Comments on the section of the Preliminary Report titled "Allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with Yanomami by anthropologists"

The Task Force states: "In reflecting on Lizot's case, we observe that anthropologists, like other human beings, are sexual creatures. Inevitably, sexual attraction and sexual relationships will develop between anthropologists and those they encounter during fieldwork, including members of the population under study." Of course, anthropologists realize there are universal human phenomena associated with gender, sexuality, sex, age, and related matters. Anthropologists should also realize, of course, that there is cross-cultural variation in these matters as well, and that the social and cultural contexts are important to consider. Does the Task Force adequately consider the social, cultural, and fieldwork contexts in their Preliminary Report in the case of Jacques Lizot which Patrick Tierney discusses at great length, and in the example of Kenneth Good which Tierney does not discuss but the Task Force chooses to consider for some reason? Also why does the Task Force discuss both Lizot and Good under the same heading of "Allegation of inappropriate sexual relationships with Yanomami by anthropologists" rather than a neutral heading? Is the Task Force implying that there is anything inappropriate about Good's marriage? Is the Task force implying that Good's acceptance of child betrothal in the context of Yanomami society is inappropriate on the basis of American cultural attitudes and values, and if so, then is this ethnocentric?

Before considering these questions and related matters, however, it may be helpful to identify more clearly the four overlapping, but analytically distinct, pivotal issues regarding professional ethics that emerge from Tierney's (2000: Ch. 8 "Erotic Indians" pp. 124-157) allegations of sexual misconduct with Yanomami by one anthropologist, Jacques Lizot: (1) means and ends--- using sex as a means to some end, especially if non-sexual; (2) power differential--- using a higher economic, social, and/or political status to coerce and/or exploit someone of a lower status for sexual and/or other purposes; (3) purchasing sex, as in prostitution; and (4) age differential--- especially an adult having sex with a subadult or minor. Some individuals may also be concerned about: (5) homosexuality, and (6) sex between individuals from different cultures and/or races. Personally, I think the last two concerns, five and six, have no relevance in the present context and mainly reflect prejudice. In my opinion, what two consenting adults do in private is their personal and private matter as long as no one is harmed in any way, regardless of whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual, and regardless of whether or not they are of the same culture or race.

Actually, Lizot is the only anthropologist who Tierney singles out with allegations of sexual misconduct during fieldwork. Thus, it is puzzling why Kenneth Good is discussed, since the Task Force is charged with investigating Tierney's allegations and he made none whatsoever against Good. Nevertheless, Good does provide a second case of an anthropologist involved in sexual relations in a Yanomami community during fieldwork; but with only one individual, and in a host community of Yanomami which became his home while living and studying there for more than two years. Thus, if the Task Force is attempting to be thorough and to explore broader questions and issues of professional ethics in addition to the specifics of Tierney's book, then the example of Good is relevant. However, so are several others, and some far more relevant, although the Task Force ignores them as mentioned later.

Why does the Task Force focus so much on Good? This needs to be explained better if this focus remains in the final report. Unfortunately, the suspicion is inescapable that Good is discussed because in his book he is very critical of Napoleon Chagnon in several places, and because Raymond Hames, one of the authors of this section, is a former student of Chagnon and has been his collaborator and defender for decades. Here, yet again, the ability of a Task Force member to collaborate in an impartial and fair investigation of Tierney's serious allegations is questionable to say the least.

In any case, an intelligent and careful reader must also question discussing Good's case in the context of a statement on sexual misconduct wherein Lizot is the primary concern, at least of Tierney. The cases of Lizot and Good are obviously completely different. Lizot is alleged to have been involved in homosexual relationships with numerous subadult males as prostitution over a period of some 25 years, relationships which the Yanomami supposedly found unacceptable. In contrast, Good has a heterosexual relationship with one young woman as part of a marriage generally recognized by both Yanomami and American society as appropriate and legal. That marriage lasted more than eight and a half years and included a family of three children. It eventually ended in a divorce, and the three children remain with Good. [Incidentally, more than 50 per cent of marriages in the U.S.A. end in divorce (Strong and DeVault 1995:530)]. According to Good, his divorce was amicable. Moreover, Good's relationship with Yarima was initiated by the Yanomami, not by Good. After some hesitation and concern, Good finally agreed. Apparently this is not something he jumped into overnight without considerable forethought. His fondness for Yarima developed into romantic love as described in his book (Good 1991). Good asserts that there was no sex in the relationship until after marriage. Surely sex during marriage between spouses should not be anything other than a personal and private matter, unless there is some kind of abuse or harm, and even in the latter instance, it is unlikely to be the subject of public discussion by discrete people. There is a difference between professional and personal life, and that difference should be respected, unless someone is harmed, there is some kind of abuse of human rights, and/or a breach of professional ethics.

