anthropology and militarism - gusterson

ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Anthropology andMilitarismHugh GustersonDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, George Mason University, Fairfax,Virginia 22030; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:155–75

First published online as a Review in Advance onMay 31, 2007

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094302

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0084-6570/07/1021-0155$20.00

Key Words

ethnic cleansing, terror, nuclear, genocide, memory, responsibility

AbstractAnthropologists’ selections of topics and field sites have often beenshaped by militarism, but they have been slow to make militarism,especially American militarism, an object of study. In the high ColdWar years concerns about human survival were refracted into de-bates about innate human proclivities for violence or peace. As “newwars” with high civilian casualty rates emerged in Africa, CentralAmerica, the former Eastern bloc, and South Asia, beginning in the1980s anthropologists increasingly wrote about terror, torture, deathsquads, ethnic cleansing, guerilla movements, and the memory workinherent in making war and peace. Anthropologists have also begunto write about nuclear weapons and American militarism. The “waron terror” has disturbed settled norms that anthropologists shouldnot assist counterinsurgency campaigns, and for the first time sinceVietnam, anthropologists are debating the merits of military anthro-pology versus critical ethnography of the military.

155

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


INTRODUCTION

Militarism is integral to global society today. Itcan be seen around the world in the presenceof standing armies, paramilitaries, and mili-tary contractors; the stockpiling of weaponry;burgeoning state surveillance programs; thecolonization of research by the national se-curity state; the circulation of militarizedimagery in popular culture; “the tendency toregard military efficiency as the paramount in-terest of the state,” (Oxford English Dictionaryas quoted in Bacevich 2005, p. 227) and “theshaping of national histories in ways thatglorify and legitimate military action” (Lutz2002b, p. 723). In militarized societies, waris always on our minds, even if we are tech-nically at peace. No one in the world to-day is untouched by militarism. However,given the enormous range of local experi-ences of the phenomenon from the immis-erated war refugee of the Congo to the subur-ban American happily watching Saving PrivateRyan on his flat panel living room TV, it maybe as appropriate to speak of militarisms as ofmilitarism.

Anthropologists who work on war, mili-tarism, and violence routinely complain thatthese subjects receive too little attention inanthropology (Ben-Ari 2004; Hinton 1996;Lutz 1999, 2002a,b; Nagengast 1994; Simons1999). “With a few notable exceptions, an-thropologists have barely studied modernwars,” writes Simons (1999, p. 74) at the out-set of her own Annual Review article on theanthropology of war. Arguably, war and mili-tarism have stood in the same kind of relation-ship to anthropology as has colonialism. Foran earlier generation of anthropologists, colo-nialism powerfully shaped access to the fieldand the choice of research topics but was itselfrarely brought into focus as a topic of ethno-graphic research or reflexive self-questioning.Similarly, anthropology has been more or lesssubtly molded by the priorities of the nationalsecurity state and the exigencies of other peo-ples’ wars, but until recently, anthropologistshave written little about militarism or inter-

national conflict. They have written still lessabout their own relations with the nationalsecurity state.

Yet the discipline of modern anthropol-ogy crystallized in the context of war. Inthe United States, anthropology emerged asthe state sought to understand and admin-ister native populations in the Indian wars(Borneman 1995). In England, Malinowski—a Pole, and therefore an enemy alien duringWorld War I—devised anthropology’s signa-ture methodology of extended participant ob-servation when he was advised, for his owngood, to extend his sojourn in the TrobriandIslands for the duration of the war.

Anthropologists’ choices of field sites andresearch projects were also often shaped bywar. Anthropologists have generally soughtto avoid field sites engulfed by war, andin the Cold War, they found the territoryof the Soviet bloc largely off limits even asthey had easy access to countries controlledby the Western powers (Lutz 1999). Mean-while, from World War II through the firstdecades of the Cold War many anthropolo-gists were sponsored by the national securitystate to carry out research on places of in-terest to the national security state, whereasothers learned during the McCarthyist yearsnot to ask the wrong kinds of questions aboutthe Cold War order (Lutz 1999; Nader 1997;Price 1998, 2002a, 2004; Yans-McLaughlin1986). During World War II, a small num-ber of anthropologists were also, in one of themore shameful episodes in the discipline’s his-tory, involved in the administration of intern-ment camps for Japanese Americans (Starn1986). Benedict’s (1989) World War II studyof Japanese national character is the classicexample of ethnographic work commissionedby the national security state. It was followedduring the Cold War by more anthropolog-ical studies of national character, by the riseof area studies, and by the emergence of apositivistic approach to cultural descriptionthat was favored by government agencies. (Foranalyses of the way the Cold War shaped theacademy more generally, see Chomsky et al.

156 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


1997, Edwards 1996, Leslie 1994, and Lowen1997).

The World War II generation of an-thropologists, their attitudes shaped by the“good war” against fascism, saw their workfor the national security state as relativelyunproblematic. By the Vietnam years anew generation of anthropologists—trained,ironically, thanks to the educational largessegenerated by the GI Bill and Cold War boomyears—began to question anthropology’s pri-vate bargains with the national security state.This generation had, by and large, no recordof military service1 and, in a reprise of FranzBoas’s (1919) critique of anthropologistswho doubled as spies during World War I,they questioned (and, according to theiropponents, exaggerated) anthropologists’covert work in the service of counterin-surgency in Latin America and SoutheastAsia in the 1960s (Berreman 1968; Nader1997; Price 2000, 2004; Wakin 1992; Wolf& Jorgenson 1970). Anthropology after the1960s embodied a strong sentiment againstwar and militarism, and the 1971 AmericanAnthropological Association Principles ofProfessional Responsibility (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm) took aclear stand against the kind of covert anthro-pological work the national security state hadsponsored in the past.

Given the geopolitical context in whichanthropology grew to maturity, some strik-ing gaps exist in the targets of the ethno-graphic gaze during the Cold War. Anthro-pologists hardly wrote about nuclear weapons,about the U.S. military bases in the coun-tries where they did their fieldwork, or aboutthe Cold War as a cultural system. And, al-though the Vietnam War fractured the Amer-ican Anthropological Association in the late

1Few contemporary anthropologists have much militaryexperience. One notable exception is the Israeli anthropol-ogist and military officer Ben-Ari (1989, 1998). Lt. ColonelDavid Kilcullen (see Kilcullen 2006), who was appointedchief adviser to the U.S. military on counterinsurgency inIraq in 2007, was described as an anthropologist in theNew Yorker (Packer 2006), although his PhD is in politicalscience.

1960s, anthropologists have written very lit-tle about Vietnamese culture or about theVietnam War—the defining event for the gen-eration of anthropologists now nearing retire-ment (although see Kwon 2006 and Petersen1992). Instead, during the Cold War, anthro-pologists struck an informal bargain with po-litical scientists, ceding to them the interna-tional state system while taking for themselvesthe “tribal zone.”

This article proceeds by surveying brieflythe anthropological work on “primitive war”during the high Cold War years, arguing thatsuch work did not so much escape the ColdWar as displace its concerns onto the “sav-age slot.” As the Cold War ended, anthropol-ogists began to dissolve the traditional divi-sion of labor with political science and to writeabout war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, nuclearweapons, and the international security sys-tem as a whole. More recently, September11, 2001, and the emergence of the so-calledwar on terror have raised anew the questionof whether anthropologists should consult forthe national security state.

AGGRESSION, HUMANNATURE, AND PRIMITIVE WAR

Although such estimates are notoriouslyproblematic, according to Ferguson (2006),180 million people died in war in the twen-tieth century. As humanity was engulfed bytwo world wars, then developed weapons ca-pable of extinguishing all human life, thequestion of whether human beings were in-herently warlike became increasingly urgent.As early as 1932, in a famous exchange withEinstein, Freud wrote that war was groundedin intertwined noble and destructive impulsesand was essential to human nature. In 1940Margaret Mead, optimistic despite the erup-tion of world war in Europe, staked out theother end of the debate. She argued that vi-olence might be universal, but war was a cul-tural institution, not an instinct, and couldbe uninvented. These two short pieces de-fined early on the basic positions in the

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 157

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


anthropological debate on war, violence, andhuman nature.

