8/25

ANTH 280

Anthropology: How human groups are similar and different, broad geography and deep time, human
biology-society-culture, including material practice, local context and global connections.

Perspective and goals: Treat war and peace as social and cultural phenomena, consider contemporary
forms in comparative context, practice critical social analysis of global conditions.

Meta-suggestion: There is a divergence between the way we conceive war and peace and what actually
happens, concepts shaped in the long European 19 th c. don’t apply universally, or in the present.

Required work: midterm = 30, essay =20, section work and participation = 20, final exam = 30.

FINAL EXAM is on dec 17th, 12 pm.

Sections: short writings, discussions, when sections meet there will usually be no Friday lecture/film.

Films: watch them for reals

8/27

Imagining Human Nature

The State of Nature

“Enlightenment” break with the past: look to nature rather than tradition

17-18th century philosophical exercise: Where did humans come from? What would they be like without
culture, history, government?

Thomas Hobbes 1558-1679: Lived during English civil war (1639-1651), concerned about political order
even before then. Founding figure of “security”

Leviathan (1651): goal is what are rational principles for government – question of CH XIII: What is the
natural condition of mankind, happiness?

Hobbes’s State of Nature: In nature, humans are relatively equal in body and mind. “For as the strength
of the body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by
confederacy of others that are in the same danger with himself”

Equality = Conflict: Three principal causes of quarrel: Competition, Diffidence, and Glory

The Problem of War: without a common power to keep all in awe then war “of every man against every
man.” Thus life in such a soverignless natural state would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’
Enter Leviathan: Reason suggests that peace is the primary task of government. Contract of
government: individual yields liberty in return for safety.

Leviathan: government ensures peace, for Hobbes, even absolute govt is better than civil war.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): after Hobbes. From Geneva (free city at the time). Lived just
before the French Revolution. Iconoclast, self-made outsider. Objected to the misery of the status quo.

Discourse on Inequality: responds to essay competition question: “What is the origin of inequality
among men, and is it authorized by natural law?” Suggests contemporary civilization, not nature,
produces inequality. The alt is ‘a question fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their
masters’

Rousseau’s approach: reason rather than research. “let us begin then by laying facts aside as they do not
affect the question.’ Human history to be found not in books but nature, ‘ which never lies.’ Look at
human in original state, ‘the embryo of the species’.

Rousseau’s state of nature: Original human solitary and relatively happy without society. Life is good
before you leave your natural state. No distinction means no conflict. Equality does not equal conflict.

Fall from grace: unlike animals, humans more than ‘ingenious machines.’ Human’s want to develop and
improve themselves, get things, land. “perfectibility” produces unhappiness. Pride leads to fall:
comparison, fear, degeneration of natural goodness.

Criticizes Hobbes for assuming that humans warlike in nature, rather have become warlike because of
civilization. Division of labor, property, inequality produce conflict. Solution? Social contract (1762):
(re)assembly of free equals to produce good government

Comparison: Both Hobbes and Rousseau lived under monarchy, ranked society. Not simply conservative
and liberal, both imaging equality natural. Hobbes suspicious of statelessness (wants security), Rousseau
suspicious of strong state (liberty within general will)

States of Nature: Hobbes and Rousseau thinking philosophically, not conducting research. But they are
asking an inherently anthropological question “what is the human state of nature?” Both try to think
through this question logically and present an argument.

Claiming Human Nature: imagined states of human nature regularly used to justify political situations
and decisions, ‘people need a strong govt to enforce order’ and ‘without govt interference people would
be at peace.’

From Imagination to Research: Anthropology emerged as academic disc. Late 19 th and early 20th century.
Early focus was on primitive peoples in small scale societies, imagined close to nature. Discovery: people
without govt had lots of organization, mostly based on kinship. Facts differ from both Hobbes and
Rousseau.
Anthropology also incorporated archaeology and eventually primatology. Analogies to ancient past and
nonhuman primate behavior made when imagining human nature. With advent of new genetics, focus
on genetic relationships.

8/30/10

Primate analogs – Choose your favorite cousin

Imagining human nature – last time: Enlightenment philosophy, nature as reason.

This time: Contemporary biology: nature as understood through research and analogy, genetics,
primatology.

Genetics and a guide – genotype vs phenotype (Looking at DNA vs looking at the traits). Problems with
linking behavior to specific genes. Problems of environmental variables both biological and social,
problems with finding the right analogies.

Primatology as a guide – evolutionary logic and evidence defines humans as primates. Great apes are
our “closest living relatives” among animals. But are the similarities greater than the differences? And
which relatives are we most like?

The baboon – 1960’s focus of study. Social animals, then thought to feature male competition. Fit theory
of “Man the Hunter” as the key difference in human evolution.

Shift from behavior to genetics – later studies alter picture, suggests baboons are not a good analogy,
“Man the Hunter” falls out of favor, recognized “Woman the Gatherer.” General problem: many
possible analogies for behavior. Genetic logic suggests comparing by common ancestry.

The Chimpanzee – DNA very similar to ours. Familiar and popular from public science. Long term studies
available.

Chimpanzee “Warfare” – First observed in 1974-1977 Gombe park Tanzania (Jane Goodall et. Al).
Gombe Chimpanzee population separates 1970-1972. Northern and Southern groups (Kasakela and
Kahama, both smaller groups).

Facts of Chimp War - Individuals caught alone and beaten by groups of 4-5 males. Violence appeared
patterned and unidirectional (N attacking S). Breakaway Southern group eventually exterminated?
(exception of 2 young females.)

Questions about Chimp War – scale and context: small number, individuals who know each other, not all
deaths confirmed. Normal or aberrant behavior? Product of altered environment and human pressure?
Later observations, but numbers always small.

Are Chimps the best model? – is “war” the best term for this behavior? And are chimps the best model?
Very similar to us, but not our only close cousin.
The Bonobo or Pigmy Chimpanzee – more rare, only studied more recently. Physically similar to
chimpanzees but distinct species. Exhibit different social organization and behavior.

A peaceful alternative? Bonobos never observed to engage in ‘warfare.’ Bonobo social organization is
female centered. Female alliances and maternal bonding key.

Bonobos engage in non-reproductive sexual behaviors. Make love not war? What the hell are we livin
for? Competition and conflict appear mediated by such behaviors. Again, numbers small, findings open
to question.

How to make sense of this? Both chimps and bonobos our relatively close genetic relatives. One
suggests Hobbes (violent and brutish), one suggests Rousseau (calm and pacified).

Demonic Males? (Wrangham and Peterson, 1996). Suggests male human violence has evolutionary
heritage. Compares chimp behavior to contemporary human conflict. Views bonobo behavior and social
organization as ‘gynocentric exception’ that proves the rule.

Marks: What does genetic similarity mean anyway? Marks – a biological anthropologist, background in
genetics rather than primatology. Notes statistically all DNA sequences average 25% similarity – Humans
25% daffodil as well as 98% chimp.

Genetic facts – Chimpanzees and bonobos are closer relatives to each other than either is to us. Each is
evolving down its own path, not becoming human. Modern humans are a distinct species.

Human traits – complex capacity for language and culture integral to being human. Even physical
characteristics such as head shape and menstruation vary by local environment and habits. Wide
variation of social organization behaviors (kinship, marriage, and residence patterns)

Human nature amid humans? Problem of analogy: Comparing surviving simple societies with past
ancestors. Problem of example and evidence – archaeological record incomplete. Problem of definition
– when does violence = war?

9/8

Forms of Violence

What is war? Do all societies have it?

War as politics (Von Clausewitz, 1832) – “A duel on a larger scale” “an act of force to compel our enemy
to do our will” “ Maximum use of force, maximum exertion of strength” “no mere pastime” “merely the
continuation of policy by other means”

Dead Birds – Film – do Clausewitz’s suggestions fit this case? Dani warfare – The dead matter, ghosts in
the world, fear but also pleasure associated, rituals, displays, stories, warfare has rules
Another comparison: Sports?

Conflict and competition? – Dani war: a duel? Maybe, Maximum force? No, Serious? Yes, but also
pastime, Politics? Yes but also religion and maybe sports. Life lived at different scale, with different
concepts.

