Statement submitted to the AAA leadership on April 11, 2005.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN ANTHROPOLOGY:
TOWARD A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH

INTRODUCTION

The Darkness in El Dorado controversy has had both positive and negative consequences. Perhaps the most important positive one is to significantly elevate the level of information, awareness, and concern regarding ethics in our profession. That is apparent, for example, from the increase in the inclusion of more substantial discussion on professional ethics in newer editions of introductory textbooks and from several recent edited books focused on the subject. Here four specific recommendations are offered for consideration by any individuals in the AAA leadership and general membership who might be interested in continuing to make progress in the development of professional ethics within our Association and the discipline as a whole. The primary underlying working assumption is that if there were much wider and deeper concern for professional ethics in the AAA and discipline in general, then controversies such as that over Darkness in El Dorado would not even arise.

FINAL REPORT

1.1 The Final Report of the AAA Task Force on Darkness in El Dorado should be subjected to a civil, constructive, and thorough discussion and debate by parties from all sides and perspectives in the annual AAA convention of 2006. Surely there are up to a dozen anthropologists within the membership of more than 10,000 who could be found to participate appropriately in such a panel. This should be done as a Presidential panel and followed the next day by an open forum.

1.2 This was done for the allegations in the book by investigative journalist Patrick Tierney at the AAA annual convention of 2000, yet he is neither an anthropologist nor a member of the AAA. It is immensely more important to do this for the internal official Final Report of the AAA Task Force authored by anthropologists who are members of the Association.

1.3 This time, however, the composition of the panel should avoid any appearance of being stacked unlike the one in 2000.

1.4 Again both Napoleon Chagnon and Patrick Tierney should be invited to participate in the panel to be fair to both of them and to afford both of them yet another opportunity for “due process.” The AAA should offer to pay their travel and hotel expenses to facilitate this extremely important event.

1.5 The primary aim of the panel should be to draw out the more general implications of the Final Report, but a second aim should be to offer yet another public opportunity for Tierney and Chagnon to address any particulars in the controversy that they wish. The panel should proceed whether or not Tierney and/or Chagnon refuse to participate as the latter did in 2000.

ARCHIVE

2.1 The AAA should establish a historical archive with as many of the materials on this controversy as possible to prevent these from being lost, destroyed, or censored. Some have asserted that this controversy is unprecedented, the most serious and far reaching one in the entire history of anthropology. There are many positive lessons to be learned from research on this controversy for decades to come.

2.2 As much information as possible should be readily accessible to reputable researchers from anthropology and other disciplines and professions. This should include all of the AAA files on the Task Force, its Preliminary Report and all of the public comments posted about it, its Final Report, internal correspondence within the AAA and within the Task Force, and so on.

2.3 Also a prominent public statement should be made in the Anthropology News, on the AAA web site, and at the annual convention and in its printed program inviting anyone who has published anything on the controversy in print or online to deposit a copy in the archive. This open invitation should extend into the future indefinitely.

2.4 The AAA should also take effective steps to ensure that the material on the unique and invaluable web site developed by Douglas Hume is preserved for the future of the profession. Perhaps a grant to assist him in maintaining and updating it would be one possibility, and/or some kind of collaborative arrangement might be developed.

2.5 Within an appropriate period of time, like five or ten years, this archive should include the secret report of the initial commission headed by former AAA President James Peacock which has never been made available to the membership of the AAA. (This was the committee to decide whether or not to have a committee to inquire into Tierney’s allegations and so on). The AAA should not maintain classified documents unavailable to its membership. That is antithetical to science and scholarship.

2.6 The best way to provide a comprehensive historical archive is to make as much of the material available as possible through the AAA web site in a user-friendly manner and with a prominent link on the home page. Other material could be deposited in the Smithsonian Institution or another appropriate location and referenced in an index on the archive web page.

LEADERSHIP

3.1 The top leadership of the AAA can lead more actively in the development of professional ethics. This includes, but is not limited to, the President, Executive Board, and the heads of every unit as appropriate.

3.2 Also this can be achieved by encouraging the Committee on Ethics with much greater financial support, far more publicity in every issue of the Anthropology News, and much more prominence at the annual conventions.

3.4 In addition, the general theme of one of the annual conventions in the near future should be professional ethics in the history, theory, methods, and practices of anthropology. Selected papers from sessions recommended by the session organizer or volunteered by the author could lead to a special publication series of the AAA of edited books on professional ethics in anthropology. Ideally these might be available online as well as in print.

3.5 A special award to recognize an individual’s outstanding contribution to the development of professional ethics in anthropology should be given at each annual convention along with a significant monetary gift to encourage and support more attention to professional ethics within the AAA and beyond.

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

4.1 In the near future the Committee on Ethics should very seriously consider developing a more formal standard procedure for individuals of conscience to bring cases of serious violations of professional ethics by anthropologists to its attention and for systematic inquiry, judgement, and sanctions. Other professional organizations have the right to make judgements about the alleged unethical conduct of their members and even to enforce them with sanctions, such as the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association. There is no reason in principle why the AAA cannot develop something similar. This controversy has demonstrated the necessity of such actions when very serious allegations are involved. Clearly it is insufficient for the Committee on Ethics to be reduced to merely an educational function.

4.2 This task may include revising the Code of Ethics again and thereafter on a regular basis, and/or elaborating certain sections perhaps with appendices. The Briefing Papers on the web site are most useful for students and teachers.

4.3 The Committee on Ethics should develop and maintain a listserv for open discussion and debate on questions, problems, issues, and cases regarding professional ethics in anthropology without mentioning specifics like the names of individuals. This could be an extremely useful resource for teachers and students of anthropology.

CONCLUSIONS

Professional ethics can and should become one of the central pivotal concerns of the Association. Professional ethics can and should be a serious consideration for all members in their teaching, research, publications, and service. The leadership must find more effective ways to actively engage the silent majority of anthropologists who have remained apathetic in this controversy, not to dwell on the specifics of this particular controversy, but to pursue its broader implications in a more constructive manner for all anthropologists and for the benefit of the people with whom they work.

More anthropologists need to realize that field research among indigenous and other peoples is a very special privilege that carries quite serious ethical and social responsibilities, rather than an inalienable right. It is remarkably naive or disingenuous to assert that any science can be entirely amoral and asocial. The AAA Code of Ethics has a long history of development for several decades that involves membership scrutiny, discussion, debate, and approval. Either the Code actually has some genuine meaning or it is no more than window dressing. A more genuine and effective Code of Ethics will benefit all communities with whom anthropologists work worldwide and also enhance the public image and the self-image of anthropology in general.

Leslie E. Sponsel