During the high Cold War years anthro-pologists did not make the Cold War and itstributary conflicts a direct object of study, butthey refracted the supreme question raised bythe Cold War and the arms race—“can we getalong?”—into their mappings of the “savageslot.” Often assuming that “primitive man”was man in his “natural” state, anthropolo-gists scoured the ethnographic horizon forwarlike and peaceful cultures, argued aboutthe reasons for war in “simple” societies, andin keeping with the evolutionist strand in an-thropology after the 1950s, debated the evolu-tion of war from acephalous to state societies.(For reviews of the voluminous literature pro-duced, see Ferguson 1989, 1990b; Groebel& Hinde 1989; Nagengast 1994; Otterbein2000; Reyna & Downs 1994; Simons 1999;Sponsel 2000; and Whitehead 2000.)

Although societies (allegedly) without warwere scarce in the ethnographic record andonly became scarcer as the twentieth cen-tury progressed, they generated a dispro-portionate amount of ethnography (Dentan1968, Gregor 1996, Howell & Willis 1989,Lee 1984, Montagu 1978, Robarchek 1977,Sponsel & Gregor 1994, Thomas 1958,Turnbull 1961). This literature sometimes ig-nored Mead’s vital distinction between vio-lence and war, arguing that its ethnographicsubjects not only fought no wars, but also werenonviolent. In the Cold War context, this lit-erature on peaceful societies represented a dis-placed critique of the status quo, the salvage ofa different potentiality in human nature. Theelaboration of this literature paradoxically in-tensified just as these peaceful cultures weredisappearing into the mists of ethnohistory.

The anthropological record also producedbountiful evidence of the human predilectionfor violence and war (See, e.g., Boehm 1984;Chagnon 1983, 1988; Ferguson & Whitehead1992; Haas 1990; Keiser 1991; Otterbein2000; Rosaldo 1980). With the rise of socio-biology in the 1970s and 1980s, debates in-creasingly turned on the question of whether

war was biologically encoded by evolution,with Chagnon (1988) (in)famously arguingfrom his Yanomamo data that war maximized“inclusive fitness” for the victors. Such argu-ments offered an interesting parallel to therise in the international relations literatureof “realist” theories that used the rhetoric ofscience to naturalize war as inherent to aninternational system conceived as a Darwin-ist jungle (e.g., Waltz 1979). The debate be-tween Chagnon and his critics extended intothe 1990s and beyond, with questions abouthuman nature and war often focused on arcanedetails about the dwindling Yanomami peo-ple of the Amazonian rainforest. Quite asidefrom allegations of unreliability in Chagnon’sdata-gathering (Borofsky 2005, Lizot & Dart1994, Tierney 2000), critics questioned thenotion that the Yanomami were an untouchedpeople representing human nature in its es-sential state. Ferguson (1990a, 1995) arguedthat Chagnon, by introducing weaponry andscarce resources worth fighting over, pro-voked the fighting he claimed to have discov-ered and that this represented a subset of abroader process whereby state encroachmentproduced war in the “tribal zone.” The vi-olence modern researchers claimed as essen-tial to the primitive, and therefore the human,condition was a misrecognized artifact of themilitarizing processes of the Western statesystem. By the 1990s, with increasing accep-tance that “primitive war” could not be under-stood apart from the colonial encounter, dis-cussions took an evolutionist turn (Carneiro1994, Ember & Ember 1992, Ferguson &Whitehead 1992, Simons 1999, Otterbein2000). A lively debate also ensued aboutTurney-High’s (1991) thesis that states fightinstrumentally for land and resources, gener-ating high casualties, whereas “primitive war”is often ritualized conflict about honor andstatus, with few casualties.

THE END OF THE COLD WAR

Starn (1991) argues that Andeanist anthropol-ogists were blindsided by the emergence of the

158 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Maoist Shining Path insurgency in 1980s Perubecause they had been attending too closelyto traditional cultural forms to notice the backstory of conflict, violence, and poverty in theirfield sites. One could make a similar argu-ment about anthropology’s myopia about mil-itarism for much of the Cold War until mil-itarism, terror, and violence finally began tocome into anthropological focus in the 1980s.This change was partly because communal vi-olence and terror in ethnographic sites suchas Sri Lanka and Latin or Central Americawere becoming impossible to overlook, andpartly because theoretical shifts in anthropol-ogy in the 1980s authorized the investigationof new subjects, often by a generation of an-thropologists who had come of age during orafter the Vietnam War. The end of the ColdWar also produced new structures of conflictin the international system, stimulating newtheoretical and empirical work in response.

Early attempts to document and theo-rize terror and communal violence includeBenjamin & Demarest (1988), Manz (1988),and Taussig (1984, 1986) on Latin America;Das (1990), Kapferer (1988), and Tambiah(1986) on South Asia; Feldman (1991) andSluka (1989) on Northern Ireland; and Lan(1985) on guerilla warfare in Africa. Theseyears also saw attempts to apply some tradi-tional anthropological theories to the inter-national security system as a whole (Foster &Rubinstein 1986, Rubinstein & Foster 1997,Turner & Pitt 1989), as well as compendiaon war, violence, and torture (Nordstrom &Martin 1992, Nordstrom & Robben 1995).Something Nordstrom (1997) called “war-zone culture” and “warscapes” and Gusterson(2004) called “securityscapes” was cominginto ethnographic focus.

Depressingly, the most influential theo-rizations of the new global order emergingfrom the ashes of the Cold War were bysuch popular writers as Huntington (1996)and Kaplan (2001). (Kaplan’s book grew outof a 1994 Atlantic Monthly article that, re-markably, the State Department faxed to ev-ery U.S. embassy in the world.) Huntington

argued that Cold War bipolarity would besucceeded by a seven-cornered struggle be-tween civilizations, exacerbated by globaliza-tion, that would throw the West into conflictwith China and the Islamic world. Kaplanforesaw a combination of weak political struc-tures, resource depletion, and overpopula-tion in the Third World generating a tidalwave of anarchy that would wash up againstthe West (compare Homer-Dixon 2001). Al-though anthropologists criticized Hunting-ton and Kaplan for reifying cultural traditions,for gross overgeneralization, and for exagger-ating the extent of anarchy and violence in theThird World (Besteman & Gusterson 2005;Simons 1999, p. 92), they did not produce ri-val general theories. Still, the post–Cold Waryears saw some fine anthropological studiesof militarization, war, and violence that, takentogether, represent a major ethnographic andtheoretical advance. This body of work fo-cused on ethnic violence and genocide; mem-ory work; the phenomenology of violence;nuclear weapons and, at last, Americanmilitarism.

ETHNIC VIOLENCE ANDGENOCIDE

The political scientist Kaldor (1999) arguesthat the 1990s saw the emergence, especiallyin Africa and Eastern Europe, of what shecalls “new war,” characterized by “a blurringof the distinctions between war . . . organizedcrime . . . and large-scale violations of humanrights” (p. 2). Kaldor argues that “new war”was produced by the confluence of neolib-eral globalization and the end of the disci-pline enforced by Cold War bipolarity. Glob-alization eroded the state’s old monopolyof legitimate violence from above—throughthe “transnationalization of military forces”(p. 4)—and from below, as force was in-creasingly privatized (compare Singer 2004).The old legitimating ideologies of the ColdWar were replaced by reinvented ethnona-tionalisms, and wars took shape in which thestake was identity. Partly because these wars


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


sought to settle the identities of entire pop-ulations, 80%–90% of the casualties werecivilian—the exact inverse of the military-civilian casualty ratio at the start of the twen-tieth century. Such wars have taken placein former Yugoslavia (Bringa 1993; Denich1994; Hayden 1996, 2000; Olujic 1998),Chechnya (Rigi 2007, Tishkov 2004), SriLanka (Daniel 1996, Tambiah 1996), Somalia(Besteman 1996a,b, 1999; Lewis 1998), andRwanda/Burundi (Barnett 1999; Gourevitch1999; Malkki 1995, 1996; Mamdani 2002;Taylor 1999, 2002).