Human difference – Crucial fact: For a single species, humans have a wide variation of behavior. Along
with human similarity recognize difference. Two common terms for group difference: Society and
Culture

Society and Culture: Debated terms with varying definitions

Society = organizational forms – networks of relationships, questions of order and scale.

Culture: “complex whole” of habits – e.g. ‘knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, custom’, question of
conception and belief.

Real but variable – group patterns matter! Example: edible vs. desirable. Order beyond individual choice,
e.g. language. Reproduced but never static – e.g. hats.

Culture, war & peace – Fry, Human potential for peace – fact: “humans capable of creating societies with
very little violence” Cites 80 internally peaceful societies – EX: Iceland, only two murders 1900-1939,
violence is rare and discouraged.

Continuum vs. categories – Fry’s second fact: Iceland had a history of Violence! Glorified in 13 th century
sagas. Fry’s peacefulness-aggression continuum – war and peace not absolute states, points range in a
scale of possibilities, Question: Is violence encouraged or discouraged? (this can change)

Problems of defining war – term used for many behaviors.

Definitions affect analysis – varying definitions often forgotten when making & debating analytic claims,
varying estimates of ‘warlike’ societies. What counts as war or peace?

Does war include all aggression? Murder? - Not state sanctioned, within society, can be individual affair.

Feuding? - Within society, intimate knowledge of each other, cyclical. Raiding? – limited duration, not
about territory.

War – one imperfect definition – “organized purposeful group action, directed against another group
that may or may not be organized for smaller action, involving the actual or potential use of lethal force”
– Takeaway: GROUP action, if not always politics.

Peace? Peace usually conceived through war, like war is a group action involving social forms, can be
cultural value and involve specific behaviors and artifacts.

Key points for generalization – human nature and war – define terms, recognize different forms of
violence – recognize social and cultural variability along with historical change.
Scale – Fry – social organization matters! Exactly how is a topic of debate. Areas of consensus – states
are relatively recent, vs. Hobbes acephelous (headless) society not simply living in anarchy, have kinship

For our course – small scale vs. large scale.

9/13

Ishi’s conclusion – dies in 1916 of TB, Kroeber’s away, body is dissected (against his orders), brain sent to
Smithsonian, rediscovered in 1999, buried by two Californian Indian Groups in 2000

Ishi (The Last Yahi, 1992) The “Last Wild Indian”, anthropology and popular culture, Recognize social &
historical context, individual in history, Compare: Contrasting way of life? What is “small scale”?

Uncomfortable Legacies – comparative violence, worlds where death is more common, long history of
atrocities, victors write history and take property, what to do with past tragedy and property? Statute of
limitations? Trauma?

Warfare and conquest – different technologies e.g. metal, guns, horses, ships, writing. Also different
social organization and scale, surviving Yahi vs. calif. settlers. 19 th century US as example of an
expansionistic state – extensive trade and supply lines, focus on conquest property and wealth.

Social organization imagined – classic, imperfect model of scalar forms: Bands – small decentralized
nomadic. Tribes – larger lineage based, sedentary. Chiefdoms – centralized, ranked, tribute. States –
centralized, stratified, coercion.

Frequency and forms of war (working backwards) – States – standing armies, control of territory and
conquest. Chiefdoms – chiefly militias, increasing conflict and authority. Tribes – kin militias, feuds, raids.
Bands – warfare limited? Violence individuated.

Anthropological methods – comparative analysis, opening up assumptions. Ethnographic evidence –

long term study in local context, pro: culturally specific and relatively deep, con: limited scope and
relatively synchronic.

Archaeological excavation and analysis – focus on material remains. Pro: site specific and relatively
diachronic. Con: partial, incomplete and sometimes ambiguous.

How much have humans changed? Debated in anthropology, different answers. General agreement:
didn’t evolve for today.

Social complexity continuum: simplicity complexity

Bands states

Small scale large scale

 Little material culture lots of material culture

Social intimacy social distance

Small scale life – focus on kinship and group membership vs. individual career – part of the group,
different ways of calculating descent. Bilateral, unilineal (matrilineal, patrilineal)

Kin reckoning, unilineal style – Matrilineal – based on the mother. Patrilineal – based on father

Remembering ancestors – how many generations can you remember?

Small scale life – different residence patterns – matri/parti/neolocial. Different patterns of relation and
obligation, but relation and obligation are always significant.

Small scale warfare – limited duration, often episodic or seasonal, focus on raids. Few specialized roles,
little hierarchy, few permanent leaders. Few specialized weapons, everyday technology, limited training.
Limited aims, conquest not the assumed goal.

Small scale = less violent? Debates in literature. With raids, fewer are killed. Longer term patterns?
Numbers small, but percentages are high. Problem: norm or exception? Colonial contexts of
ethnography, limited windows of archaeology.

Timeline of political scales - ~100,000 before present: foraging, band life. ~10,000 BP: Domestication,
increasing complexity. ~5,000 BP: States, increasing sizes.

Scale and inequality – states: large scale population, stratification, greater inequality, urban life and
more disease.

9/15

Death and Glory – Scale & the Language of War

State expansion – States= new scale of expansion, conquest but also trade, networks well beyond
political control.

European expansion 1400- varying forms of ‘colonialism’ – settler colonies, territorial conquest and rule,
indirect rule,

Gross analysis of Euro empire – two eras = shifting political economy, first wave c1500-1800 – pre-
industrial and agrarian, plantation colonies & slavery, more settler colonies. Second wave c1880-1914
(high imperialism) – industrial production, less agrarian, prestige politics, more indirect rule.

Multiple effects of conquest – movement of people, movement of plants and animals, movement of
languages, beliefs, and material culture, new foods, new diseases.
Role of disease – Europeans long exposed, carried endemic diseases that could become epidemic,
significant role of disease in conquest, high death rates for those without immunity, disease spread even
before contact.

Ecological & Cultural Change – landscapes & cultures not timeless, arrival of new plants and animals,
domesticated species, weeds and feral animals, ‘ecological imperialism’, altered circumstances e.g.
shifting number of deer and bison, reduction of available game, new trade goods & traditions, e.g.
horses

Ferguson: Tribal Life Remade – vs. assuming contact = ‘pacification,’ prior wave of regional disruption,
states have difficulty with decentralized groups, so they appoint or reinforce rulers + boundaries, state
based trade = new forms of production and consumption, effects begin pre-contact written into record
of encounter

Contact and Tribal Warfare – Ferguson’s critical chicken and egg question – we use small scale warfare
to imagine our past, but how has European contact affected small scale warfare?

Sensational representations – activities prone to sensationalism: cannibalism, human sacrifice,

headhunting, scalping – Anthropological analysis – distinguish symbolic exceptions vs. daily practice,
recognize similarity alongside difference.

Rosaldo on Headhunting – example of small scale ‘warfare’ – Ilongot, Philippines – about ritual not
property, acquire trophy head and toss it away, ritual preparations and behavior, emotional experience
and moral system, basis of narrating self

Rosaldo’s experiential analysis – initial analysis: headhunting = patterns of exchange, after wife’s death
he felt the rage of grief and asserts the importance of perspective, = social analysis of experience,
function to deal with rage, patterns of male coming of age ritual, enhances group solidarity

Why do people fight? Some social science theories – inclusive fitness? Emotional reward or release?
Goods or increased status? Group solidarity? Some ancient Greek suggestions: glory? Duty? Rage?
Influence of gods? Fate?

Honor and Glory – recall cult of the ‘warrior’ – recognize significance of beliefs, objectives beyond
strategic gain, e.g. dishonor worse than death?

Soldiers vs. Warriors – different understandings of warfare: conquest vs. raiding. Different forms of
organizations – hierarchical command vs. ceremonial posts and charisma. Different social obligations –
aimless vs. adventurers vs. whole kin groups

Comparative moral systems: Discussion war morality, how does one lead? Ilongot view of modern
armies: horrified by idea of ordering another to fight in one’s place, they assume leaders go first rather
than giving orders, small scale vs. large scale warfare?
Experience of Killing – hang to hand combat: direct engagement of opponent, intimate experience of
death. Technically mediated combat: distant engagement of opponent, impersonal experience of death.
Differences in representation?

