Security for Whom? Anthropologists and Repressive State Elites

Security for whom? Anthropologists and repressive state elites

Gustavo Lins Ribeiro

Abstract: The most important political and ethical issues in North American anthropology today concern anthropologists’ relationships with the “security and intelligence communities.” The call for anthropological participation in warfare has never been so intense, yet recruitment of anthropologists is not new for hegemonic anthropologies. Their relationships with state power have a long history of contradictory political and professional engagements. After a brief discussion of the notion of national security and its intimate relations to nation- state projects and elites, I consider the importance of culture and anthropological knowledge for politicians and conclude first that anthropologists need to be aware of how the discipline and its uses are part of much larger power relations and constraints, and second that anthropological knowledge is already always political.

Keywords: anthropologists and the military, anthropology and power, national security and anthropological practice, uses of anthropological knowledge

One of the most pressing political and ethical for “low intensity counterinsurgency opera- issues in North American anthropology today tions where civilians mingle freely with combat- concerns the relationships anthropologists have ants in complex urban terrain” (McFate 2005: with the “security and intelligence communi- 24). The new imperial wars prompted the inter- ties.”1 The intensity of these relationships has est of the U.S. military in “understanding peo- increased after 9/11, because the cultural turn ple their culture and motivation” (Major has now reached even the Pentagon. According General Robert H. Scales, Jr., quoted by McFate, to Montgomery McFate, an anthropologist who 2005: 24). Another important representative of strongly defends the involvement of anthropol- the security community, the Director of the ogists with the military and who is the author Office of Force Transformation, concluded that of a chapter of the new U.S. Army counterinsur- “knowledge of one’s enemy and his culture and gency manual (released in December 2006), the society may be more important than knowledge war in Afghanistan and Iraq proved that “tradi- of his order of battle” (McFate 2005: 24). Once tional methods of warfighting” were inadequate again, it became clear that understanding cul-

Focaal—European Journal of Anthropology 50 (2007): 146–154 doi:10.3167/foc.2007.500111 Anthropologists and repressive state elites 147 ture is important when there is a great disparity with the military. For them, the presence of of power among adversaries, especially when anthropologists would make war less destruc- non-Western parties are involved (McFate tive and lethal because many fatal mistakes are 2005). “Friends” need to be identified and the result of cultural misunderstandings. hearts and minds need to be won (McFate The call for anthropological participation in 2005). warfare is more intense than ever, but for hege- This renewed interest in culture was followed monic anthropologies the predicaments that by practical initiatives. The Pat Roberts Intelli- arise when anthropologists are recruited are not gence Scholars Program (PRISP) is a govern- new. Their relationships with state power have mental program established in 2004 to recruit a long history of contradictory political and analysts into the U.S. intelligence community. professional engagements. It is well known that The PRISP resurrected a phantom that histori- anthropologists have participated in colonial cally has haunted anthropologists located in the and war efforts before, although such participa- hegemonic centers of the discipline: the confu- tions were hardly consensual (with the possible sion of field research with espionage (see Gus- exception of World War II). terson and Price 2005). In 2005, the PRISP Perhaps it is possible to say that most anthro- had “with little notice placed over 150 student pologists currently lean toward the progressive participants in an unknown number of univer- camp. Cultural critique and a respect for differ- sity classrooms” (Gusterson and Price 2005: ences among people are basic to anthropology; 39). At the same time that PRISP outsources these concepts most likely encourage progres- the intelligence community’s training programs sive tendencies. Anthropologists, however, have to the universities, its “students’ identities are never been a homogeneous political body his- not publicly announced as they undertake their torically. Politically conservative anthropolo- studies in university classrooms” (Gusterson gists are more inclined to work for repressive and Price 2005). Other similar programs have and manipulative elites than are progressive an- emerged recently, such as the Intelligence Com- thropologists. There are also anthropologists munity Scholars Program, in which “scholars who would claim that they are able to walk a have to repay the costs of their education plus line independent of any political position. The penalties...ifthey decide not to