Much of the work on these wars critiquedthe popular common sense, based on essen-tialist notions of identity, that such wars werecaused by an eruption of ancient tribal iden-tities in countries that were somehow defi-cient in their pursuit of modernity. Malkki(1995, 1996) shows how hard Hutu and Tutsihad to work to tell each other apart. Denich(1994) and Hayden (1996, 2000) argue thatethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia was so viciousprecisely because many parts of the Fed-eration had become so multiethnic that ittook great violence to disaggregate popula-tions, and Bringa (1993) offers vivid docu-mentary evidence of Croats moving withina few months from convivial friendship withtheir Muslim neighbors to burning downtheir houses. Meanwhile Appadurai (2002),Borneman (1998), and Hayden (2000) sug-gest that mass rape is often used to defileand separate minority populations in eth-nically mixed, contested territory. Besteman(1996a,b, 1999) argues that clan mobilizationin Somalia glossed more powerful and novelfracture lines of class and race, and the lit-erary journalist Gourevitch (1999) suggeststhat the 1994 Hutu slaughter of ∼800,000Tutsis in Rwanda, largely with machetes, wasthe product of Belgian colonial divide-and-rule policies, the social agonies caused bystructural adjustment, and malevolent politi-cal entrepreneurship more than ancient tribalhatreds. This body of work is subtle and his-torically sensitive in its deconstruction of pop-ular deterministic assumptions about ancient

hatreds (Appadurai 2002). Still, it begs thequestion of why identities that, according tothis literature, are manufactured and contin-gent are nevertheless so powerful in mobi-lizing populations for mass murder, and whywhen nations fractured in the 1990s they sooften did so along ethnic lines.

It is no coincidence that these years, whengenocide reemerged in central Europe andAfrica, saw a flurry of articles on the NaziHolocaust (Connor 1989; Lewin 1992, 1993;Wolf 2002; see also Kuper 1981, 1990). Atthe same time Hinton (1998, 2002a,b, 2004)produced a powerful body of work, centeredon the Cambodian genocide under Pol Pot(which killed 1.5–3 million out of a populationof 7 million), revisiting some of the psycho-logical lessons to emerge from the Nazi holo-caust about processes of dehumanization andobedience to authority and integrating themwith an analysis of particular Cambodiancultural processes that facilitated genocide—although the cultural internalism of this ana-lytic frame arguably goes too far in absolvingthe United States of its responsibility for thisAsian holocaust (see Shawcross 1979).

MEMORY WORK

War and memory are inextricably bound. Mo-bilization for war often involves a collectivemobilization of memory about past injuries(Wallace 1968); meanwhile the end of war in-volves the selective memorialization and for-getting of war’s pains (Fussell 1975, Scarry1985, Shaw 2007, Sturken 1997, Yoneyama1999). Arextaga (1997), Denich (1994), andHinton (1998, 2004), writing about Ireland,Yugoslavia, and Cambodia, emphasize the im-portance of atrocity memories in creatingwhat Denich calls a sense of “unfinished busi-ness” that justifies the resort to war. Suchmemories can be exploited by leaders seek-ing war. They often attach to sites of pastatrocities, especially if bodies are exhumed(Aretxaga 1997, Denich 1994, Sanford 2004).Refugee communities may play a particularlyimportant role in keeping alive memories of

160 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


past injuries (Ballinger 2003; Bryant 2004;Malkki 1995, 1996; Slyomovics 1998). Mean-while ethnic cleansing and genocide often in-volve a deliberate destruction of sites of col-lective memory and identity, as in the Serbs’targeting of cultural sites in Sarajevo in the1990s.

When fighting ends, collective memory ofwar and suffering is controlled through an in-stitutionalized interweaving of remembranceand, on the other hand, what Yoneyama (1999)calls “amnesic elisions” and Lifton & Mitchell(1995) call “historical cleansing.” This canoccur in civil conflicts through Truth andReconciliation Commissions, tried by SouthAfrica at the end of apartheid and in severalother countries subsequently. Such commis-sions mobilize the testimony of victims andexecutioners to create a new public memoryarchive that acknowledges past injuries, al-though the process is often in danger of coop-tion by regimes whose legitimacy rests on se-lective disclosure. Official narratives at theend of war always stand in ambiguous rela-tion to subcultural performances of memorythat may carry more emotional force (Shaw2007)—as with Moroccan human rights ac-tivists’ mock trials and poetry documented bySlyomovics (2005), or the Vietnamese villagerituals analyzed by Kwon (2006) to honor thewomen and children killed in the VietnamWar2 whose deaths were seen by the govern-ment as insufficiently heroic.

War memories are also institutionalizedthrough official memorials and museums.These are inevitably partial in their memori-alization of suffering. Thus the Vietnam WarMemorial in Washington, DC, erases the suf-fering of the Vietnamese (Sturken 1997), theHiroshima Memorial erases the South Koreanvictims of the Bomb (Yoneyama 1999), andthe Holocaust Museum in Washington erasesmuch non-Jewish suffering in the Holocaust(Linenthal 2001). Museums and memorialscan provoke intense conflict and revitalizeinjured nationalisms, especially among war

2Or, as the Vietnamese call it, the “American War.”

survivors, as in controversies over Japanesepoliticians’ visits to World War II Shintoshrines and in the public pillory and even-tual collapse of the Smithsonian Museum’sattempted 1995 exhibit on Hiroshima andthe end of World War II (Lifton & Mitchell1995, Linenthal & Englehardt 1996, Nobile1995). Once battlegrounds and memorialslose their eruptive emotional power, they be-come “sanitized” sites of “war tourism” (Lisle2000).

Anthropologists have been doing theirown memory work, often feeling a duty tobear witness to suffering endured by com-munities they studied. Especially in Centraland Latin America, after two decades markedby widespread torture, death squad activity,and guerilla insurgency, some anthropologistshave sought (often at risk to themselves) to en-sure that their writing speaks for the dead andbereaved and does not contribute to the cul-ture of silence that often enabled the killingin the 1980s and 1990s (Binford 1996; Daniel1996; Falla 1994; Green 1994, 1999; Manz1988, 2005; Sanford 2004; Schirmer 1998;Sluka 2000; Suarez-Orozco 1990; Warren1993). Such work often builds on and revoicesin a more theoretical register an indigenoustradition of “testimonio”—vivid, first-personeyewitness accounts of terror and violence(such as Menchu et al. 1987).

FEAR AS A WAY OF LIFE

Recent years have seen considerable work byanthropologists on what we might call thephenomenology of war and violence: how vi-olence works as a set of cultural practices andwhat it does to people to live in a societywracked by civil war or state-sponsored ter-ror (Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois 2003).

In a much-cited article Green (1994) says“routinization allows people to live in achronic state of fear with a facade of nor-malcy, while the terror, at the same time, per-meates and shreds the social fabric” (p. 231).We now know that in societies where fear is“a way of life” one often finds the following


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


phenomena: a disabling uncertainty as to whatmight get one killed and which neighbors andfriends might turn into enemies (Strathernet al. 2005); a sense of “loss of the future”(Nordstrom 2004, p. 59); the use of pain andterror to “hyperindividuate” and socially dis-connect victims (Daniel 1996, p. 144); a pub-lic culture of silence and denial about atroci-ties that are “public secrets” (Skidmore 2003,Warren 1993); a pervasive militarization ofdaily life often lived under surveillance (Orr2004, Stephen 2000); waves of violence that,taking people out of everyday mundane re-ality, create a perverse sense of communitasamong perpetrators (Feldman 1991, Tambiah1996); the sundering of families by death,forced conscription, or eviction (Green 1994,1999; Hinton 1996, 2004; Vine 2004); “bru-tal forms of bodily discovery” that “take thebody apart . . . to divine the enemy within”(Appadurai 2002, pp. 291–92; Feldman 1991);dead, mutilated, and tortured bodies intendedby the perpetrators as semiotic messages in acontext where victims experience terror andbodily suffering at the very boundaries ofrepresentability (Daniel 1996, Feldman 1991,Gusterson 1996); and exaggerated ideologiesof masculinity among perpetrators and thefeminization of male victims, often achievedin part by the rape of “their” women [Gill1997; Peteet 1991, 1994; Stephen 2000; seealso the extraordinary analysis of Nazi Freiko-rps gender identity by Theweleit (1987) andthe important body of work on gender andmilitarism by the prolific feminist interna-tional relations theorist Enloe (1983, 1990,1993, 2000, 2004)].