9/20/10

Mechanization in War and Peace

Language and thought – is language a neutral tool? Or does it influence thought? Is it additive or
transformative? How do language and culture fir together? Two poles – linguistic determinism vs.
technical determinism.

Example: Talking about bombs – Cohn (1987) on defense intellectuals. Learning to speak a ‘defensive
language.’ Abstraction, euphemism, e.g.: Peace = strategic stability, focus on weapons, not people.
Bloodless surgical metaphors, emotion suppressed, gendered. Chasm between image and reality.

Cohn vs. Defensespeak. Defensespeak: in a counterforce attack against hard targets collateral damage
could be limited. Translated: if we launch the missiles we have aimed at their missile silos, the
explostions would cause the immediate death of only 10 million.

Orwell 1948: Orwell’s Newspeak: language as thought control, contractions and contradictions.
Propaganda at level of naming, e.g.: Ministry of Peace is in charge of war. Perpetual war to reinforce
state, only a condition of totalitarianism? Or also an issue of scale & death at a distance.

How to characterize changes? Problems talking about technology. Extreme positions: Technological
determinism, ignoring technology’s effects. Frequent assumption: machines as the measure of men.

General points: Technologies diffuse, machines change even when names stay the same, complex
technologies require complex support systems, modern life = mechanized life, craft vs. industrial
production, mechanization affects both war and peace, does war encourage innovation.

Culture matters. Technical development is not unilineal. Values can shape direction of innovation. E.g.:
Andean vs. European metallurgy – Europeans move from bronze to iron, Andean cultures never do. Why
not? Lechtman (1983) different attributed valued, cloth for warfare, Andean focus on gold and silver.

Overlapping uses – The horse in warfare – war chariot, mounted warrior, horseman with stirrups. White
(1962) stirrup = shock combat, enabled feudalism? In any event breed specialization.

Did guns change history? What is a gun? How does it relate to power?

Diffusion & transformation – The gun in warfare – gunpowder Chinese innovation, guns and rockets
both possible. Guns begin to replace archery, gun requires less strength and skill? Early guns were
inefficient.
Mechanization & Infrastructure. Further mechanization, rifling of barrel then breech loading, then
automation. Improved range, accuracy, less skill or training required. Harder to manufacture or repair,
need factories.

The industrial gun – comparison (Headrick) 1800: 80 yd range, unreliable, minute reload. 1880: 500+ yd
range, reliable, repeating. 1900: machine guns, mushrooming bullets. Effects of technical
transformation: death rates soar, increased dependence on supply chains, colonial disparities grow.

Transport and communication: speed and reliability increases, railroads, steamships, telegraphs.

Medical technologies – Africa as ‘white man’s grave.’ Quinine vs. malaria – 17 th c cinchona bark limited,
1620 quinine extracted, production and use expands. Tropical medicine late 19 th c, dramatic reduction of
death rates.

Conrad’s Heart of Darkness – how can Kurtz go upriver? Boats, guns, medicine. Infrastructure of
civilization, even at the level of clothes. But can always break down.

Orwell’s “shooting and elephant” (1936). Unglamorous, autobiographical description. Demystification of

colonial power, who decides when and what to shoot? Social context and individual action.

Civil war non-shooters (Grossburg) – Not everyone with a gun actually uses it! Gettysburg: multiple
loadings, make them look like they’re doing something.

Moral – thinking of war as industrialized conflict, often assumes too much based on tech. How does a
gun work? Only some people with some guns kill people some of the time.

9/22

From Ritual Killing to “Civilized” Warfare

Comparison – to compare something is not to equate it, not identity, not moral equivalence.
Comparison an analytic exercise, i.e. compare and contrast, go to extremes to realize assumptions.
Translation, recognizing difference as well as similarity, does our thinking about war recognize reality?

War, pain, and suffering – Industrial warfare and killing at a distance, also shifting sensibility re:
suffering? Intimate experience to mediated knowledge, public ritual to private trauma. Causes debated,
enlightenment? Urbanization? Industrialization?

Violence and Enlightenment – ritual = prescribed action(s). Boundary between sacred and profane
worlds (e.g. rites of passage). Intimacy with death and bodies in agrarian life. Violent spectacles as public
entertainment.

Rituals of Killing – Litwack, talking about lynching becoming a public spectacle. American Ex: Lynching –
Vigilante justice, victims mostly African American and male, KKK in south, here consider as an ex of
‘ritualized killing.’
Public Execution – shifting sensibilities re: punishment. Trend to make more ‘humane’ and hidden.

Blood Sports – long history of violent pastimes, e.g. hunting and falconry as recreation, early forms of
‘sport’, entertainment for European (and other) elites.

Animal fighting and baiting – Early forms of popular entertainment (and betting)

Religious suffering – physical pain not always avoided, painful rituals to seek spiritual purity, e.g.
Medieval flagellants, sun dance of Plains Indians. Suffering not always bad.

Modern Aversion to Pain? – general focus on bodily comfort and pleasure, efforts to alleviate physical
and psychological suffering, humane treatment for animals as well as humans, pain now seems
exceptional. Exception: Sports? Romance and sex? War?

Torture in Warfare – Fairly common practice (but not universal), captives often expected to suffer,
ability to withstand pain often admired, stoic suffering = warrior trait.

Modern State Torture – formal denials and international bans, hidden state practices; not public, if
sometimes strategically advertised or leaked, suffering itself rarely on public display.

Analyzing Torture – torture vs. humanity, politics of cross-cultural comparisons, what is inhuman vs.
acceptable? Intimate pain vs. pain at a distance

Pain at a Distance – technology mediates perceived responsibility for suffering, e.g. bombing, land
mines, weapon design not included in definitions of torture, e.g. napalm. But technology also mediated
response to suffering, e.g. humanitarianism.

Humanitarianism and War – efforts to alleviate suffering, first for military forces then civilians, seeks
more humane rules for warfare, institutionalized later 19 th century.

Vernacular Battlefield – little provision for wounded, little provision for prisoners, troops forage and loot
civilians, civilians loot battlefield, wounded often die in aftermath.

Founding of the Red Cross – Henri Dunant, witnesses battle of Solferino (Italy 1859), Genevan
businessman, highly religious, horrified how wounded left to die, writes best-selling book. Part of wave
of reformers.

The Red Cross (ICRC) – International Committee of the Red Cross – Neutral international group, founded
1863 in Switzerland, initially to aid wounded soldiers, later expands to care for prisoners of war, civilian
suffering. Symbols of aid – Red cross, Red crescent, Red crystal.

Geneva Conventions – international agreements on ‘fair play’, Red Cross initiative. 1864 re: wounded
soldiers, later expanded to address naval conflict and prisoners. Significantly updated 1949, amended
1977. Administered by ICRC.
 9/27/10

Forts and Bases

The Long Haired Warriors – think about war and gender, prisoners and ‘civilized’ warfare, war viewed
from more than one side, language and translation

Geneva Convention – international agreements on ‘fair play’, Red Cross initiative first signed 1863 re:
wounded soldiers, later expanded to address naval conflict and prisoners, significantly updated 1949,
amended 1977, administered by ICRC

Essential rules – Must distinguish between civilians and combatants, combatants cannot kill and
adversary who surrenders, wounded and suck must be collected and given treatment, captured soldiers
must receive care and protection from violence.

Background: conscript armies – European shift from mercenary forces to conscription early 1800’s,
citizen soldiers vs. professional soldiers, armies larger, better armed, more quickly (and often less
carefully) trained, more public concern about their fate

Background: nationalism – emergence of nation states, ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson) – identity

beyond local attachments, loyalty to country vs. sovereign – abstract markers of identity (flags, anthems)
rituals of state identification

Net effects (generalized) – new technologies = new strategies, civilian soldiers are cannon fodder, new
strategies = new concerns, public care about casualties and prisoners, desire for improved medical care,
systems of POW exchange, result: states embrace Red Cross by WWI

Humanitarianism in practice: Humanitarianism not = peacemaking or keeping, realist effort to

ameliorate conditions, ICRC appeals to sense of ‘honor’ or ‘dependency’, e.g. warriors honor,

Humanitarian tensions – Red Cross and Geneva Conventions developed for 19 th century warfare
between ‘civilized’ states, not applied to colonial wars or civil wars, crisis with Holocaust = updated
conventions, continuing crisis with civil wars, contemporary conflicts, pluralism.
FORTS AND BASES

Controversy – means disagreement, goal: analyze and specify points of contention, learning beyond
entertainment or affirmation,

Interlude: Political Vocabulary – problems with language, conservative vs. liberal, being political vs.
political analysis, social life inherently political in the sense it involves public action.