work for US current discussion on anthropological practice intelligence upon graduation” (Gusterson and and national security resonates with other de- Price 2005), Gusterson and Price consider this bates about applied anthropology. Are security to be a form of debt bondage. anthropologists’ dilemmas and certainties simi- In response to the serious implications of lar to those development anthropologists had these initiatives the American Anthropological met with before? These questions recall the Association (AAA) created an Ad Hoc Commis- long-standing quandaries about the academic sion on the Engagement of Anthropology with practice of anthropology and what some call the U.S. Security and Intelligence Communities its extramural (notice the defensive and isola- in 2006. At the 2006 AAA meeting, sessions tionist connotations of the adjective) activities. were organized to debate the problem and two resolutions were approved in a historic business meeting. One condemned the occupation of National security and anthropological Iraq. The other condemned the use of torture. practice The 2006 meeting also revealed the existence of “security anthropologists.” These are anthro- National security is a complex subject. The defi- pologists who work for the military establish- nition of security revolves around the meaning ment and who, in one of the meeting’s session, of different kinds of violence and whether they proudly defended their jobs as consultants as are considered legitimate or not. The security well as the need for anthropologists to engage of my block is one thing; the security of my 148 Gustavo Lins Ribeiro city and country is another. The definition of citizenship. It is a field that includes, for in- security involves a sense of belonging, of identi- stance, university systems, science and technol- fying with a collectivity, of protecting “us” ogy policies, and the role of intellectuals in against “them.” In short, it involves identity nation building and nationalism. Historically, issues. The larger the collectivity involved, the the relations between citizens and nation-states more complicated the issue gets. When it comes vary according to different political and ideo- to national security, matters become highly logical junctures. The relationships between an- complex. This is the realm of the nation-state. thropological practice and national security It is comprised of two entities that are interre- vary accordingly. At the same time, anthropolo- lated but not homologous to each other. The gists, as a collectivity, have their own political fabric of the nation is much more diverse than diversity and their own disciplinary histories that of the state. For instance, children cannot and trends, which result in preferred ways of be state officials and several “minorities” are representing the profession. This is why underrepresented within state apparatuses. Na- involvement with war may be accepted in one tion-states are complex polities, made up of historical juncture and repudiated in another. historically defined economic, political, cul- The possible roles of anthropologists in natural, and social arrangements. In spite of the tional security also vary according to nation- diversity of their sociological assemblages, na- states’ power within the world system. It is one tion-states tend to be homogeneity machines, thing to be an anthropologist in an imperial especially when nationalism—the main prod- country, it is another to work in a country uct of their identity and ideology—is at stake. where power imbalances among anthropolo- Nationalism relates in different ways to national gists and their research subjects are structured by internal colonialism. “Counterinsurgency security and to the reproduction of state elites. consulting,” for instance, the “latest phase in The consideration of a nation-state’s specific the weaponization of anthropology” (Gonzales characteristics is mandatory for the study of 2007: 19), would be unthinkable to anthropolo- national security. The fact that “national secu- gists in Brazil, where the most delicate ethical rity” varies according to different historical issues concern the activities of a handful of junctures and according to different ideologies anthropologists aligned with developmentalist that state elites follow over time only confirms initiatives that are contested by native popula- my assertion that it is a complex subject. tions. Covert ethnography or an anthropologist Because national security concerns nation- working as a spy for the military would amount states, it is immediately located in a broader to an earthquake in Brazilian anthropology. An- international scenario characterized by the un- thropologists in Brazil still bear in mind the equal distribution of power among the coun- memory of a time, the 1964–1985 military dic- tries that comprise the world-system. Whereas tatorship, when Brazilians had to learn how the definition of national security of an imperial to live with powerful and repressive national power may imply that the elites of a given na- security agencies. The Brazilian anthropological tion-state will take into their hands the “secu- community has also not reached the point, and rity” of other areas of the world, the definition I hope it never will, of behaving like an “ ‘indus- of national security of a less militarily powerful try’ for sale to the highest bidder,” as Laura nation-state is much more circumscribed to its Nader put it in 2006 in a AAA session on na- own national territory. This does not mean that tional security and anthropological practice. global geopolitics are not important in such sce- Moreover, when the issue is political profes- narios. sional ideology, the Brazilian anthropological The subject of national security and anthro- community, one of the largest in the world, is pological practice is embedded in a field defined inclined to be critical of state elites. In its mainly by the relations between scholarship and more than fifty years of existence the Brazilian Anthropologists and repressive state elites 149

Association of Anthropology (ABA) won a well- knowledge how intensively marked by deserved reputation of defending political posi- American historical, sociological, political, and tions that favor vulnerable or discriminated- cultural characteristics “national security” is in against segments within Brazilian society. To the U.S. Indeed, the relationships among the summarize, in the complex political and insti- university system, knowledge production, state tutional field of national security, anthropolo- power, and war-making have not been suffi- gists may place themselves in radically different ciently analyzed in the U.S. despite the fact that positions. They may become “security anthro- they are strategically related to each other. This pologists” but they may also become a “security discussion also calls attention to how state poli- problem.” Such was the case in the U.S. in the cies affect the lives of American citizens. What 1950s during McCarthyism (Price 2004) and in we learn is that the intervention of the Ameri- Brazil in the late 1980s and early 1990s when, can state in the country’s political life is signifi- after the end of the “red danger,” anthropolo- cant. This is also true in the university milieu, gists who strongly defended Indian rights and the major locus of anthropological (re)produc- the Amazonian rainforest were accused of being tion. I recently wrote that: a “green danger,” that is, members of international environmental conspiracies that were [S]tates and universities have many intercon- supposed to be against the country’s territo- nections and mutual and contradictory inter- rial integrity. ests. States sponsor the production and use of knowledge for different ends, including to per- petrate mass killing of people or major environ- Anthropologists and repressive state mental destruction. At the same time, uni- elites: Why culture matters versities are not monolithic entities. Indeed, on Anthropologists are used to studying violence the same campus, one may find a professor and war. But, we are not used to studying the who does research on how to improve equality uses of anthropology for war and oppression in an unjust and unequal world and another with a few exceptions (see e.g., Copans 1975; who is (patriotically?) trying to develop new Weber 2002). Perhaps this is so because most weapons to destroy the enemies of his or her of us are pacifists and, in one way or another, nation-state. These contradictions and ambigu- are touched by the Enlightenment’s supposition ities reveal the contradictions and ambiguities that reason and knowledge should prevail above of the relationships between the state and the irrationality and violence. Whichever is the university. Consequently, the ideology of aca- case, the uses that repressive state elites make demic freedom needs to be related to a discus- of anthropology are a subject of fundamental sion of what the universities really are as importance. Are anthropologists to be confused institutions of modern life. They can be the with spies? Is ethnographic research nothing bastions of collective freedom and life or the but a special modality of information gather- bastions of oppression and death or both simul- ing? Is the use of information ever something taneously. What shapes a university’s (and a neutral? Questions easily multiply and need to profession’s) ethos are political, ideological, and be taken seriously by anthropologists every- utopian struggles that are fought within society where, not only because their effects on the at large as well as within the university and American anthropological community, the scientific world. These struggles define what largest and most influential in the world, may “ethics” is. Otherwise, how would one under- reverberate far beyond the United States’ bor- stand the ambivalence of academic knowledge ders, but also because this challenging situation production over time or in a single period? generates far-reaching ethical and epistemolog- How would one understand, for instance, the ical issues. At the same time, we need to ac- use of anthropological knowledge for war mak- 150 Gustavo Lins Ribeiro ing, colonial administration, or the liberation United Kingdom already have experience