In situations of prolonged military occu-pation and resistance (in Northern Ireland,the West Bank, and Gaza, for example) suchconditions become internalized in processesof cultural reproduction. Arextaga (1997) andPeteet (1991, 1994) write about the ways inwhich prison detention and torture at thehands of security forces become rites of pas-sage into adulthood among subordinate popu-lations, often effecting shifts in the balance ofpower between the sexes and the generations

in the process. In the Occupied Territories,for example, the young men of the Intifadahave parlayed beatings and detentions intoenhanced authority within communities thatformerly accorded greater respect to an oldergeneration. Meanwhile, with ∼300,000 childsoldiers worldwide at the end of the twenti-eth century,3 weapons training and combat areincreasingly common teenage and even pre-teen experiences, especially in Africa (Singer2005).

Anthropologists have focused largely onthe world of terror’s victims. However, as“studying up” becomes more common, an-thropologists are writing about the culturalreality of the perpetrators (Bickford 2003,Feldman 1991, Gill 2004, Mahmood 1996,Schirmer 1998, Suarez-Orozco 1990). Al-though it is important work, Robben (1995)warns of the danger of “ethnographic seduc-tion” by military officers and torturers (seealso Gusterson 1993).

A decade that has seen increasing anthro-pological interest in globalization has alsoproduced more studies exploring the transna-tional linkages of cultures of violence andterror: Gill (2004) analyzes the training atthe U.S. School of the Americas of LatinAmerican military officers involved in humanrights violations. If such violations were oncelegitimated by the U.S. struggle against com-munism, the organizing frame is now the “waron drugs.” Nordstrom (1997, p. 5), saying“the whole concept of local wars is largely afiction,” explores the enabling of local wars bya globalized shadow economy of arms traffick-ers, diamond smugglers, and even nongovern-mental organization workers. Singer (2004)probes the connection between wars in theThird World and the recent growth of thenew mercenaries in the burgeoning militaryservices industry—an industry whose rise isundermining the monopoly on the legitimateuse of violence that Weber saw as essential tothe modern state.

3http://www.child-soldiers.org/childsoldiers/questions-and-answers

162 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND U.S.MILITARISM

From 1940 to 1996 the U.S. spent∼$5.5 trillion (in 1996 dollars) on nu-clear weapons (Schwartz 1998, p. 3), and yetanthropologists hardly wrote about thesepotentially omnicidal weapons until the ColdWar was almost over. When anthropologistsdid finally write about nuclear weapons, theyproduced, first, studies of what Kuletz (1998)calls the “geography of sacrifice” (largelyby indigenous peoples) inherent in nuclearweapons production, and second, studies ofthe culture of nuclear weapons scientists andwar planners.

U.S. nuclear weapons testing and pro-duction particularly harmed Pacific Islandersand residents of the American Southwest,who have suffered environmental contami-nation and high rates of cancer and birthdefects. Their plight has been documentedby Barker (2003), Johnston (2007), Kuletz(1998), Masco (2004a, 2006), and O’Rourke(1986). In the 1960s, U.S. plans to use hy-drogen bombs to excavate a harbor in Alaskaand a canal through Central America poseda gross danger to indigenous populations.These plans were halted by technical prob-lems and by an upsurge of activist opposition(Kirsch 2005, O’Neill 1995). The next gener-ation of antimilitary activists, in the 1980s, wasdocumented by Epstein (1991), Gusterson(1996), Krasniewicz (1992), Masco (1999,2006), and Wilson (1988), with McCaffrey(2002) studying the more recent upsurge ofprotest against the U.S. base in Vieques,Puerto Rico.

Anthropologists have not studied the nu-clear weapons programs in France, the UnitedKingdom, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel,although Abraham’s (1998) account of the In-dian program is anthropologically inflected.In the Soviet context Dalton et al. (1999),Garb (1997), and Garb & Komarova (2001)have written about the horrendous envi-ronmental damage wreaked by the Sovietnuclear weapons program, and Guillemin

(2001) has written on a deadly outbreak ofanthrax around the bioweapons facility inSverdlosk. (Other anthropological accountsof bioweapons include Guillemin 2006 andLakoff et al. 2004).

In the 1990s American nuclear weaponslaboratories were the subject of ethnographicstudies by Gusterson (1996, 2004, 2005),Masco (1999, 2002, 2004a,b, 2006), andMcNamara (2001). These ethnographies havefocused on the web of local relationshipswithin which weapons laboratories are em-bedded and on the dynamics of simula-tions in nuclear weapons scientists’ scien-tific practices—a theme also analyzed bythe sociologists of science, Eden (2005) andMacKenzie (1990). Nuclear ethnographers,with other social scientists, have also been in-terested in the public discourses that legiti-mate nuclear weapons (Chilton 1996, Cohn1987, Franklin 1988, Gusterson 1999, Klare1995, Manoff 1989, Nathanson 1988, Slayton2007, Taylor 1998).

Nuclear ethnography was part of the emer-gence, finally, of systematic anthropologicalwork on U.S. militarism itself—the unmarkedcategory. U.S. militarism was almost invisi-ble in anthropology until recent years, despitethe fact that the United States accounts forroughly 50% of all military spending and armssales in the world, while stationing half a mil-lion troops, contractors, intelligence agents,and their dependents on more than 700 over-seas bases in 130 countries ( Johnson 2004,2007; Lutz 1999, 2006). Militarism, work-ing through a “permanent war economy”(Melman 1974), provides a powerful set ofprocesses for structuring U.S. economy andsociety, organizing U.S. relationships with al-lies and adversaries, shaping the flow of in-formation in the public sphere, and mold-ing popular culture. In an important bodyof work Lutz (1999, 2002a,b, 2006) showshow military bases abroad exacerbate inequal-ity and human rights abuses while militarybases at home deplete local resource bases,inflect asymmetric race and gender relations,and create a privileged category of militarized


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


“supercitizens.” At the same time, militarycontracting shifts resources away from the oldindustrial heartland and from human needs(Markusen et al. 1991, Nash 1989, Peattie1988). Less tangible but equally damagingis the way militarist apologetics have dis-torted U.S. media coverage of internationalaffairs (Hannerz 2004, Herman & Chom-sky 2002, Gusterson 1999, MacArthur 1992,Pedelty 1995) and helped shape a degradedpopular culture saturated with racial and na-tionalist stereotypes, aestheticized destruc-tion, and images of violent hypermasculin-ity (Der Derian 2001, Feldman 1994, Gibson1994, Weber 2005). In this cultural milieu,the toxic combination of a smoldering back-lash against national humiliation in Vietnamand the hubris of being the world’s only su-perpower, aggravated by the injuries of 9/11,has produced a virulent militarist nationalismthat threatens both the American way of lifeand the stability of the international securitysystem (Bacevich 2005; Carroll 2006; Johnson2004, 2005; Gibson 1994).

If the deformative features of Americanmilitarism are being mapped by an emer-gent critical anthropology of militarism, re-cent years have seen the parallel emergenceof anthropology contracted to, enabled by, orin a broad sense allied with the military. Al-though such work is not always uncritical ofthe military, it is not grounded in a critiqueof militarism, and it is marked by the moreempirical orientation of contract work and byprivileged access to military institutions. Ex-amples include Hawkins (2001) on U.S. mil-itary culture in Germany, Simons (1997) onthe culture of U.S. special forces, Johnston’s(2005) study of weaknesses in the organiza-tional culture of the intelligence communityleading up to 9/11, and Frese & Harrell’s(2003) compendium on military culture.

9/11 AND BEYOND

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the “waron terror” that followed intensified Americanmilitarism while also stimulating both the

critical ethnography of militarism and mili-tary contract ethnography. 9/11 was followedby a massive attempt by scholars in many disci-plines, anthropology included, to make senseof the attacks. With the exception of Hirsch(2006) the anthropological literature this pro-duced (a special issue of Anthropological Quar-terly at the end of 2001; Kapferer 2004a,b;Tsing 2004) was largely ungrounded in long-term field research projects and tended to bemore sharp than deep.