Wild Cards (not left/right/central/decentral) – religious movements, nationalism, human rights, identity
politics (e.g. feminism), issue politics (e.g. environmentalism)

Lutz, Homefront – Ethnographic study of Fayetteville as a military city, focus: changing American
relations to war, war preparation during 20 th century. “Militarization” of society?

Lutz: Ethnography of a Military City – ethnographic perspective – denaturalizing culture and social life,
considering things people say and do in comparative terms, Fayetteville, both particular case and
example of a larger pattern.

9/29

Lutz: questions and goals – war – natural fact or historical possibility? Follow second to see other issues
at stake, background of reservist father, Vietnam era TV, wants to question military/civilian divide,
suggest militarization of society, ask how society became so prepared for war, and observes that state
grows with war

Lutz: perspective and focus – since WWII, permanent war readiness, how was preparation has shaped
America, how related to social inequalities and contradictions, focus on military base

Background to Bragg: What is a camp? Varying military strategies and forms, decentralized mobility vs.
concentrated force, militia vs. standing army, concentrated force – need for housing and provisions,
camp to fort to base

Who has weapons? Second Amendment: continuing questing of private weaponry, militia and arms.
Third Amendment? If you have an ARMY, not a militia, you don’t have to quarter soldiers in your home.

Camps and ‘Camp Followers” – civilians in/around camps, dependents and servants. Services for
soldiers, merchants, prostitution. Fluid line between military and private life.

World war I – War to end all wars, produces expanded field of war and war preparation, not peace.
National preparedness movement – building national character (standardized tests), WWI Draft (no buy
out), building patriotism (but also nativism and racism), curbing dissent.

Founding Fort Bragg: Camp Bragg founded 1918, at end of war effort. Army need for artillery range, land
for practice and experiment. Local boosterism, business interests. Local population displacements.
Interwar Limbo – peacetime reduction of military size and status. But then Depression and military
offers opportunities, steady income, travel, class mobility. Lutz: New Deal ‘militarizes’ civ population.

World War Two – Support systems increasingly vital, growing tooth to tail ratio. Vast expansion of
military into civilian landscape.

History live vs. history packaged – History as personal experience vs. history as abstract ideas.
Understanding historical perspective vs. looking backward. Outcomes not predestined (at least how we
remember them).

The Long War – Lutz: recall war buildup starts before conflict. 1939 beginning of shift to national security
thinking (reorganization 1947 NSA). 1940 first peacetime draft. Expansion of armies and bases. Land
displacements. Dislocation of troops and support staff. Increased social mobility.

Beyond Rosie the Riveter – popular memory of gender transformation. History makes it more complex.
Much of women’s war traditional work. Issues of sexuality. Issues of race.

Lived experience varied and complex – Men re-gendered through draft. Masculinity (and patriotism) of
men not in uniform becomes questionable. Racial segregation of work force even for women. Women as
hostess, domestic labor.

Segregated army – irony of war against Nazi racial ideology. Population movements and social tensions.
Racial conflicts and violence: case of Ned Turman. Support systems segregated as well.

Class and rank – social and economic class, position within stratified inequality. Military ordered by rank,
formal marker of hierarchy. Historical ties to class structure, officers vs. enlisted men. Class structure
complicated by draft, but concerns over good background.

Bureaucracy as social form – rational organization. Status derived from office holding. Career defined by
offices held. Actions governed by formal rules. Importance of records and files.

Postwar demobilization – demobilization not complete. Social geography altered, migrations, new social
connections, war brides. Benefits for veterans (GI bill), but racial inequality in application.

Postwar = war transformed – weapons redefine military/civilian boundary, aerial bombardment.

Population movement, the refugee as a political figure. Postwar: Big Science continues, military
industrial complex. Interstate system, rise of suburbia – automobiles, malls, television. College and
home-owning as a norm.

10/4

Vietnam

Film: war and gender, prisoners and civilized warfare, war viewed from more than one side, language
and translation, timelines and material legacies
Society transformed – WWII Shift in home owning, shift in education (both up). History and inheritance.

Postwar = militarization? Cold war confrontations and standoff. Redefined nation interests in favor of
military growth. New common sense. War preparation becomes regular part of economy.

Lutz vs. Militarization – Denaturalize transformations, question the new common sense. Recall earlier
concerns. Military Industrial Complex – Eisenhower:

Thinking about ‘militarization’ – war preparedness = militarized state? Militarized state = militarized
society and culture? Does Fort Bragg-Fayetteville describe all US? To what extent is US exceptional? Or
general modern condition?

International relations redefined – New systems of international governance (UN). European

decolonization, 1949 on. New states (sometimes with arbitrary borders).

Cold War between US and USSR – cold war confrontations and standoffs. ‘Proxy wars’ between client
states.

Vietnam – Hard to discuss dispassionately. Both particular experience and general symbol. Defined
generational politics. Generational legacy.

Lutz on Vietnam – From late Vietnam generation. Wants to describe perspectives she things are under-
reported by significant. Focus on turmoil within ranks, prism of one local town. Image of war doesn’t
describe all realities. Recalling death within a larger context. 58,000 Americans, 2.3 million Vietnamese.
Local image of unprofessional draftees. 1973 creation of All Volunteer Force.

Information and Secrecy – Longer history of state control of info. “Secrecy may be the most important
form of power that war and war preparation cede to the state” (Lutz 165). Public relations, propaganda
combined with secrecy. In Vietnam publicity escapes control.

War and Media – WWII a newspaper and radio war, slower information flow, fewer images, More
cohesive war effort.

10/6/10

The Army as a Changing Institution

Inherited contexts of Vietnam – Understanding Vietnam shaped by earlier wars – for Vietnamese: anti-
French colonial struggle, for U.S. Cold War, Korean War. Sporadic escalation, less cohesive effort than
WWII. Period of social upheaval and change, civil rights. International attention beyond US.

Protest and Polarization – increasing protests, decline in popularity of war effort. Withdrawal and
Vietnam Syndrome – domestic reforms, military and beyond, international caution.
Other Observations – US 20th c wars fought overseas, distant, little direct domestic impact. Peacetime
draft unusual US history. Vietnam draft focus of unpopularity: exemptions suggest unfairness.

Vietnam Memorial – Maya Lin Design 1981. Subject of controversy – traditional sculpture added nearby.
Design embraced in practice – personalized vs. unknown soldier. Why feature ordinary individuals?
Shifting cultural views of death?

Military Economics – Local issues: ft Bragg provides economic base, but military exemptions, discounts,
tax strain. National issues: US budget heavy on military costs, less productive than civilian investments?
Effective subvention of less militarized states?

Summary of US stats and facts – fewer people now involved in war. Military casualty rates now lower.
But increased sensitivity to death. Military spending levels high: compared to other countries, to pre-
WWII US, to other potential priorities.

Military Economics cont – some groups/regions benefit more than others. Major changes with All
Volunteer Force – end of draft produces unintended consequences, more married soldiers, need for
incentives. Soldiers as consumer class.

Fayetteville as a company town – Dependant on a single industry, local effects of national policy
decisions. Flatter class structure. Tax exemptions = strain on local economy.

Military as a total institution – Hierarchical, authoritarian and paternalistic, unlike liberalist not focused
on choice. A total institution (like prison), affects all aspects of life, once needed permission to marry,
continuing tension over sexuality. Also a de facto welfare state, services for all members and
dependants.

Welfare state norms – 19th c state concern for population, education, statistical records. 20 th c evolution
of market industry, regulation of working hours and conditions, provision for health care and pensions,
unemployment and poverty assistance. Citizens develop expanded expectations. Welfare as modern
state norm, commonalities of practice across ideology. Lutz: Military as an exceptional community of
care w/in US individualism: Relative wage equality, socialized health care, un-segregated public housing,
day care, athletic facilities.

