Some Remarkable Parallels between the Thailand and El Dorado Controversies

Recently in preparing for my seminar, 410 Ethics in Anthropology, I read Eric Watkin’s book Anthropology Goes to War: Professional Ethics and Counterinsurgency in Thailand. I was struck by the many remarkable parallels with the more recent controversy over Darkness in El Dorado.

Both controversies involved war, Thailand during the Vietnam War, and El Dorado from the Cold War. They were not only scandals and controversies over professional ethics, but also in some ways ideological and political disputes.

Sensationalistic publicity exploded in the public media.

The AAA administration was concerned about bad publicity for the profession as well as about the potential fragmentation of the organization and profession. It was more concerned about damage control than about really facing and resolving the issues. Also there was worry about future access to the area for other field researchers. The AAA administration exhibited questionable professionalism, integrity, and ethics itself. It tried to appease all of the contesting parties involved, rather than grapple squarely with the substantive issues.

The Committee on Ethics was not considered a judicial body in any sense. Lacking were accountability for ethical misconduct and the enforcement of the code of professional ethics current at the time. Those accused of ethical misconduct in turn accused at least some members of the COE and others of being unethical in an effort to discredit them. (In the case of El Dorado, this included the Task Force).

There were various charges of guilt by association.

The AAA, COE, accused, and profession as a whole basically side stepped the real ethical issues that should have been central in the discussions and debates. In the end, the controversy had little if any impact on the AAA and profession as a whole, even though the issues raised were seminal.

In both cases, after the controversy subsided then most anthropologists, including AAA administrators, simply wanted to avoid any further consideration and try to forget the whole matter. There was fear that the controversy might be reignited. The profession as a whole remained a silent majority in both cases. Most anthropologists simply weren’t engaged, apathy reigned.