Meanwhile, deciding that anthropologymight be to the “war on terror” what physicswas to the Cold War, the national secu-rity apparatus took a cultural turn (Packer2006). Some anthropologists respondedenthusiastically. Moos (2005) helped winCongressional funding for the Pat RobertsIntelligence Program (PRISP)—a sort ofROTC for spies—and McFate (2005a,b),calling anthropology a “discipline inventedto support warfighting in the tribal zone,”advocated weaponizing culture. The CIAand a plethora of military institutes, colleges,and contractors began advertising for an-thropologists, and a listserv emerged foranthropologists consulting for the military(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MilAnt Net/). Some anthropologists warnedthat such initiatives would compromise theopen exchange of knowledge within thediscipline, harm the research of all anthro-pologists by raising suspicions that they weresecretly consulting for the CIA, breach thecovenant of trust between ethnographers andinformants, and militarize a discipline moreoften aligned with social critique (Gonzalez2007; Gusterson & Price 2005; Price 2000,2002a,b). Not since World War II had mil-itary consulting been endorsed so publicly;not since Vietnam had it been condemned sofiercely.

These developments made clear that theexisting AAA ethics code is inadequate for asituation where anthropology is of great in-terest to the national security state and wherea sizeable community of “practicing anthro-pologists” may encounter ethical dilemmas ill

164 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


addressed by a code written largely for aca-demic anthropologists. New rules of the road,and a debate within the profession about theperils inherent in the militarization of our dis-cipline, are overdue.

CONCLUSION

In anthropology and cognate disciplines, arich body of theory has emerged to ana-lyze capitalism, (post)colonialism, globaliza-tion, and identity politics. By comparison,militarism is undertheorized. Mainstream se-curity studies, a field that arose in response tothe needs of the national security state, oftenoffers little more than weakly theorized, pu-tatively scientific, repetitive rationalizationsfor U.S. military policies. What we need isa body of work that offers us what we nowhave for capitalism, colonialism, and global-ization: a set of texts that analyze militarismin relation to nationalism, late modern cap-italism, media cultures, and the state whilemapping the ways in which militarism re-makes communities, public cultures, and theconsciousness of individual subjects in mul-tiple geographic and social locations. Mili-tarism, like capitalism, is a life world with itsown escalatory logic that takes different localforms while displaying fundamental underly-ing unities. Despite these underlying unities,local processes of militarization are invariablydefended as defensive reactions to someoneelse’s militarism from which they thereforediffer in moral character. One task for anthro-pological analysis is to unmask such ideologi-cal processes of legitimation. Besides the workdescribed here within anthropology, one seespartial theorizations of militarism elsewherewith which interested anthropologists mightengage. Thompson (1982) uses Marxism totheorize “exterminism.” Fornari (1975) the-orizes militarism from a Freudian perspec-

tive. Virilio (Virilio & Lotringer 1983, 1989)foregrounds speed and processes of media-tion as essential to today’s “pure war.” Gray(1997, 2005) and Ignatieff (2000) theorize theemergence of “postmodern war” and “virtualwar.” Sontag (2004) analyzes the ambiguityand instability of visual representations of war.Above all, anthropologists should read the ex-isting rich but neglected body of literaturein critical security studies (Campbell 1992;Der Derian 2001; Enloe 1983, 1990, 1993,2000, 2004; Gregory & Pred 2007; Klare2001; Krause & Williams 1996; Shapiro 1997;Shapiro & Alker 1996; Weldes et al. 1999).

More empirically, certain subjects are ur-gently in need of ethnographic study.

� In war-torn countries: life alongsidelandmines, the role of diasporic com-munities in inciting war, the culturalconsequences of childhood soldiering,war orphans, the new mercenary com-panies, suicide bombing and insurgency,the role of religion in combat, the ef-ficacy of truth and reconciliation com-missions, and resource conflicts andwar.

� Within the United States: veteransgroups; the cultural dynamics of basictraining; ROTC; military blogs; the de-bate on gays and the military; the SenateArmed Services Committee; militarycontractors and lobbyists; the milita-rization of public health since 9/11;video games; Hollywood war cultures;and activist campaigns against militaryrecruiting, landmines, and new weaponssystems.

Anthropology has much theoretical andempirical work to do to illuminate militarism,the source of so much suffering in the worldtoday. If we sell our skills to the national se-curity state, we will just become part of theproblem.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity ofthis review.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Robert Albro, Catherine Besteman, Andy Bickford and Catherine Lutz for com-menting on an earlier draft of this essay.

LITERATURE CITED

Abraham I. 1998. The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb. London: Zed BooksAppadurai A. 2002. Dead certainty: ethnic violence in the era of globalization. See Hinton

2002b, pp. 286–304Aretxaga B. 1997. Shattering Silence: Women, Nationalism and Political Subjectivity in Northern

Ireland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressBacevich A. 2005. The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. New York:

Oxford Univ. PressBallinger P. 2003. History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton Univ. PressBarker H. 2003. Bravo for the Marshallese: Regaining Control in a Post-Nuclear, Post-Colonial World.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ThomsonBarnett M. 1999. The UN security council, indifference, and genocide in Rwanda. Cult. An-

thropol. 12:551–78Ben-Ari E. 1989. Masks and soldiering: the Israeli Army and the Palestinian uprising. Cult.

Anthropol. 4:372–89Ben-Ari E. 1998. Mastering Soldiers: Conflict, Emotions and the Enemy in an Israeli Military Unit.

Oxford, UK: BerghahnBen-Ari E. 2004. The military and militarization in the United States. Am. Ethnol. 31:340–48Benedict R. 1989. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2nd ed.Benjamin P, Demarest W. 1988. The operation of a death squad in San Pedro La Laguna. In

Harvest of Violence, ed. R Carmack, pp. 119–54. Norman: Univ. Okla. PressBerreman G. 1968. Is anthropology alive? social responsibility in anthropology. Curr. Anthropol.

9:391–96Besteman C. 1996a. Representing violence and “othering” Somalia. Cult. Anthropol. 11:120–33Besteman C. 1996b. Violent politics and the politics of violence: the dissolution of the Somali

nation-state. Am. Ethnol. 23:579–96Besteman C. 1999. Unraveling Somalia: Race, Violence, and the Legacy of Slavery. Philadelphia:

Univ. Penn. PressBesteman C, Gusterson H, eds. 2005. Why America’s Top Pundits Are Wrong. Berkeley: Univ.

Calif. PressBickford A. 2003. The militarization of masculinity in the former German Democratic Repub-

lic. In Military Masculinities: Identity and the State, ed. PR Higate, pp. 157–73. Westport,CT: Praeger/Greenwood

Binford L. 1996. The El Mozote Massacre: Anthropology and Human Rights. Tucson: Univ. Ariz.Press

Boas F. 1919. Anthropologists as spies. The Nation, Dec. 20:797Boehm C. 1984. Blood Revenge: The Anthropology of Feuding in Montenegro and Other Tribal

Societies. Lawrence: Univ. Kans. PressBorneman J. 1995. American anthropology as foreign policy. Am. Anthropol. 97:663–72Borneman J. 1998. Subversions of International Order. Albany: State Univ. NY PressBorofsky R. 2005. Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. Press

166 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Bringa T. 1993. Bosnia: We Are all Neighbors. Granada TV Film Production ITV. Chicago, IL:Public Media/Films Inc. Video

Bryant R. 2004. Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus. London: I.B. TaurisCampbell D. 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity.

Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressCarneiro RL. 1994. War and peace: alternating realities in human history. See Reyna & Downs

1994, pp. 3–27Carroll J. 2006. House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power. Boston:

Houghton MifflinChagnon N. 1983. Yanomamo: The Fierce People. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. 3rd ed.Chagnon N. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science

239:985–92Chilton P. 1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House.