AVF Labor issues – high turnover. Transient spousal labor force. Little connection with local issues, low
voting rate.

10/11/10

Lutz and the Post Cold War Army

Other Costs: Environmental costs? Material legacy beyond the economy – industrial production,
munitions, experimentation, other costs even with base closing. Red cocaded woodpecker at ft. Bragg,
symbolic struggle over deeper issues.

Continuing questions re: Military – Renewed questions in 1900s after cold war – how should federal
government spend money, what should the military do?

Post cold war reconstructing – Anticipation of peace dividend. Local concern over base closings. Ft.
Bragg not closed or downsized, fits new vision and grows instead.

Restructuring vs. reduction – concern over new threats. Lobbying by business interests. Theories of
civilization clashes. Debates over explanations for cold war victory. Result: Military restructured rather
than reduced.

Hot Peace – few formal conflicts. ‘Operations other than war.’ (see Lutz)

Shifting political and cultural values – Transnational advocacy movements – human rights,
environmental, anti-nuclear activism, anti-landmine activism. New terrain of cultural expectations. Some
also affect military.

Humanitarian Issues – military increasingly employed in peace-keeping and humanitarian roles. Rise of
military humanitarianism as strategic option. But tensions over mixing aid with national interest.

New contexts of conflict – New wars in postcolonial settings. Proxy and paramilitary forces, targeting of
civilians, strategies of social disruption. Perceived need for different structure – flexible strike force vs.
massed armies like WWII.

New faith in ‘neoliberalism’ – term applied to re-assertion of economic liberalism. Favors privatization
and global trade, beliefs that business = efficiency. Extension of market logic, esp into welfare spheres –
social services, education.

A Neoliberal military – reorganized on American business model. Efforts to achieve greater efficiency,
downsized, outsourced, privatized. Emphasis of small, light forces. Expanded use of private contractors.

Corporate Warriors – longer history of military suppliers and services. Private contracting in security
roles in 1990s. Higher pay, outside conventional command.

Post Cold War Fayetteville – Smaller size of army. More volatility for Fayetteville, business varies with
deployments. More respectable image of military. Political polarization and homogenization.

War as spectator sport. Military public relations, efforts to foster civilian support. Mediated war
spectacle, TV to CNN to Internet. Citizen experience now = consumption vs. service or personal sacrifice.

10/18/10
Media and War – News and the Shadows

Radio Bikini (1987, R. Stone) – From US to world context, “Operation Crossroads.” Impacts of military
testing: Displacement of people, cultural effects, health effects. “The Bomb” as media event – for the
benefit of mankind, political demonstration, scientific experiment.

Short Essay Assignment – Consider a conflict rarely in the news in relation to themes of course. 3-5 pg
plus resource source document. Due in class Mon, Nov 8 th. Assignment on Blackboard.

Problem of Information – How do you know what you know?

Thinking about media – popular debate about media bias. Rephrase for anthropology: What is the
media, what is bias, what assumptions about media revealed by the question itself.

Forms of communication – Informal communication: word of mouth/rumor. Formal communication

(state or private): Written word, spoken word, images. Earlier forms don’t vanish.

Emergence of the media – slow rise of news professionals. Long history of chronicles, scribes. Modern
communication technology, mass literacy, mass reproduction. Mid 19 th c = The war correspondent.
Invention of telegraph, us Mexican war, cinema, us civil war.

Media anthropology – Recognize media professionals have: language and culture, society and political
economy. Stringers vs. Parachutists. P/t specialists vs. circulating generalists. Local depth vs. professional
access. Also editors, states, and corporations. Professionals have professional filters.

Pedelty in El Salvador – study of foreign press, early 1900s end of war. Culture of journalists, routines,
rituals, ethnography induces self-reflection. Bodies central to war narrative. No body, no story, but need
the right body, some too complicated for news.

Media power. Power both productive and repressive, can create as well as destroy. Influence beyond
overt censorship – formation and maintenance of viewpoints. Individuals may make choices, but those
choices not always simply free. Social constraints, cultural expectations. Habits and discipline. Obvious
ideological influence. But also less obvious orientation. US news frames, patterns of interpretation,
selection, emphasis, exclusion.

Objectivity and ideology – Objectivity vs. Ideology – neutral balance vs. opinion. But objectivity as
ideology? Only neutral view thought legitimates, sides always balanced. Pedelty: hegemony in cultural
sense, defining reality, common sense.

10/25/10

Nordstrom: Shadows of War – Arms Trading

Imagining beyond armies – interactions volatile.

Possibilities of Chaos – chaos as a product of political breakdown (civil war, failed states). Chaos as a
product of a political strategy (terrorism, state justification). However, not everyone succumbs to
violence. Civilians and communities usually lose, certain individuals and factions gain.

The Military as economic sector – Military spending big business! Comparative perspective 75% by high
income countries, 10 X level of development assistance. Arms procurement ~ 20-30% of total military
expenditure.

A Right to bear arms? What is an ‘arm’?

Arms continuum.

Additional observations by critics – 5 permanent members of UN security council are major arms
suppliers. Gov’t subsidies to military suppliers, complex incentives to buyers. Frequent suggestions of
personal interest and/or corruption.

Different scales and controls. Upscale British price list for states. Less legal regulation for downscale
items.

Small arms for the poor. Downscale market in cheap small arms. AK-47 costs same as a chicken. Don’t
require powerful state or formal military.

Small arms, cont. Cause majority of civilian casualties. Black market trade 2-10 billion/year. Produces in
over 90 countries. Large used and surplus market. Remain after conflict and hard to control.

Land mines – mines originally used as defensive weapons. Anti-personnel mines developed to protect
anti-tank mines WWII. 1960’s-70’s became a cheap weapon of choice for low-intensity conflicts. Popular
with insurgent groups as well as state forces. Easy to manufacture and modify, cost little to make but
lots to remove. Smart (self-destructing) models invented but more expensive and not as reliable. Kill
indiscriminately. Major cause of casualties for civilians. Designed to maim as much as kill. Make it
difficult to farm and travel.

10/27

Nordstrom: Shadow Economies – from Non-formal Trade to Mercenaries

Formal, informal, non-formal.

Mines still exist, 30 countries wouldn’t sign treaty to ban them, including us.

Arms trade – should (could) the arms trade be better regulated. Nordstrom: What counts as trade and
who regulates?
Nordstrom on exchange – profit a goal for both legal and extra-legal business. Few people live wholly
extra-legal lives. People and money circulate – both inside and outside the law and state taxations.
Perhaps 20-25% of global capital passes offshore.

Money laundering – transmuting illegitimate gain into legitimate profit – no one knows the extent, but
IMF estimate 1996 up to 1.5 trillion. Funds broken up, source disguised and reinvested.

Historical background – US prohibition, large, illegitimate profits from alcohol. Cash business favored to
exaggerate income e.g. automated coin laundry. Swiss banking law in 1934 ensures privacy, response to
international pressure for info and scandal of exposure. Partly product of unintended consequences?

Alternative economic system – Official global finance not the whole of the story. Economic alternatives
e.g. NC plenty. Example of extra-state banking: Hawala system. Point to point transfer, used by families,
businesses and criminals alike, faster and more efficient than official banks, depends on honor system.

Informal economy – informal trading. Appears individual and ‘local.’

Non-formal systems – Nordstrom: not an outdated economic model. States as a social convention,
define law but not reality. State/extra-state a continuum, not a sharp line.

States and legitimate force – but is this the rule, or actually the exception. And who/what exercises
legitimate force?

Mercenaries – Long history of hired warriors. Etymologically linked to ‘market.’ Traces in modern
business terminology – free lances, companies, free companies. So why negative associations with the
term? Loyalty to unit and to pay, not country or cause. More interested in prisoners for ransom, more
profitable than killing. When not occupied a source of instability. 1445 French king exerts control, hires
companies long-term and forms standing army.