Another significant difference from Lizot is that Good was completely candid and accurate in great detail about his experience during field research, including his relationship to Yarima. In contrast, Lizot purposefully avoids any discussion of his personal field experience for whatever reasons of his own (Lizot 1985:xiv, Tierney 2000:147-148). Indeed, most anthropologists do not reveal the intricacies of their personal field experience, and especially in print. In this respect, Good's book has provided our profession with a great service, helping to open a dialog on a previously taboo subject in the anthropological field experience. (His book has also received overwhelmingly positive reviews, including by Timothy Asch). In short, the case of Lizot and the example of Good are completely different. In my opinion, to discuss them under the same category of inappropriate sexual relationships is not only misleading, but professionally and ethically irresponsible.

The discussion in the Preliminary Report is also inexplicably unanthropological in neglecting the social, cultural, and fieldwork contexts. As just one among many problems, age is not a monolithic phenomenon--- there is a difference between chronological age (years from birth), physiological age (degree of physical maturity), social age (how a culture classifies and interprets age differences), and legal age (when an individual can legally engage certain "adult" activities). In short, among the Yanomami, a girl of the chronological age of 14 years, is not comparable to an American girl of 14 years, but far more mature socially. That is, the matter of age is simply far more complicated socially and culturally than this Task Force of anthropologists appears to even begin to appreciate. According to Peters (1998:115), among the Xilixana Yanomami of the Mucajai River in Brazil, it is typical for a girl to first give birth between the ages of 14-17 years. The distinction between chronological, physiological, social, and legal ages must also be considered in any other case, including that of Lizot. Furthermore, even chronological age is somewhat problematic. Except where mission records are available, the Yanomami do not count and record their age in years. (Even within the same culture or society, there may be significant variation in the interpretation of age, such as the legal age for sexual consent in different the states of the United States).

Time is relevant to consider in yet another way. Lizot lived for some 25 years among the Yanomami. Good lived for a total of nearly 14 years with the Yanomami. Regardless of one's individual sexual attitudes, values, preferences, and libido, is it realistic to expect abstention or celibacy in fieldwork which lasts for years? The Task Force states that: "Very few anthropologists will be prepared to think seriously about such questions until many months or even years of fieldwork have passed" (p. 2). Good had been the field for more than two years before Longbeard started talking about betrothal.

Another aspect neglected in the Preliminary Report is the role of Yanomami as active, intelligent, and competent agents. The report quotes from Good's book that Longbeard initiated the idea of betrothal and persisted with it until Good finally started to think about it seriously and eventually conceded. Other members of Yarima's kindred and community were involved as well and approved. Furthermore, Yarima was compliant. Yanomami girls and women can resist or reject betrothal and other aspects of marriage and sex, although a long and sometimes difficult process is involved. In short, what began as a friendship and evolved into betrothal and eventually marriage was not solely a matter of Good's actions, but involved Longbeard, Yarima, their kindred, and the community as a whole. The Preliminary Report the Task Force does not appear to have considered this social and cultural context.

