The backdrop
This seminar was prompted by numerous contemporary conditions and developments, stemming from George W. Bush’s “Global War on Terror,” to Barack Obama’s “Struggle against Violent Extremism,” and Canada’s own military intervention in Afghanistan. With respect to the social sciences, and the current political conditions of knowledge creation in universities, we see the increased re-expansion of the national security state into the universities, funding students through various CIA-related programs, recruiting faculty, and funding social science research through the Pentagon’s Minerva Research Initiative, all of which have an impact far beyond American borders. Anthropologists will have read CIA job ads in journals published by the American Anthropology Association; some will have followed the raging debates surrounding the advent of the Pentagon’s “Human Terrain System,” which embeds anthropologists and social scientists in counterinsurgency teams in Afghanistan and Iraq; and psychologists debate their involvement in torture and interrogation in places such as Guantanamo. Sociologists have joined HTS as well. At the same time, we see newly reclaimed imperial aspirations, formally articulated by the “new imperialists” (i.e., Max Boot, Michael Ignatieff, Niall Ferguson) and by the now defunct Project for a New American Century. As the United States finds itself stretched across the globe, and in a state of precipitous economic decline, under economic and other challenges from numerous actors operating transnationally, it turns to a wider array of instruments for projecting power, and maintaining supremacy in the face of decline. These range from controlling access to natural resources, building widened military alliances, to ideological and symbolic manifestations of empire building as part of a “soft power” strategy, to complement or make up for what the military cannot accomplish. We thus see both the militarization of areas previously dominated by civilians, such as humanitarian aid efforts, to the incorporation of civilians within military structures. Accompanying the militarization of popular culture and social life in the U.S., is the rapid growth of military industries and war-related services, especially through private contractors. War is very expensive, and very big business. This takes us through the economic, ideological, political, and military expressions of the new imperialism, specifically in connection with wars against “terror” and “insurgency”.
Why have such a seminar?
One of the reasons for having this seminar is that it seems necessary, if not urgent, that anthropologists and sociologists understand the contemporary global, geopolitical, and political economic contexts in which they work, and in which the peoples they study live. In our readings we will zero in on part of a multitude of influential sources who are busy shaping public opinion and government policy. We need to know what they are thinking, saying, and doing. And we need to do some of our own thinking, saying, and doing (though “doing” likely exceeds the limits of our seminar).
What we read and why
Most of the readings for this seminar, around which our discussions take place (and your Op-Eds) are authored by journalists, policy planners, military officers, military strategists, activists, think tank members, political leaders, government officials, and academics in different disciplines. These items are, for the most part, written for a general audience. Names that may not have been familiar to students in our disciplines, instead dominate public discussion and analysis concerning the “war on terror,” counterinsurgency, and empire – for example: Andrew Bacevich, Noam Chomsky, Tom Engelhardt, Chalmers Johnson, David Kilcullen, John Nagl, Gen. David Petraeus, Jeremy Scahill, Samantha Sewall, and many others.
This is not to say that anthropologists, for example, have been absent from public debates concerning contemporary imperial politics. Publications by Mahmood Mamdani (on “Save Darfur,” as one example), Talal Asad (on suicide bombing), Catherine Lutz (on military bases), David Vine (also on bases), Jeremy Keenan (on the “war on terror” in the Sahara), and the members of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists (http://concerned.anthropologists.googlepages.com/) have all been very active in publishing, and speaking to the media. However, our primary concern is not a disciplinary one, that is, one dwelling on “how anthropologists/sociologists respond.” Nevertheless, seminar participants are encouraged to examine the growing list of anthropological texts on issues of relevance to this seminar: http://anthrojustpeace.blogspot.com/2010/05/anthropology-and-empire-recommended.html.
SOME QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS
We will raise and discuss many more questions and problems than can be listed here, but at least some of these are sure to be raised more than once.
1. Is there a “new” imperialism, and what is “new” about it? If it is not “new,” does that mean there is nothing at all that is novel about the present? Does it matter?
2. What constitutes “empire”? Does one need to be an “anti-imperialist” to see empire?
3. Why are Canadian Forces in Afghanistan? Are we “peace keepers”?
4. Is American hegemony in decline?
5. What is/was the nature of American hegemony?
6. Where do we see a reworking of relationships between the military, intelligence, and civilian spheres in international relations?
7. If a program is humanitarian in intent, how could it be conceived as imperialist?
8. Should anthropologists not join the military to help reduce harm?
9. If the military and intelligence communities wish to fund social science research, then what is the problem? Would it be better if those communities worked in ignorance?
10. Does the achievement of empire abroad threaten democracy at home?
11. How can imperialism be “liberal”?
12. What is “neo-conservativism” and how can we have, as we are told, neo-conservative policies when it comes to geopolitics, and neo-liberalism when it comes to political economy? Do our labels make sense?
13. What is “anti-imperialism,” and is it reducible to a “leftist” stance?
14. What makes a “failed state” and why should “nation-building” be our concern?
15. What are the “perils of isolationism”?
16. What is the difference between a “war of choice” and a “good war”?
17. Should anthropologists and sociologists be actively involved in preventing unnecessary wars, and if so, how?
18. Can we think of research ethics as separate from politics?
Download a complete copy of the course syllabus (pdf)
Winter Semester, 2011
03 credits
03 January – 04 April, 2011
Meeting days and times:
Mondays: 1:15pm—4:00pm
Campus: SGW, Room: H-613.
Available in the Concordia Bookstore, additional texts that you may want to purchase to further your reading in the subject areas covered by this seminar:
Also available from the previous seminar:
THE NEW IMPERIALISM, VOL. 1: MILITARISM, HUMANISM, and OCCUPATION. Edited by Maximilian C. Forte. Montreal, Canada: Alert Press, 2010. $10.61 US, or FREE ebook
Banner image photo credit: U.S. Army Flickr photostream at http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/4288192218/