10/29/10

Nordstrom: Shadows of War – Peace and Peacekeeping

Mercenaries – Shift to nation armies not whole story. Thin line between legitimate and illegitimate
force. Different rules beyond territory. Military business ventures esp. in colonial contexts e.g. English
East India Co., rubber companies in Belgian Congo. Famous state sponsored traditions e.g. Foreign
Legion, British Gurkha regiments. Emergence of new corporate model e.g. South African based
‘Executive Outcomes’ (defended gov’t). Neoliberal logic of privatization and outsourcing e.g. blackwater
worldwide now Xe.

Mercenary Patters – demand shifts with form of warfare and nationalism. Mobile actors, from
demobilization in one area to new wars in another. Thrive in areas of weak governance.
A Global Continuum? Nordstrom: see state on historically shifting continuum of power relations.
Cosmopolitan centers connected to shadow economies, internationalized margins.

Peace and peacekeeping – UN founded ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.’ Some
efforts at ‘peacemaking’ and ‘peacebuilding’ – resolving conflicts through diplomacy, reintegration of
societies. But primary activity is ‘peacekeeping’, observing ceasefires and separating combatants.
Evolving history (expanding). Shifting form, purely military model, integrated model, civilian personnel.

Rules of engagement – peace-keeping. Historically ability to use force highly restricted. Significant
problems. Now selective robust security council mandates, allowing all necessary means to protect
civilian lives.

Mission criteria – missions ordinarily short-term, but some can last decades. UN Security council decides
when to deploy, any one of them have veto power.

Evaluating Missions – does peacekeeping work? Anth: rephrase question to: What does it do? Saves
lives? Inverse correlation peacekeeping and casualties. Saves money? Cheaper than military actions by
rich countries. Ends war?

Basic Analysis – Peacekeeping designed as temporary measure. Focused on preventing conflict and
suffering, peace = relative absence of violence. Not about dispensing justice, preserves a given status
quo.

Nordstrom on Peacekeeping – Peacekeepers from poor countries poorly paid. Troops can engage in side
activities and trade. NGO actors can likewise also profit. Wildcatting quick profits in political instability.
War destroys but also creates, threat of war can be profitable. Militarized networks don’t vanish
w/peace accords, problem: how to re-establish other trade routes. International agencies have
international norms.

Imperfect options: International action imperfect. Civilians generally suffer. Long term causes rarely
addressed.

11/8/10

Insurgency and Rule: Moral Limits, Hearts and Minds

Moral edges of war – Nuclear war? Geneva Convention ‘civilized’? Are there ethical limits of conflict, is
‘unconventional’ war permissible? When does war = ‘total’ war?

Battle of Algiers (1966) – Algerian war 1954-62, nationalist, anti-colonial struggle. Neo-realist film (Gillo
Pontecorvo). Staged in aftermath, uses documentary style. Controversial, banned in France, celebrated
in Algeria. Influential in 1960’s leftist circles. Screened by Pentagon in August 2003. Recommended
resource on military counterinsurgency website. Why?
Battle of Algiers – Strategy vs. tactics. Strategy = overall plan, general approach to achieve objective.
Tactics = specific means, can shift with circumstance. Different scales of application. FLN’s strategy –
destabilize gov’t, incite violence to achieve visibility, provoke response, solidify support, long-term
objective: independence. French strategy – stabilize gov’t, contain violence to isolate and extinguish
rebellion, long term continued rule.

FLN Tactics – attack police, bomb public places, proclaim strike. French tactics – isolate Arab population,
extract information and identify FLN networks, arrest or kill operatives. Colonel Mathieu character –
Anti-Nazi Resistance hero, understands insurgency from both sides, cell structure, tapeworm. French
use of torture, here to extract info, but erodes public support. French win battle, lose war.

Anthropology of insurgency – Nonconventional warfare – eg guerilla tactics, targeting civilians, terror.

When though justifiable, when not? Political motives? Moral conduct? Perspective? Wide range of
examples – e.g. anti-colonial movements (FLN), but also French Resistance in WWII, Al-Qaeda similar or
different?

Anthro of Insurgency cont. – Non-conventional combat = questions about moral limit of war (like
genocide). So too counterinsurgency – what works? What’s worth the cost? Weapons of weak vs. total
force e.g. guerillas vs. police state, total war.

‘Versailles on the Tigris’ – Chandrasekaran on early days of US rule in Iraq – Coalition Provisional
Authority takes over Saddam Hussein’s palace. Little America in Baghdad, Iraqi laws and customs don’t
apply in Green Zone. Long supply chains rather than local provision- whatever could be outsourced was.
Cafeteria.

CPA Iraq – many in project had little international experience. Veteran diplomats wanted local ties,
outnumbered focus on control. Little local news in the Green Zone – news filtered back from US, report
writers rarely leave base, security concerns, secrecy, non-employee Iraqis not trusted. Result =
disconnect from locale.

Counterinsurgency – recall Von Clausewitz on friction – concept that more or less corresponds to the
factors that distinguish real war from war on paper, everything in war is very simple, but the simplest
thing is very difficult. Enter General Patraeus (Mathieu figure?) Recognition of asymmetrical conflict.

Patreus 14 observations – emphasize local relations, knowledge, flexibility. Obs 10 – success in

counterinsurgency requires more than just military obs. Obs 1 – do not try to do too much with your
own hands. Obs 8 cultural awareness is a force multiplier. Significance of culture. Stresses language,
cultural awareness, productive relationships. However goal remains to achieve objectives.

‘Human Terrain System’ – HTS launched 2005-7. $41 million for 26 teams, small investment for military,
large task. Highly controversial within anthropology – professionals concerned about collaboration.
Ethical violation? AAA code of ethics mandates that anthropologists do no harm to research subjects.
Compromising research? What is goal of knowledge?
 11/10

Refugees: War, Civilians and Displacement

Moral Edges of War – from ethical limits of conflict e.g. terrorism/counterinsurgency etc. to effects of
total war – civilian suffering and displacement = moral feeling and mythico-history

Settling and Movement – anthropological perspective – population movement common, early humans
probably nomadic. Agriculture = settlement, classic incentive for stability. War = disruption, classic cause
of displacement.

Why displacement a problem? Societies now settled territories, world of nation states, little free space.
Fear of disease – large, massed groups can create health problems. Also the question of return, will they
stay or will they go.

Exiles and Refugees – exile history a form of punishment, prison a relatively recent standard. 17 th c term
refugee – described French Protestant seeking asylum. WWI Expansion of term - Applied generally to
people fleeing from conflict.

Modern Experience – WW1 = large scale displacements in Europe ~ 5 mil. Instability perceived as
political problem – who is responsible for displaced people, will they threaten local populations. Concern
for having and maintaining borders – passports and passport control became common, remain in effect
after the war.

WWII Much larger population movement ~40 mil displaced. Border and population shifts in aftermath of
war. Recognition of refugees in international law – 1950 UNHCR (Office of the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees), 1951 Convention relating to the Status of refugees for Europeans, 1967 expanded to all.

The (legal) Refugee – OUTSIDE your own country. The Internally Displaced – definition of refugee
assumes inter-state warfare and clear borders, growth of intra-state conflicts created large internally
displaced populations – new category – IDP internally displaced person – nonbinding guiding principles
on IDPs. The (Quasi-legal) IDP

Habitat: the Camp – note that not refugees live in camps. 20 th c refugee camp became primary response
to displaced populations. Basic human needs, designed as temp. Camp 1: The Concept – shelter, water,
food, sanitation, basic healthcare. Mental health? Political rights? Camp 2: The practice –

Camp effects? What happens to displaced people beyond surviving?

Malkki, purity and Exile – displacement and history making – does displacement affect a sense of
history? Group identity? Ethnography of processes and interconnections – look at refugee camp.
Refugee as a type as well as a problem – de-contextualized (presence without history), stands for figure
of the essential human. Study of Burundian Htut refugees in Tanzania – conducted in 1980’s before
Rawandan genocide, comp in town vs in camp. Sense of history here: lived meaning for specific people
vs. investigating truth claims. Mythico-history = moral narrative of the past, history itself political when
relates to conflict.

Comparison in town/camp. Town- less hutu, getting on with life. Camp – more hutu, past and returning
home.