Any impartial, honest, and fair individual can not interpret this arrangement as Good using the betrothal to establish or maintain rapport with the village for research purposes. He had already lived and worked in the community for more than two and a half years and had ample data for his dissertation long before the question of betrothal was initially broached by Longbeard. Furthermore, the eventual marriage lasted eight and a half years and produced three children. Certainly this was no overnight fling. This was romantic love according to Good (1991). The title and subtitle of his book makes this clear: "Into the Heart: One Man's Search for Love and Knowledge in the Amazon." When I first read Good's book, and to this day, I have never had any reason to doubt a single sentence based on my own knowledge of the literature, experience with Yanomami (1974-75), and familiarity with the individual anthropologists he mentions. It remains an extraordinarily candid and honest account. What if the members of the Task Force were as candid about their motivations, concerns, involvement, and so on? Good has offered an honest account of an individual anthropologist as a human being interacting with other human beings while living in and coping with the very different Yanomami culture, rather than constructing a story of some "Indiana Jones" discovering "Hobbesian savages" deep in a jungle that is supposedly isolated from Western influence.

Could some of the points raised in the report reflect a legacy of Victorian or American attitudes and biases about sex and marriage in other cultures or with other races? Surely there is no reason in principle why an inter-cultural and/or inter-racial marriage should not occur, other than ethnocentric and/or racial prejudice. The Yanomami are humans, in spite of some accounts which have dehumanized them. The Yanomami are intelligent, contrary to some portrayals of them that imply otherwise. Many Yanomami are adults, even though some constructions of them are reminiscent of The Lord of the Flies (Golding 1971). (See Jahoda 1999). Indeed, anyone who has spent appreciable time with the Yanomami can not help but realize just how extraordinarily competent they are in social relationships, and especially considering the daily face-to-face interaction of a relatively small group of people in a shabono. In short, in my opinion, the Yanomami deserve far more recognition and respect as humans than this Preliminary Report and some other accounts appear to allow.

Likewise, sex in marriage is normally a private rather than public matter, whether in the U.S.A. or among the Yanomami. In the case of Good and Yarima, he made the marriage public in his book, but in a responsible way. Is the Task Force treating his marriage in a responsible and impartial manner, and especially as anthropologists engaged in an inquiry based on moral and scholarly reflection? Is the Task Force projecting its own personal and cultural attitudes on this matter, as, for example, in evaluating a divorce as "sad" without any explanation or justification? Would members of the Task Force like to be identified by name and have their marriage scrutinized on a web site?

Also alarming is the apparent lack of ethnographic background in discussing sex and marriage among the Yanomami (for example, see Peters 1998:114-122, and for comparison Gregor 1985). Generally, Yanomami marriages are arranged ahead of time as child betrothal, a practice common in many cultures of the world, whether or not Americans approve. Among the Xilixana Yanomami of the Mucajai River, a girl as young as three years of age may be betrothed and a husband is invariably older than his wife, even up to several decades older (Peters 1998:114, 117). Marriage among the Yanomami is established by the spouses gradually living together and sleeping in adjacent hammocks. There is nothing like a formal ceremony comparable to marriage in American culture. Divorce is just as informal, simply removing one's hammock from the space of the spouse and then resisting or refusing reconciliation and reunification. In general, Yanomami are just far more informal and relaxed about sex, marriage, and divorce than is usually the case in American culture.

If, as anthropologists, the Task Force really wishes to understand the situation between Good and Yarima, then they not only need to become better informed about relevant aspects of Yanomami society and culture from the available literature (e.g. Peters 1998:114-121), but also to systematically interview Good, Yarima, and their relatives and friends.

Most of all, discussing Good's marriage and related matters under the heading of a section on "Allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with Yanomami by anthropologists" inescapably implies that Good was guilty of some kind of misconduct. Tierney never alleges this, but no doubt he would have done so if he had found the least bit of evidence. To be fair, the Task Force needs to make crystal clear that Good is mentioned only because he worked with the Yanomami and married one.

For about a century now cultural relativism has been considered to be an indispensable method in ethnography, although Melville Hershkovits (1972) also identified it as a philosophical principle and ethic. When an anthropologists is living in another society should his or her actions be judged according to the standards of its culture, the anthropologist's own culture, both cultures (assuming there are no contradictions), some international standard like human rights conventions, and/or a code of professional ethics? What if the anthropologist is multiethnic? In one specific example discussed by the Task Force, is it appropriate for the Yanomami to engage in some activity, like child betrothal, but not for someone from another culture who lives with them for years to do so? Clearly the Yanomami thought it was appropriate to betroth Yarima to Good. These questions are as complex and difficult as they are serious, yet questions such as these would be less likely to be considered if it were not for the books by Good and Tierney. It is unfortunate that the Task Force is so shallow in discussing this and numerous other points in the Preliminary Report.

