RESPONSE TO FORUM IN CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
The comment below was sent for publication to Bejamin S. Orlove, the Editor of the journal Current Anthropology. However, he refused to publish it, thus it is archived here for the record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Discussion and Criticism on Reflections on Darkness in El Dorado" [CA 43(1)] contained several serious errors and fallacies which if left unidentified will mislead most readers. Also some questions raised deserve an answer.
Fernando Coronil states that Terry Turner and I were entitled to notify officers of the AAA with our confidential letter. Actually, we were not just entitled but obligated to do so, given our previous work with the AAA and the Yanomami as described in my prior response. Coronil asks how I would write a new letter. My brief answer is exactly the same, except for a few words. However, before sending it I would phone each of the six AAA officials to obtain their promise that it be kept strictly confidential. Coronil also asks what I learned from this experience. My answer is that I learned enough to write a book. However, here it must suffice to mention just one point I learned--- there is far more darkness in science and academia than I ever imagined previously, and lurking in it are some who spread misinformation and disinformation.
Also in answer to Coronil, I rank Tierney's book as most important only in the specific terms identified in my previous comment. Obviously, ethnographies such as those by Jacques Lizot, John Peters, and Alcida Ramos are in another league altogether, each with their specific scientific and humanistic contributions. The books by Kenneth Good and Brian Ferguson are also important in their own way.
Alan Fix is mistaken when he states that "most if not all of the allegations in Tierney's book are unsubstantiated or simply false." Substantial material by diverse individuals on several web sites demonstrate otherwise: http://www.aaanet.org, http://members.aol.com/archaeodog/index.htm, http://www.publicanthropology.org.
Contrary to Fix and Susan Lindee's assertions, it doesn't follow logically that if something has served very useful purposes, then all of its flaws are justified. I have never argued anywhere that Tierney's book is perfect or that I completely agree with everything in it. Indeed, when Tierney's editor sent me a copy of the bound galleys in July 2000, I responded with eight single-spaced pages of comments, criticisms, and suggestions.
Fix writes that "There are no references earlier than 1960 in the article Sponsel cites to document the extensive literature on the Yanomami." Yet on page 98 in that article I wrote: "Actually, Yanomamalogy (the study of the Yanomami) has a surprisingly long and extensive history that begins with the explorations by Alexander von Humboldt in 1800 and includes more than three dozen different anthropologists who have visited or lived with the Yanomami...." (Sponsel 1998). Then I cite the authors and page references for eight monographs that discuss and reference many aspects of this history. This mistake by Fix, whether inadvertent or not, exemplifies a standard tactic in the smoke and mirrors game of partisans--- selective use of information which becomes misleading. Or, did Fix not bother to even read the article he cites?
Susan Lindee is also mistaken--- I never wrote any "letter of defense of Patrick Tierney." Her implication that I am a publicity seeker is also typical of the partisan tactic of name-calling. Moreover, Lindee greatly exaggerates the importance of the Turner-Sponsel letter in drawing public attention to Tierney's book. Our letter was intentionally sent in confidence to six top officials of the AAA, never to thousands of individuals. Far more deserving of credit for publicizing Tierney's book are the thief or thieves who leaked our confidential letter into cyberspace, the hysteria on the evolutionary psychology listerv, and Tierney's book preview in The New Yorker (October 9, 2000). Some accurate historical information is always helpful, unless, of course, it contradicts a partisan's argument. (Also see various analyses of Lindee's work by John Stevens and Terry Turner on the previously mentioned Hume web site).
Peter Pels seems to believe that, if something is the ugliest affair in the entire history of anthropology, then this somehow automatically erases all previous scandals and controversies. This does not follow logically, and I never asserted such a thing. On the other hand, I do agree with Pels that this affair extends far beyond the profession of anthropology, indeed, that is precisely a major part of Tierney's argument. Contrary to Pels, however, the implications of the theft and subsequent cyberspace circulation of the confidential Turner-Sponsel letter can not be simplistically dismissed as merely "legalese." Also contrary to Pels, most people usually do try to follow the rules of their own society, otherwise, they would face chaos.
For the record, my 1974 grant proposal to the National Science Foundation for field research with the Yanomami and subsequent 1981 doctoral dissertation each included as an appendix a statement on professional responsibility. In my classes I regularly discuss professional ethics, I have taught a whole graduate seminar on the subject, and my graduate students are required to explicitly and systematically consider professional ethics throughout their research projects from beginning to end. Moreover, I ask Pels, if he has such extensive experience of his own with professional ethics, then why doesn't he actually apply it to discussing Tierney's allegations and the broader issues which emerge?
In any case, Tierney's numerous, diverse and serious allegations are the most important issue by far, not the Turner-Sponsel letter, even though some continue to dwell on it as part of their partisan smoke and mirrors tactics. Furthermore, regarding professional, ethical, and social responsibilities, I am very disappointed that not one of the original contributors to the CA forum responded to the three questions which I posed in my previous comments. Surely some among the thousands of anthropologists out there care to responsibly discuss these and related questions. Science without conscience is problematic to say the least, and that is a substantial portion of what this scandalous controversy is really all about.
References Cited
SPONSEL, LESLIE E. 1998. Yanomami: An arena of conflict and aggression in the Amazon. Aggressive Behavior 24(2):97-122.