Mythico-History and Violence – violence imagined in highly ritualistic ways, not just killing, elaborate
humiliation and dehumanization. Memories formalized – follow thematic patterns.

Back to the future – history can become a myth, myth can become history.

11/15/10

Genocide and the Problem of Evil

Rwanda, episode 1994 – Forsaken Cries – Amnesty intl. 1997 – Triumph of Evil – PBS Frontline 1999 –
twin issues, genocide and intervention.

Mythico-History and violence – recall Malkki and Hutu Refugees in Burundi. Violence imagined in highly
ritualistic ways, stories of elaborate dehumanization and atrocities, memories formalized, thematic
patterns. History thus ‘mythologized’ (symbolic level) – Myths ripe for political manipulation – strategies
of violence then shape history, from Burundi to Rwanda, Hutu to Tutsi.

Genocide as state action – Point from reading on Rwandan Genocide – “In fact, the genocide was the
product of order, authoritarianism, decades of modern political theorizing and indoctrination and one of
the most meticulously administered states in history” – In general modern genocide = a political plan.

Notes on Rwanda – low tech killing, but high tech organization and communication – surpasses German
machinery. Part of colonial history, interregional conflicts, legacy of Belgian Congo, Burundi similar,
inverted cycles of violence, DRC, continuing instability.

Notes on Genocide – US Response = non-intervention – 20 th c standard, Rwanda policy actually the

norm, intervention related to national interest. Genocide denounced after the fact e.g. holocaust
museum. Concern about treaties and term to ignoring inconvenient obligations.

Foreign policy pendulums – Response influenced by additional factors – previous actions, other
commitments, domestic concerns. E.g. sequence of international crises: Somalia 1993 (intervention,
withdrawal) – Rwanda/Bosnia 1994/1995 (Withdrawal, recrimination), Kosovo 1999 (NATO Bombing).
Larger geopolitical strategies.

Genocide as a Legal concept – Term coined 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, Polish Jewish Lawyer.
Genos(people) + Cide(killing). UN Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (1948) – Widely accepted (140 countries), Ratified by US Senate only in 1988, rarely evoked or
enforced.
Genocide, defined – acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such: Killing member of group, bodily or mental harm, inflicting bad
conditions of life, preventing births, transf. children.

Who are the Perpetrators? – genocide a collective crime, border between law and morality. So question
of responsibility – Leader? Ordinary citizens? Bystanders? All of the above? Why do people go along?

11/17

Aftermaths of genocide – international intervention more common after genocide. How to deal with
tragic past? Court based justice, truth and reconciliation commissions, commemoration.

Aftermath Courts – post WWII Nuremberg and Tokyo trials – ‘victors’ justice, so idea for UN court.
International Criminal Court (ICC) – ad hoc courts for former Yugoslavia 1993 and Rwanda 1994 – Rome
treaty 1998, ICC Starts 2002, US Resists. But for whom is this justice? Long process, symbolic impact of
punishment? E.g. Rwandan Bagasora arrested 1996, sentenced 2008 to life in prison. Problem of scale
and caseload. Informal community justice alternatives, but questions of process and legitimacy.

Aftermath Truth – TRC Model of post-apartheid South Africa 1996-8, avoids victors justice, widely
replicated. Focuses on disclosure and facts – possibility of amnesty, identifying victims, forensic
anthropology, even DNA testing. But for whom is this truth – cultural variability, questions of justice.

Aftermath Commemoration – Funerary rites – burial, reburial, construction of shrines. Preserving

atrocity sites e.g. Auschwitz UNESCO heritage site 1979. Constructing museums. What remembered,
what not? Proliferation of museums = tolerance? What if evil is not exceptional but banal?

Common or unusual? Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men – reserve policemen in WWII – given choice
opt out of massacre, only 12/500 decline initially, though more drop away in action. Controversial
question: Why? Cooperation due to German culture? Or structure of obedience?

Why do people kill? Study of Khmer Rouge in Cambodia – Hinton interviews perpetrators. Observations:
Reluctant to acknowledge actions after the fact, note killings are public events, need to survive, need to
‘save face’, prove allegiance by ‘cutting off one’s heart [feelings]’. Hinton: Culture does not cause
genocide, neither do hist events, ideology, etc. Complete understanding of interaction between all
factors. Culture Involved but not only factor: Cultural elements as saving face or prejudice widespread
across many societies, genocide far less common.

Not all choice is free – manipulated field of constraints – case of killer Lohr with constrained choices –
worried about survival, saving face, need to prove allegiance, caught up in violent ideology, forced by
superior to decide in public setting.
Arendt on Eichmann – Adolf Eichmann – Nazi bureaucrat responsible for logistics of deportation, hid in
Argentina postwar, captured by Israeli agents, put on trial in Jerusalem 1961. Hannah Arendt – German-
Jewish political theorist, covered trial.

Eichmann’s defense – claimed he was only guilty of ‘aiding and abetting’, not committing overt acts.
Guilt came from obedience, setting where obedience praised as a virtue. Court judgment: Degree of
responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who uses the fatal instrument with his
own hands (Arendt 97).

Arendt’s Analysis – questions whether trial successful as popular justice, emphasizes Eichmann’s
blandness, a dull, unremarkable villain. Is evil ultimately banal rather than radical.

Obedience – Milgram psychological experiments. Directly following Eichmann trial, examined extent
people obey orders. You know the experiment. Stanford Prison (Zimbardo), The Third Wave, ABC News
Primetime.

11/22/10

Age and Gender: Women and War, Child Soldiers, Sexual Violence

Moral edges of war – are there ethical limits of conflict, terrorism/counterinsurgency, genocide and
annihilation. From individuals to social contexts e.g. Milgram 10 vs 90% obedience. Other moral issues in
conflict, who fights? Women, children? Sexual violence as weapons.

Who fights? Fighting out of desperation vs. status as a warrior. Young men the norm. But generalization,
not universal truth.

Women and War – Amazon myths of role reversals. Possible archaeological evidence e.g. female
Scythian warriors. With mythic details of legend e.g. cutting off right breast. Societies with female as
well as male soldiers. Also exceptional individuals within male social norms.

Gender analysis – War defines as a masculine activity? (Whether or not undertaken by men). Common
theme: male rite of passage, turning boys into men.

Questions of age – What are the appropriate ages for war? Both limits and preferences. U.S. Draft range
varies historically (first 21-30, then 18-45)

Child Soldiers – child soldiers a common there of ‘new wars’ in poor places. Alien to conceptions of
childhood (in contemporary, wealthy settings).

What is Childhood? Should children work?

Child labor globally – Child labor. Child Soldiers – Perhaps 300,000. In some settings girls as well as boys
as young as 8. Seen as cheap, compliant and effective. Military advantages – easy to intimidate and
indoctrinate, relatively fearless, fewer inhibitions, less able to flee, less likely to demand pay.
Who is a child? What is the age of adulthood?

International Norms – UN Convention on Rights of the Child (1989) – ratified by 192 countries, holdouts
– Somalia, USA. Defines child as person < 18. 15 as minimum age for going to war.

Historical and cultural variation – US army used 17 yr olds until 2002. Civil war included boy soldiers.
Cheyenne boys in war parties 14-15. Dahomey girls recruited at 9-15.

What is a warrior? Need to consider form of warfare and its relation to society. Child amid adults forces
or vs. child armies. Warrior status – as adult norm or social aberration? Coming of age vs. derailment of
future.

Social integration – Problem of reintegration for contemporary child soldiers. How to demobilize 8 yr
old? When warfare NOT serving as a rite of passage. Less about lost childhood then damaged adult
future.

Sexual Violence – Questions of rape, controversy; violence vs. sexuality. Rape long a feature of conflict.
Both men and women can be raped – prison. But fear is gendered in conflict.

Sexual violence in war – Historic examples and estimates: 1-200,000 women abducted by Japanese in
WWII, Bangladesh, Vietnamese.

11/29/10

Global Humanitarianism and ‘Humanitarian war’

Recap: Moral edges of war – from individuals to social contexts, political manipulation, milgram
obedience. Other moral issues in conflict, who fights? Women, children? Sexual violence as weapon? If
precedents, then what’s distinctive about the contemporary moment? Natural or historical?

