformingthe
SocialSciences.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress..

36

L EDERMAN C HAPTER HANDBOOK 36 JANUARY 2012 LAST EDIT ACCEPT ALL FOR MEC ARRIER , G EWERTZEDS , B ERG )

Wakin,Eric.1992.AnthropologyGoestoWar:ProfessionalEthicsand
CounterinsurgencyinThailand.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress.
Wax,MurrayL.1972.TentingwithMalinowski.AmericanSociological
Review,37(1):113.
Wax,Murray.1987.SomeIssuesandSourcesonEthicsinAnthropology.In
JoanCassellandSueEllenJacobs(eds),HandbookonEthicalIssuesin
Anthropology.Washington,DC:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.
Wax,Rosalie.1971.DoingFieldwork:WarningsandAdvice.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress.
WorldMedicalAssociation.[1964]2002.DeclarationofHelsinki:Ethical
PrinciplesforMedicalResearchInvolvingHumanSubjects.Ferney
Voltaire,France:WorldMedicalAssociation.Availableonline:
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/
Zigon,Jarrett.2008.Morality:AnAnthropologicalPerspective.Oxford:Berg.

37