New York: LangChomsky N, Nader L, Wallerstein I, Lewontin RC, Katznelson I, Zinn H, eds. 1997. The Cold

War and the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years. New York: NewPress

Cohn C. 1987. Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals. Signs 12:687–718Connor J. 1989. From ghost dance to death camps: Nazi Germany as a crisis cult. Ethos 17:259–

88Dalton R, Garb P, Lovrich N, Pierce J, Whiteley J. 1999. Critical Masses: Citizens, Nu-

clear Weapons Production, and Environmental Destruction in the United States and Russia.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Daniel EV. 1996. Charred Lullabies: Chapters in an Anthropography of Violence. Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ. Press

Das V, ed. 1990. Mirrors of Violence: Communities, Riots and Survivors in South Asia. Delhi:Oxford Univ. Press

Denich B. 1994. Dismembering Yugoslavia: nationalist ideologies and the symbolic revival ofgenocide. Am. Ethnol. 21:367–90

Dentan R. 1968. The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston

Der Derian J. 2001. Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Net-work. Boulder, CO: Westview

Eden L. 2005. Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Weapons Devastation.Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

Edwards P. 1996. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Ember CR, Ember ME. 1992. Resource unpredictability, mistrust and war. J. Confl. Resolut.36:242–62

Enloe C. 1983. Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives. Boston: South EndPress

Enloe C. 1990. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Enloe C. 1993. The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley: Univ.Calif. Press

Enloe C. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

Enloe C. 2004. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Epstein B. 1991. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970sand 1980s. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Falla R. 1994. Massacres in the Jungle: Ixcan, Guatemala, 1975–1982. Boulder, CO: WestviewFeldman A. 1991. Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in Northern

Ireland. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressFeldman A. 1994. From Desert Storm to cultural anesthesia. Am. Ethnol. 21:404–18Ferguson N. 2006. The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Decline of the West.

New York: PenguinFerguson RB. 1989. Anthropology and war: theory, politics, ethics. See Turner & Pitt 1989,

pp. 141–59Ferguson RB. 1990a. Blood of the leviathan: western contact and warfare in Amazonia. Am.

Ethnol. 17:237–57Ferguson RB. 1990b. Explaining war. See Haas 1990, pp. 26–55Ferguson RB. 1995. Yanomami Warfare: A Political History. Santa Fe, NM: SARFerguson RB, Whitehead NL, eds. 1992. War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous

Warfare. Santa Fe, NM: SARFornari F. 1975. The Psychoanalysis of War. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Foster M, Rubinstein R, eds. 1986. Peace and War: Cross Cultural Perspectives. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction BooksFranklin H. 1988. War Stars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination. New York: Oxford

Univ. PressFrese P, Harrell M, eds. 2003. Anthropology and the United States Military: Coming of Age in the

Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave MacmillanFreud S. 1973 [1932]. Why war? In Aggression, Hostility, and Violence: Nature or Nurture?, ed.

T Maples, D Matheson, pp. 16–26. New York: Holt, Rinehart & WinstonFussell P. 1975. The Great War and Modern Memory. New York: Oxford Univ. PressGarb P. 1997. Complex problems and no clear solutions: difficulties of defining and assigning

culpability for radiation victimization in the Chelyabinsk region of Russia. In Life andDeath Matters, ed. B Johnston, pp. 307–29. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira

Garb P, Komarova G. 2001. Victims of “friendly fire” at Russia’s nuclear weapons sites. InViolent Environments, ed. N Peluso, M Watts, pp. 287–302. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ.Press

Gibson J. 1994. Warrior Dreams: Violence in Post-Manhood America. New York: Hill & WangGill L. 1997. Creating citizens, making men: the military and masculinity in Bolivia. Cult.

Anthropol. 12:527–50Gill L. 2004. The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas.

Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressGonzalez R. 2007. We must fight the militarization of anthropology. Chron. High. Educ. 53:B20Gourevitch P. 1999. We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families:

Stories From Rwanda. New York: PicadorGray CH. 1997. Postmodern War: The New Politics of Conflict. New York: GuilfordGray CH. 2005. Peace, War, and Computers. New York: RoutledgeGregory D, Pred A, eds. 2007. Violent Geographies: Fear, Terror, and Political Violence. New York:

RoutledgeGreen L. 1994. Fear as a way of life. Cult. Anthropol. 9:227–56Green L. 1999. Fear as a Way of Life: Mayan Widows in Rural Guatemala. New York: Columbia

Univ. PressGregor T, ed. 1996. A Natural History of Peace. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ. Press

168 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Groebel J, Hinde RA, eds. 1989. Aggression and War: Their Biological and Social Bases. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Guillemin J. 2001. Anthrax: The Investigation of a Deadly Outbreak. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressGuillemin J. 2006. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contem-

porary Bioterrorism. New York: Columbia Univ. PressGusterson H. 1993. Exploding anthropology’s canon in the fields of the bomb: ethnographic

writing on militarism. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 22:59–79Gusterson H. 1996. Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. PressGusterson H. 1999. Nuclear weapons and the other in the western imagination. Cult. Anthropol.

14:111–43Gusterson H. 2004. People of the Bomb: Portraits of America’s Nuclear Complex. Minneapolis, MN:

Univ. Minn. PressGusterson H. 2005. A Pedagogy of diminishing returns: scientific involution across three

generations of nuclear weapons science. In Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historicaland Contemporary Perspectives, ed. D Kaiser, pp. 75–109. Cambridge: MIT Press

Gusterson H, Price D. 2005. Spies in our midst. Anthropol. News 46:39–40Haas J, ed. 1990. The Anthropology of War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressHannerz U. 2004. Foreign News: Exploring the World of Foreign Correspondents. Chicago: Univ.

Chicago PressHawkins JP. 2001. Army of Hope, Army of Alienation: Culture and Contradiction in the American

Army Communities of Cold War Germany. Westport, CT: PraegerHayden R. 1996. Imagined communities and real victims: self-determination and ethnic cleans-

ing in Yugoslavia. Am. Ethnol. 23:783–801Hayden R. 2000. Rape and rape avoidance in ethno-national conflicts: sexual violence in limi-

nalized states. Am. Anthropol. 102:27–41Herman E, Chomsky N. 2002. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

New York: PantheonHinton A. 1996. Agents of death: explaining the Cambodian genocide in terms of psychosocial

dissonance. Am. Anthropol. 99:818–31Hinton A. 1998. A head for an eye: revenge in the Cambodian genocide. Am. Ethnol. 25:352–77Hinton A, ed. 2002a. Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

PressHinton A, ed. 2002b. Genocide: An Anthropological Reader. Malden, MA: BlackwellHinton A. 2004. Why Did They Kill?: Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

PressHirsch S. 2006. In the Moment of Greatest Calamity: Terrorism, Grief, and a Victim’s Quest for

Justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressHomer-Dixon T. 2001. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.

PressHowell S, Willis R, eds. 1989. Societies at Peace: Anthropological Perspectives. London: RoutledgeHuntington S. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York:

Simon & SchusterIgnatieff M. 2000. Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. New York: Metropolitan BooksJohnson C. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic. New

York: Metropolitan BooksJohnson C. 2007. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. New York: Metropolitan

Books


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Johnston B, ed. 2007. Half-Lives and Half-Truths: Confronting the Radioactive Legacies of the ColdWar. Santa Fe, NM: SAR

Johnston R. 2005. Analytic Culture in the United States Intelligence Community: An EthnographicStudy. Washington, DC: GPO

Kaldor M. 1999. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge, UK: PolityPress

Kapferer B. 1988. Legends of People, Myths of State: Violence, Intolerance, and Political Culture inSri Lanka and Australia. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press

Kapferer B, ed. 2004a. State, Sovereignty, War: Civil Violence in Emerging Global Realities. NewYork: Berghahn

Kapferer B. 2004b. The World Trade Center and Global Crisis: Some Critical Perspectives. NewYork: Berghahn

Kaplan R. 2001. The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post-Cold War. New York:Vintage

Keiser L. 1991. Friend by Day, Enemy by Night. New York: Holt, Rinehart & WinstonKilcullen D. 2006. Twenty-eight articles: fundamentals of company-level counterinsurgency.