Planning and strategy – e.g. vernacular architecture vs. professional design. Vernacular = cultural
template, design = explicit plan. Shift also significant in war? Vernacular practice vs. strategic plan.

Sexual violence as strategy – rape amid vernacular pillage, vs. rape as a conscious strategy both threat
and practice. Calculated effects, intimidation of population, disruption of kin networks, destabilization of
society, promotes fight and ethnic cleansing.

Moral of the day – strategic plans can masquerade as vernacular practice. But contemporary
phenomena such as child soldiers and sexual violence not simply natural human patterns or reversion to
the beast within. Rather, increasingly conscious strategies of modern warfare.

Humanitarianism and war – Moral sensibilities about limits. Responses to moral outrage, restrictions on
warfare, definitions of war crimes, protections of civilians, humanitarian assistance. Also a moral war?
Peace through armed intervention?
Red Cross WWII – Existing Geneva conventions then only cover POWs. Bombing increases civilian
casualties, ICRC expands efforts, but still focuses on POWs. ICRC keeps silent about Holocaust, fear of
losing access to POW camps.

Red Cross, Postwar – reorganization, Geneva Convention enlarged. Expansion of ICRC activities in
decolonizing world. Humanitarian concern goes global.

Rise of NGOs – Long history of voluntary associations. Phrase ‘Nongovernmental organization’ emerges
with UN charter, 1945. General category of civil society, private groups of citizens furthering a cause, on
term, huge variation. Significant growth late 20 th c.

NGO diversity – carious classifications – International (INGO) vs. local, religious vs. secular. Various
practices, advocacy vs. operational. Various causes, development, environment, humanitarian, human
rights etc. Not always on the same page.

NGO funding – Varying sources – individual donors, foundations, corporations, governments. Question
of influence, degree of independence. Short-term timing cycles.

NGO evolution and war – Successful NGOs grow and expand. E.g. Save the Children. Oxfam.

Biafra as Media Watershed – aid and media manipulated by both sides, televised suffering for
international audience.

Post Biafra NGOs, reorientation of old organizations, new ones. Doctors without Borders (MSF) –
Founded in France 1971, intended as independent alternative Red Cross, comes to represent new
media-savvy generation of NGOs.

Going global – wave of ‘without borders’ names and causes. Global imagination of NGOs, along with
global trade, neoliberal policies of privatization. MSF goes transnational.

12/6/10

War, Peace and Anthropology – Conclusions

Aftermaths and local action – Pray the Devil Back to Hell – Peace an active, long-term practice- “Peace a
process not an event” Gender and peace? Also religion and cultural heritage.

Humanitarian Intervention – Aid now a norm, media and local expectations. Popular demand? For
multiple publics? Neocolonial? Classic humanitarianism not = to peace! Should aid include state
building? Even war?

Peace through ‘Just’ War? Was as response to moral outrage? ‘Just War” theory: Christian theological
tradition, focus on principles e.g. just cause, last resort, legitimacy, proportionality, etc.. Contemporary
secular form in ‘humanitarian war’ – war to save lives? To bring peace?
‘Military Humanitarianism’ – Humanitarian NGOs wary of military interventions. Blurs military/civilian
distinctions at local and global levels, national interest vs. human interest. Implicates NGOs with military
effort.

Humanitarianism beyond war – Fundraising easier for natural disasters than for warfare. Even natural
disasters have social contexts, sometimes including warfare.

ANTH/PWAD 280 Fall 10

War, Peace and Anthropology: Conclusions

Aftermaths and local action

Pray the Devil Back to Hell
A. Disney & G. Reticker, 2008
peace an active, long-term practice
“peace a process not an event”
gender and peace?
Aristophenes’ Lysistrata
…also religion & cultural heritage

Humanitarian intervention
aid now a norm
media &local expectations
popular demand?
(for multiple publics)?
neocolonial?
classic humanitarianism not = to peace!
should aid include ‘state building’?
…even war?

Peace through ‘Just’ War?

war as response to moral outrage?
‘Just War’ theory
Christian theological tradition
focus on principles, e.g. just cause, last resort, legitimacy, proportionality, etc.
contemporary secular form in ‘humanitarian war’
war…to save lives?
…to bring peace?

‘Military Humanitarianism’
humanitarian NGOs wary of military interventions
blurs military/civilian distinctions at local and global levels
national interest vs. human interest
implicates NGOs with military effort
e.g. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq
Afghanistan
cluster bombs & food packages both yellow…

Afghanistan, cont
MSF timeline:
1980 MSF first arrives after Soviet invasion
stays through long period of civil war, Taliban etc.
2001 Protests military food drops amid bombing
2004 Condemns Coalition leaflets, 5 staff murdered, no arrests, suspends operations
independent ‘humanitarian space’ collapses

Humanitarianism beyond war

fundraising easier for ‘natural disasters’ for than warfare
even ‘natural’ disasters have social contexts, sometimes including warfare
Ethiopia as turning point
Live Aid
…but also history behind it

Case of Ethiopian Famine

history: periodic famine tied to drought, agrarian practices
famine influencing politics
e.g. 1973 famine, fall of Emperor Haile Selassie
political manipulation of famine and aid
1984-5 Derg government vs. rebel regions
uses cover of famine to justify policies

1984-5 Famine
background political context:
Ethiopia aligned with Soviet block
multiple insurgencies, some supported by US
multi-year drought
aid controlled and manipulated
forced resettlement of population
~1 million deaths

Humanitarian Response
television focus on suffering
little if any political context
stress on drought, not war
Live Aid effort to circumvent governments
stress on common humanity, not local or international context
but is this human nature on screen?
to what extent a political problem?

Ethiopia…to Haiti…
Haiti:
 successful slave rebellion
embargoes, dictatorships, US rule
long history of conflict, inequality
development projects & NGOs
Rousseau’s old point:
social origins of ‘natural’ disaster
(i.e. earthquakes kill because buildings collapse)

General themes
learning to think anthropologically
vs. assuming human nature
…stop and consider!
comparative thinking
historically deep, geographically broad
War and Peace particularly charged sites for claiming human nature

General Themes, cont.

changing experiences of ‘war’ & ‘peace’
e.g. primate behavior vs. human warfare
…let alone contemporary, global life
varying forms of violence
e.g. war, feud, raid
varying experiences of violence
ritual forms, conceptions of gender

Human Nature?
why are things the way they are?
reflects nature? (Hobbes on)
reflects history? (Rousseau on)
‘states of nature’ have pasts
natural pasts AND social pasts
often conflict beneath the surface
look beyond present story

Divides in human history?

small scale vs. large scale warfare
industrial technology & modern colonization
post WWII institutions and decolonization
post Cold War neoliberalism

General themes, cont

redistribution of violence
killing and suffering at a distance
desire to be ‘humane’
rise of media in circulation
 beyond ‘bias’: culture, history, worldview
‘structured ignorance’
(vs. general ignorance!)

General themes, cont

looking beyond the spotlight
local conflicts no longer local
‘shadow’ networks
extra state economies
other political forms (e.g. kinship)
same actor can play several roles
chaos as a political strategy
not ‘absence’ of politics!

Problems of the present

contemporary phenomena not entirely new, have antecedents
e.g. child soldiers, sexual violence, mercenaries
but new configurations
e.g. intentional strategies, privatization

General themes, cont

war as a civilian experience
civilian casualties
displacement
cycles of violence
‘mythico-history’
increasing divide between global rich and poor
suffering vs. spectator sport

Peace
understandings of ‘peace’ defined against war
peacekeeping as conflict prevention
low budget, temporary peace measures
vs. high budget, perpetual war preparedness
international arms trade, landmines etc.
conceptions on the ground vary
but local legitimacy crucial
also Peace ≠ Justice (or Truth, Beauty, Goodness…)

Humanity
moral discourses around war
genocide
humanitarianism
war defines inhumanity/humanity
if evil banal, a general problem
but not universal…
 rather historical and situational
question of political manipulation

GENERAL ≠ UNIVERSAL!
Human Nature, whatever else, not singular!
Left handed rule:
humans generally right-handed
…but not universally so