using of native peoples? (Ribeiro 2006a: 530) anthropologists and anthropological knowledge in conflicts in which cultural and ethnic The political roles that culture plays in the differences were at stake. In the United King- U.S. are potent enough to get the attention of dom the relationships between anthropologists even uninformed foreigners. It should be of and administrative state elites were formed no surprise that the American nation-state is under the large umbrella of colonialism. In the hypersensitive to cultural and ethnic differ- United States, relationships between anthropol- ences. Several major historical and sociological ogists and repressive state elites were salient factors underlie this fact. They include the im- during World War I and World War II. Project portance of frontier expansion to nation-build- Camelot, designed in the 1960s to provide in- ing, the scars left by slavery in racial relations, formation about national security in several “less developed countries,” renewed the interest and the continued relevance of immigration to of the U.S. Defense Department in the social the formation of the most complex ethnically sciences (Horowitz 1967). In 1969, Eric Wolf segmented modern nation. To these domestic wrote that the “age of innocence” of anthropol- factors, we should add the imperial might the ogy (Wolf [1969] 1974) was over, as the rela- U.S. has developed since the nineteenth cen- tionship between knowledge and power became tury. As we know, 9/11 made the importance more and more explicit with anthropologists’ of culture for U.S. national security and for its involvement in counterinsurgency intelligence world politics even more acute. At this point, in countries such as Thailand, thereby raising it should be evident why politics and power in new ethical and political problems (Wolf and the U.S. are highly traversed by ethnicity and Jorgensen 1975). Currently, as we have seen, culture. Consequently, in the U.S. the institu- there is a new round of recruitment of anthro- tional setting, including the military, has a pro- pologists in the U.S. In 2006, a British reincar- pensity toward cultural turns, that is, toward nation of Project Camelot was planned in the moments of strong sensitivity to cultural and U.K., this research initiative of the British For- ethnic differences. eign and Commonwealth Office, the Economic In the 1990s in the U.S., there was an in- and Social Research Council, and the Arts and creased culturalization of politics. Culture and Humanities Research Council had the title politics got mixed in different ways. The conser- “Combating terrorism by countering radical- vative approach presented a new world in which ization.” This program targeted six regions (Eu- clashes of civilizations would be the ultimate rope, Central Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, form of conflict. September 11 tragically recre- North Africa, and the Gulf): ated the dividing lines between the West and the Rest. Culture and cultural diversity became Academics would be asked to “scope the growth strategic factors for making peace or war. Cur- in influence and membership of extremist Is- lamist groups in the past 20 years”...“name rently, even UNESCO officials believe in an the key figures (moderate and extreme) and “implicit connection between culture and secu- key groups...influencing the local popula- rity” (2004: 18) and that “intercultural relations tion” and “understand the use of theological are, indeed, an international security issue” legitimisation for violence.” Among the main (2004: 19). topics mentioned were “radicalisation drivers Because cultural anthropologists are, by defi- and counter-strategies in each of the country nition, the professionals committed to under- studies” and “future trends likely to increase/ standing cultures, cultural difference, cultural decrease radicalization.” (Houtman 2006: 1) diversity, multiculturalism, and intercultur- ality, state managers are increasingly attracted Thanks to the mobilization of British aca- to anthropologists. The United States and the demics, especially anthropologists, this pro- Anthropologists and repressive state elites 151 gram was cancelled. Objections were raised in providing “intelligence” not only on the enemy the name of “independent quality research” and but also on allies, to learn how to cooperate of “fears that this project could destroy decades with them; “intelligence” was provided on the of trust built up with...informants in particu- American nation itself so as to make better use lar communities” (Houtman 2006: 1). Mean- of its force (Goldman and Neiburg 2002: 198f.). while, a revised funding initiative on “new We still need a consistent history of the role of security challenges” was met in April 2007, with anthropology during World War II in various a resolution of the Association of Social Anthro- countries.2 World War II was an important pologists of the U.K. and the Commonwealth period for anthropology because it crudely re- [see Anthropology Today 23 (3): 28] that de- vealed modes of interaction between anthro- nounced the governmental project as “prejudi- pologists and