Mil. Rev. May–June:103–8Kirsch S. 2005. Proving Grounds: Project Plowshare and the Unrealized Dream of Nuclear Earth-

moving. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. PressKlare M. 1995. Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy. New

York: Hill & WangKlare M. 2001. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York: MetropolitanKrasniewicz L. 1992. Nuclear Summer: The Clash of Communities at the Seneca Women’s Peace

Encampment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. PressKrause K, Williams M, eds. 1996. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. Minneapolis:

Univ. Minnesota PressKuletz V. 1998. Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West. New York: RoutledgeKuper L. 1981. Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.

PressKuper L. 1990. The genocidal state: an overview. In State Violence and Ethnicity, ed. PL van

den Berghe, pp. 19–51. Boulder: Univ. Colo. PressKwon H. 2006. After the Massacre: Commemoration and Consolation in Ha My and My Lai.

Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressLakoff A, Rabinow P, Collier S. 2004. Biosecurity: proposal for an anthropology of the con-

temporary. Anthropol. Today 20:3–7Lan D. 1985. Guns and Rain: Guerillas and Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

PressLee R. 1984. The Dobe !Kung. New York: Holt, Rinehart & WinstonLeslie S. 1994. The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at

MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia Univ. PressLewin C. 1992. The holocaust: anthropological possibilities and the dilemma of representation.

Am. Anthropol. 94:161–66Lewin C. 1993. Negotiated selves in the holocaust. Ethos 21:295–318Lewis IM. 1998. Doing violence to ethnography: a response to Catherine Besteman’s “Repre-

senting violence and ‘othering’ Somalia”? Cult. Anthropol. 13:100–8Lifton R, Mitchell G. 1995. Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial. New York: PutnamLinenthal ET. 2001. Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America’s Holocaust Museum.

New York: Columbia Univ. Press

170 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Linenthal ET, Englehardt T, eds. 1996. History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for theAmerican Past. New York: Metropolitan

Lisle D. 2000. Consuming danger: reimagining the war/tourism divide. Alternatives 25:91–116Lizot J, Dart S. 1994. On warfare: an answer to N.A. Chagnon. Am. Ethnol. 21:845–62Lowen R. 1997. Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. PressLutz C. 1999. Ethnography at the war century’s end. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 28:610–19Lutz C. 2002a. Homefront: A Military City and the American Twentieth Century. Boston: BeaconLutz C. 2002b. Making war at home in the United States: militarization and the current crisis.

Am. Anthropol. 104:723–35Lutz C. 2006. Empire is in the details. Am. Ethnol. 33:593–611MacArthur J. 1992. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. New York: Hill &

WangMackenzie D. 1990. Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance.

Cambridge, MA: MIT PressMahmood CK. 1996. Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dialogues with Sikh Militants. Philadelphia:

Univ. Penn. PressMalkki L. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, memory and National Cosmology Among Hutu Refugees

in Tanzania. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressMalkki L. 1996. Speechless emissaries: refugees, humanitarianism and dehistoricization? Cult.

Anthropol. 11:377–404Mamdani M. 2002. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in

Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressManoff R. 1989. Modes of war and modes of address: the text of SDI. J. Commun. 39:59–83Manz B. 1988. Refugees of a Hidden War: The Aftermath of Counterinsurgency in Guatemala.

Albany: State Univ. NY PressManz B. 2005. Paradise in Ashes: A Guatemalan Journey of Courage, Terror, and Hope. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. PressMarkusen A, Hall P, Dietrich S. 1991. The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial

America. New York: Oxford Univ. PressMasco J. 1999. States of insecurity: plutonium and postcold war anxiety in New Mexico. See

Weldes et al. 1999, pp. 203–31Masco J. 2002. Lie detectors: on secrets and hypersecurity in Los Alamos. Public Cult. 14:441–67Masco J. 2004a. Mutant ecologies: radioactive life in postcold war New Mexico. Cult. Anthropol.

19:517–50Masco J. 2004b. Nuclear technoaesthetics: sensory politics from trinity to the virtual bomb in

Los Alamos. Am. Ethnol. 31:349–73Masco J. 2006. The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressMcCaffrey KT. 2002. Military Power and Popular Protest: The U.S. Navy in Viecques, Puerto Rico.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. PressMcFate M. 2005a. The military utility of understanding adversary culture. Jt. Force Q. 38:42–48McFate M. 2005b. Iraq: the social context of IEDs. Mil. Rev., May-June:37–40McNamara L. 2001. Ways of knowing about nuclear weapons. PhD thesis. Univ. New Mex.,

AlbuquerqueMead M. 1940. War is only an invention—not a biological necessity. Asia 40:402–5Melman S. 1974. The Permanent War Economy. New York: TouchstoneMenchu R, Burgos-Debray A, Wright A. 1987. I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in

Guatemala. New York: Verso


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Montagu A, ed. 1978. Learning Non-Aggression: The Experience of Non-Literate Societies. Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press

Moos F. 2005. Some thoughts on anthropological ethics and today’s conflicts. Anthropol. News46:40–42

Nader L. 1997. The phantom factor: impact of the Cold War on anthropology. See Chomskyet al. 1997, pp. 107–46

Nagengast C. 1994. Violence, terror and the crisis of the state. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:109–36Nash J. 1989. From Tank Town to High Tech: The Clash of Community and Industrial Cycles. Albany:

State Univ. NY PressNathanson C. 1988. The social construction of the Soviet threat. Alternatives 13:443–83Nobile P, ed. 1995. Judgment at the Smithsonian. New York: Marlowe & Co.Nordstrom C. 1997. A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. PressNordstrom C. 2004. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profiteering in the Twenty-

First Century. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressNordstrom C, Martin J, eds. 1992. The Paths to Domination, Resistance, and Terror. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. PressNordstrom C, Robben A, eds. 1995. Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and

Survival. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressOlujic M. 1998. Embodiment of terror: gendered violence in peacetime and wartime in Croatia

and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Med. Anthropol. Q. 12:31–50O’Neill D. 1995. The Firecracker Boys. New York: St. Martin’s GriffinO’Rourke D. 1986. Half-Life: A Parable for the Nuclear Age. Los Angeles: Direct CinemaOrr J. 2004. The militarization of inner space. Crit. Sociol. 30:451–81Otterbein K. 2000. A history of research on warfare in anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 101:794–

805Packer G. 2006. Knowing the enemy: Can social scientists redefine the “war on terror”? New

Yorker, Dec. 18:60–69Peattie L. 1988. Economic conversion as a set of organizing ideas. Bull. Peace Propos. 19:11–20Pedelty M. 1995. War Stories: The Culture of Foreign Correspondents. New York: RoutledgePeteet J. 1991. Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance Movement. New York:

Columbia Univ. PressPeteet J. 1994. Male gender and rituals of resistance in the Palestinian “Intifada”: a cultural

politics of violence. Am. Ethnol. 21:31–49Petersen G. 1992. The Vietnam War as an exemplar of American culture. Dialect. Anthropol.

17:217–23Price D. 1998. Gregory Bateson and the OSS; World War II and Bateson’s assessment of

applied anthropology. Hum. Organ. 57:379–84Price D. 2000. Anthropologists as spies. The Nation, Nov. 20:24–27Price D. 2002a. Interlopers and invited guests: on anthropology’s witting and unwitting links

to intelligence agencies. Anthropol. Today 18:16–21Price D. 2002b. Past wars, present dangers, future anthropologies. Anthropol. Today 18:3–5Price D. 2004. Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist An-

thropologists. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressReyna SP, Downs RE, eds. 1994. Studying War: Anthropological Perspectives. Langhorne, PA:

Gordon & BreachRigi J. 2007. The war in Chechnya: the chaotic mode of domination, violence and bare life in

the post-Soviet context. Crit. Anthropol. 27(1):37–62Robarchek C. 1977. Frustration, aggression, and the nonviolent Semai. Am. Ethnol. 4:762–79

172 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Robben A. 1995. The politics of truth and emotion among victims and perpetrators of violence.See Nordstrom & Robben 1995, pp. 81–103

Rosaldo R. 1980. Ilongot Headhunting, 1883–1974. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. PressRubinstein RA, Foster ML, eds. 1997. The Social Dynamics of Peace and Conflict: Culture in

International Security. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/HuntSanford V. 2004. Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala. New York: PalgraveScarry E. 1985. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Oxford: Oxford Univ.

