1998
DOI: 10.1080/1070289x.1998.9962596
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cold war anthropology: Collaborators and victims of the national security state

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In anthropology, this effectively silenced mainstream anthropology until revelations uncovered anthropologists' role in US counterinsurgency and participation in the American war against Vietnam Wakin, 1992;Price, 1998;Wax, 2008). This kind of silencing is complex.…”
Section: Critical Anthropologymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In anthropology, this effectively silenced mainstream anthropology until revelations uncovered anthropologists' role in US counterinsurgency and participation in the American war against Vietnam Wakin, 1992;Price, 1998;Wax, 2008). This kind of silencing is complex.…”
Section: Critical Anthropologymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…It was that apocalyptic prospect that had suddenly brought peasants to the centre‐stage of theoretical discourse in the 1950s and made them a growing subject of attention for social scientists whose activities and writings were profoundly affected by the dominant Cold War ideology (Keen, 1999; Ross, 2008; Simpson, 1998); this, while it created new research opportunities, also and more importantly imposed severe intellectual and theoretical limitations related to the co‐emergence of ‘the Cold War university’ (Lowen, 1997) and of the National Security State (see Keen, 1999; Price, 1998; Schrecker, 1986). Thus, as Keen (1999: 207) has observed, ‘The FBI's activities, including its widespread surveillance of American sociologists, served to silence dissent, inhibit democratic discourse, and push the mainstream of the discipline toward an uncritical support of the status quo’.…”
Section: A Radical Critic Of the Latin American Status Quomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As Sluka observes, McFate contends that anthropology as a discipline was born to serve the military and colonial ambitions of Western nations. Citing a long history of academic and government collaboration (including such well‐known instances as Project Camelot; Price 1998), she argues for a return to a more active engagement of anthropologists in the work of counterinsurgency (McFate 2005a). Sluka, like others within the discipline, decries this suggestion, fearing that such collaboration will compromise anthropologists’ ethical obligation to safeguard their research informants from harm, while undermining progress made toward openness and accountability within the academy (Albro 2007; Fleuhr‐Lobban and Heller 2007; Gusterson 2005; Members of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists 2007; Price 2005).…”
Section: Culture and Securitymentioning
confidence: 99%