If the Task Force is going to discuss Good's marriage, then why not also discuss the example of American missionary son Michael Dawson who married a Yanomami woman? Why not also mention the German Harald Herzog's sexual and marital relations with a Yanomami woman? Why only Good? Does this reflect ignorance or bias on the part of the Task Force?

Now consider who Tierney actually does allege to be an anthropologist having inappropriate sexual relations with Yanomami, Jacques Lizot. While working in Venezuela off and on from 1974-1981 I had heard rumors several times about Lizot's sexual exploits with Yanomami boys. However, this was mentioned to me only in passing and I never asked for details, I simply wasn't interested in gossip and didn't think it was any of my business. I have never even visited the areas where Lizot and Chagnon worked. I assumed that if there were anything really serious about Lizot, then missionaries, government authorities, Venezuelan anthropologists, and/or the Yanomami themselves would surely take appropriate action. When I first read Tierney's detailed account in Chapter 8 "The Erotic Indians" of the bound galleys of his book in July 2000 I was really shocked, thoroughly disgusted, and deeply disappointed. Tierney makes a convincing case with statements from various Yanomami, missionaries, and anthropologists. As with other chapters in Tierney's book, if even only a portion were true then still it would be horrendous.

The discussion of Lizot in the Preliminary Report, however, is problematic in several ways in my opinion. The Task Force asserts that the alleged sexual exploitation of Yanomami boys was "totally unacceptable to the Yanomami." If that were really so, then why didn't the Yanomami simply expel Lizot from their community? The Task Force asserts that some of the boys involved "strongly objected." If that is so, then why did they engage in this activity in the first place? There is no accusation of rape, and beyond that, the sexual intercourse described by Tierney requires the cooperation of two individuals. But from Tierney's (2000:136-137, 143) account it appears that the exchange of trade goods was simply too attractive, another confirmation of a component of Brian Ferguson's (1995) argument.

Apparently Lizot took undue advantage of his economic power to sexually exploit Yanomami boys. But is this any worse than what some other anthropologists have done to exploit the Yanomami for scientism, careerism, and egoism? Isn't exploitation despicable for any ends? (See Tierney 2000:146). The Task Force has yet to really address that matter. Will it do so in the final report?

Also, as in the case of Good and Yarima, the same distinctions regarding age apply to Lizot's sexual exploitation of boys as alleged by Tierney; that is, the difference between chronological, physiological, social, and legal age. Yet another consideration is that, though his alleged inappropriate behavior happened in the context of Yanomami society where he had long resided, are French cultural attitudes and values regarding sex completely irrelevant? It appears that Lizot's literary style in writing his main ethnographic book is influenced by French culture. Might some of his attitudes toward sex be influenced by his parent culture as well? Also Lizot was probably never a member of the AAA. Do any of the French organizations he has been affiliated with have a code of professional ethics? Are any other standards of French society applicable?

Furthermore, if the Task Force is genuinely interested in placing the alleged case of Lizot's sexual misconduct in comparative perspective, then on scholarly grounds, instead of the example of Good, or at least in addition to it, far more relevant would be those of individuals such as Carlton Gadjusek, Tobias Schneebaum (1969, 2000), and Colin Turnbull (Grinker 2000). Also, in the matter of the allegations against Lizot, why not consider Ritchie (1995) as was mentioned by Tierney.

In identifying such problems and concerns I do not intend in any way to condone the pederasty and other misconduct of Lizot, if any of the corresponding allegations made by Tierney are true, and they appear to be so. At the same time, this scandalous controversy should be kept separate from the superior quality and contribution of Lizot's basic and applied anthropology which must remain extraordinary in comparison to that of most others. (For example, see Lizot 1975, 1985, 1989, 1996). As Tierney (2000:147) asserts, the professional and personal Lizot are quite different: "...Lizot was publicly doing more good than anyone else while privately satisfying his appetites on Yanomami children." The Task Force does not really address let alone acknowledge the basic and applied anthropology of Lizot. Does this reflect ignorance, oversight, or bias?