PressScheper-Hughes N, Bourgois P, eds. 2003. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Malden,

MA: BlackwellSchirmer J. 1998. The Guatemala Military Project: A Violence Called Democracy. Philadelphia:

Univ. Penn. PressSchwartz S, ed. 1998. Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since

1940. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. PressShapiro M. 1997. Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.

PressShapiro M, Alker H, eds. 1996. Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities.

Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressShaw R. 2007. Displacing violence: making pentecostal memory in postwar Sierra Leone. Cult.

Anthropol. 22:66–93Shawcross W. 1979. Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia. New York: Simon

& SchusterSimons A. 1997. The Company They Keep: Life Inside the U.S. Army Special Forces. New York:

Free PressSimons A. 1999. War: Back to the future. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:73–108Singer P. 2004. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell Univ. PressSinger P. 2005. Children at War. New York: PantheonSkidmore M. 2003. Darker than midnight: fear, vulnerability, and terror making in urban

Burma (Myanmar). Am. Ethnol. 30(1):5–21Slayton R. 2007. Discursive choices: Boycotting star wars between science and politics. Soc.

Stud. Sci. 37:27–66Sluka J. 1989. Hearts and Minds, Water and Fish: Support for the IRA and INLA in a Northern

Irish Ghetto. Greenwich, CT: JAISluka J, ed. 2000. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. PressSlyomovics S. 1998. The Object of Memory: Arab and Jew Narrate the Palestinian Village.

Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. PressSlyomovics S. 2005. The Performance of Human Rights in Morocco. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.

PressSontag S. 2004. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: PenguinSponsel LE. 2000. Response to Otterbein. Am. Anthropol. 102:837–41Sponsel LE, Gregor T, eds. 1994. The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence. Boulder, CO:

WestviewStarn O. 1986. Engineering internment: anthropologists and the war relocation authority. Am.

Ethnol. 13:700–20Starn O. 1991. Missing the revolution: anthropologists and the war in Peru? Cult. Anthropol.

6:63–91Stephen L. 2000. The construction of indigenous suspects: militarization and the gendered

and ethnic dynamics of human rights abuses in southern Mexico. Am. Ethnol. 26:822–42


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Strathern A, Stewart PJ, Whitehead NL, eds. 2005. Terror and Violence: Imagination and theUnimaginable. London: Pluto

Sturken M. 1997. Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politicsof Remembering. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Suarez-Orozco M. 1990. Speaking of the unspeakable: toward a psycho-social understandingof responses to terror. Ethos 18:353–83

Tambiah S. 1986. Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy. Chicago: Univ.Chicago Press

Tambiah S. 1996. Leveling Crowds: Ethnonationalist Conflicts and Collective Violence in South Asia.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Taussig M. 1984. Culture of terror, space of death, Roger Casement and the explanation oftorture. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 26:467–97

Taussig M. 1986. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Taylor B. 1998. Nuclear weapons and communication studies: a review essay. West. J. Commun.62(3):300–15

Taylor C. 1999. Sacrifice as Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994. New York: BergTaylor C. 2002. The cultural face of terror in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. See Hinton

2002a, pp. 137–78Theweleit K. 1987. Male Fantasies, Vol. 1: Women, Floods, Bodies, History. Minneapolis: Univ.

Minn. PressThomas EM. 1958. The Harmless People. New York: Random HouseThompson EP. 1982. Notes on exterminism, the last stage of civilization. In Exterminism and

Cold War, ed. New Left Rev. 121:1–34. London: VersoTierney P. 2000. Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon.

New York: NortonTishkov V. 2004. Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.Tsing A, ed. 2004. Shock and Awe: War on Words. Santa Cruz, CA: New Pacifica PressTurnbull C. 1961. The Forest People. New York: Simon & SchusterTurner P, Pitt D, eds. 1989. The Anthropology of War and Peace: Perspectives on the Nuclear Age.

South Hadley, MA: Begin & GarveyTurney-High H. 1991. Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts. Columbia: Univ. S.C. Press. 2nd

ed.Vine D. 2004. War and forced migration in the Indian Ocean: the U.S. military base at Diego

Garcia. Int. Migrat. 42(3):111–43Virilio P. 1989. War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception. London: VersoVirilio P, Lotringer S. 1983. Pure War. New York: Semiotext(e)Wakin E. 1992. Anthropology Goes to War: Professional Ethics and Counterinsurgency in Thailand.

Madison: Univ. Wis. Cent. SE Asian Stud. Monogr. No. 7Wallace AFC. 1968. Psychological preparations for war. In War: The Anthropology of Armed

Conflict and Aggression, ed. M Fried, M Harris, R Murphy, pp. 173–82. Garden City, NY:Nat. Hist. Press

Waltz K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random HouseWarren K. 1993. Interpreting la violencia in Guatemala: shapes of Mayan silence and resistance.

In The Violence Within: Cultural and Political Opposition in Divided Nations, ed. K Warren,pp. 25–56. Boulder, CO: Westview

Weber C. 2005. Imagining America at War: Morality, Politics, and Film. London: RoutledgeWeldes J, Laffey M, Gusterson H, Duvall R, eds. 1999. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities,

and the Production of Danger. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

174 Gusterson

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Whitehead N. 2000. A history of research on warfare in anthropology—reply to KeithOtterbein. Am. Anthropol. 102:834–37

Wilson L. 1988. Power and epistemology: rethinking ethnography at Greenham. In Anthro-pology for the ‘90s, ed. J Cole, pp. 42–58. New York: Free Press

Wolf E. 2002. National socialist Germany. See Hinton 2002b, pp. 192–208Wolf E, Jorgenson J. 1970. Anthropology on the warpath in Thailand. New York Rev. Books,

Nov. 19:26–35Yans-McLaughlin V. 1986. Science, democracy, and ethics: mobilizing culture and personality

for World War II. In Malinowski, Rivers, Benedict and Others: Essays on Culture and Personality,ed. G Stocking, pp. 184–217. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press

Yoneyama L. 1999. Hiroshima Traces: Time, Space and the Dialectics of Memory. Berkeley: Univ.Calif. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 36, 2007Contents

Prefatory Chapter

Overview: Sixty Years in AnthropologyFredrik Barth � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �1

Archaeology

The Archaeology of Religious RitualLars Fogelin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55

Çatalhöyük in the Context of the Middle Eastern NeolithicIan Hodder � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �105

The Archaeology of Sudan and NubiaDavid N. Edwards � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �211

A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques intoArchaeological InterpretationA. Mark Pollard and Peter Bray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �245

Biological Anthropology

Evolutionary MedicineWenda R. Trevathan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �139

Genomic Comparisons of Humans and ChimpanzeesAjit Varki and David L. Nelson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �191

Geometric MorphometricsDennis E. Slice � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �261

Genetic Basis of Physical FitnessHugh Montgomery and Latif Safari � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �391

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

SociophoneticsJennifer Hay and Katie Drager � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 89

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Comparative Studies in Conversation AnalysisJack Sidnell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �229

Semiotic AnthropologyElizabeth Mertz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �337

Sociocultural Anthropology

Queer Studies in the House of AnthropologyTom Boellstorff � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 17

Gender and TechnologyFrancesca Bray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 37

The Anthropology of Organized Labor in the United StatesE. Paul Durrenberger � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 73

Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl:The Political Ecology of the New American WestThomas E. Sheridan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �121

Anthropology and MilitarismHugh Gusterson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �155

The Ecologically Noble Savage DebateRaymond Hames � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �177

The Genetic Reinscription of RaceNadia Abu El-Haj � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �283

Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where Are We Now?Susan Charnley and Melissa R. Poe � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �301

Legacies of Derrida: AnthropologyRosalind C. Morris � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �355

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 28–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �407

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 28–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �410

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be foundat http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:155

-175

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

CA

PES

on 1

0/02

/07.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

anthropology and militarism - gusterson

Documents

american militarism

annual review of anthropology

anthropologists shouldnot

the1980s anthropologists

theanthropology of war

annual review article

annual reviews

waron terror