One issue which the Task Force raises with which I completely agree is the enormously more dangerous situation for the Yanomami of military personnel introducing prostitution and sexually transmitted disease to them. The Task Force, or more appropriately, the Committee for Human Rights, should request that the government authorities in Venezuela thoroughly investigate this matter and take appropriate legal action for those military individuals who are guilty. Appropriate preventive and educational measures should also be taken by the government. Today the Yanomami in Venezuela already face growing problems of health and epidemics without adequate medical care, and sexually transmitted diseases from foreigners could trigger an epidemic of HIV/AIDS and very seriously compound many health problems. Apparently Lizot was careful about avoiding the possibility of introducing HIV/AIDS (Tierney 2000:145). At least one Catholic missionary, Jose Bortoli, believed that there was no serious lasting harm to the boys from Lizot's pederasty and that he had done many other good things for the Yanomami (Tierney 2000:146-147). (One of the criticisms I have of Tierney's book is that he does not give due credit to the numerous positive and sometimes heroic things which many anthropologists have done for the survival, welfare, and rights of the Yanomami).

It appears appropriate in ethical as well as scholarly terms for anthropologists to conduct research on sexual behavior as long as they keep the names of the research community and their informants and other individuals in it anonymous (e.g., Gregor 1985). It is certainly most appropriate to provide guidelines for anthropologists to carefully consider regarding any sexual activity they might engage in during fieldwork as the Committee on Ethics has done recently in its briefing papers on the AAA web site. However, is it appropriate to discuss the sexual behavior and/or marriage of individual anthropologists such as Good if the individual did no harm? Is sex any less private and personal for an anthropologist in the field than for any other human anywhere, if no harm was done? Of course in a general way Good made his experience public in his book, but he did not consider it as in any way inappropriate. Why does the Task Force do so by implication through discussing Good under the title of this section of the Preliminary Report?

Does the Preliminary Report of this Task Force really demonstrate a systematic, serious, accurate, impartial, and fair inquiry of a moral and scholarly kind? In my opinion, this and other sections of the Preliminary Report contain the kind of selective use of information, partial discussion, and blatant bias which have become symptomatic of the partisans defending Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel.

References Cited

Ferguson, R. Brian, 1995, Yanomami Warfare: A Political History, Santa Fe, NM: School for American Research Press.

Golding, William, 1971, The Lord of the Flies, London, England: Faber.

Good, Kenneth R., with David Charnoff, 1991, Into the Heart: One Man's Pursuit of Love and Knowledge Among the Yanomama, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gregor, Thomas, 1985, Anxious Pleasures: The Sexual Lives of an Amazonian People, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Grinker, Roy Richard, 2000, In the Arms of Africa: The Life of Colin M. Turnbull, New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Hershkovits, Melville J., 1972, Cultural Relativism, New York, NY: Random House.

Jahoda, Gustav, 1999, Images of Savages: Ancient Roots of Modern Prejudice in Western Culture, New York, NY: Routledge.

Lizot, Jacques, 1975, Diccionario Yanomami-Espanol, Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela.

Lizot, Jacques, 1985, Tales of the Yanomami: Daily Life in the Venezuela Forest, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lizot, Jacques, 1989, No Patapi Tehe: En Tiempos de los Antepasados [Yanomami-Spanish cultural school primer], Puerto Ayacucho, Venezuela: Vicariato Apostolico de Puerto Ayacucho.

Lizot, Jacques, 1996, Introduccion a la Lengua Yanomami: Morfologia, Caracas, Venezuela: UNICEF Venezuela and Vicariato Apostolico de Puerto Ayacucho.

Peters, John F., 1998, Life Among the Yanomami: The Story of Change Among the Xilixana of the Mucajai River in Brazil, Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.

Ritchie, Mark, 1995, Spirit of the Rainforest: A Yanomamo Shaman's Story, Chicago, IL: Island Lake Press.

Schneebaum, Tobias, 1969, Keep the River on Your Right, New York, NY: Grove Press, Inc.

Schneebaum, Tobias, 2000, Secret Places: My Life in New York and New Guinea, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Strong, Bryan, and Christine DeVault, 1995, The Marriage and Family Experience, Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing Co.