state elites that were less likely to cial to the position of all researchers working take shape in periods of peace. abroad, including those who have nothing to do In sum, anthropology developed in relation with this Programme.” The resolution clearly to the national and international interests of stated “research of this kind may well conflict states regarding the status of the native popula- with the ASA’s Code of Ethics” [Anthropology tions “found” in the territories states tradition- Today 23 (3): 28]. There are other examples of ally controlled or in new colonial areas relations between anthropologists and repres- (L’Estoile, Neiburg, and Sigaud 2002). Anthro- sive state elites outside Western Europe and the pologists’ varied responses to nation states’ in- U.S. At the beginning of the twentieth century, terest in anthropological knowledge are for instance, Japanese anthropologists, con- structured by processes of nation-building and cerned with the origins of Japanese culture, fol- state formation, the character of the resulting lowed the colonial expansion of their nation- nation-states, and the role of academic scholar- state to do field research in countries such as ship vis-a`-vis the government. Korea and China, where imperial Japanese power was exerted (Yamashita 2006). During Stalinist times, in the Soviet Union, anthropol- What is anthropological knowledge ogy was thought to be useful to manage the good for? minority populations of the U.S.S.R. (Vakh- tin 2006). The persistent interest that the military has Thus, anthropology has had a long-standing shown in anthropology is surely indicative of relationship with state power in different na- its awareness that culture is not neutral, that it tional contexts and these relationships shape is a major issue in human conflicts. The more the discipline. In highly authoritarian regimes, national security is exposed to ethnic and cul- such as the Stalinist one in the Soviet Union, tural diversity at home or abroad, the more the anthropology–state relation becomes more the so-called intelligence community needs to obvious (Vakhtin 2006) as state elites control understand it in order to operate on safer the critical potential of anthropological work ground. Imperial armies depend on accurate and often strive to convert anthropology into information on local populations, which makes a technique of social control, into a kind of anthropology attractive to the military. Cultural social engineering aimed at managing the rela- translation and ethnography, two activities of- tions between ethnic minorities and powerful ten used to define the profession, seem to be central governments. In times of war, anthro- the anthropological assets the military values. pology may, however, be called to develop simi- This brings to the fore the question: What is lar roles in nonauthoritarian regimes. During anthropological knowledge good for? war, anthropology is called on to become a Anthropology is of little good in making its source of intelligence. In the U.S., World War practitioners rich. Many anthropologists, how- II proved that anthropology could be useful in ever, do long for visibility and for the feeling 152 Gustavo Lins Ribeiro that their work is important. Anthropology can It is no wonder that anthropology again attracts be good, therefore, for providing professional the attention of imperial forces. recognition. Its value is not that limited, however, since anthropology always exists in insti- tutional milieus traversed by wider power Final comments relations. Anthropological knowledge raises the interests of people other than anthropologists, George Stocking’s (1982) distinction between as the discussion on its practice and national anthropologies of nation-building and anthro- security vividly shows. Anthropologists never pologies of empire-building is helpful when know what is going to be done with their texts considering the relationships between anthro- once they are published. Given the many possi- pologists and powerful state elites. Stocking’s ble uses powerful agents and agencies can make classification may be transcended, however, if of anthropological knowledge, we are forced we remember that behind empire-building to go beyond the notion that anthropological there is always a nation-state. Anthropologies knowledge is produced to enlighten people. Al- of empire-building are also in fact anthropolog- though anthropological ideas are not “mechan- ies of nation-building, but the reverse is not ically reflexive of the encompassing political true. There are “national anthropologies,” such economy but emerge in a complex interplay as the Australian, Brazilian, Canadian, and among intellectual production, varied institu- Mexican ones, that can be international without tional settings, and the dominant value orienta- falling into the temptation of becoming empire- tions of the time” (Wolf 2001: 63), we need to building anthropologies. The dichotomy may be aware that the discipline and its use is part create the impression that there are only two of much larger power relations and constraints. options for world anthropologies. Anthropolo- Sometimes such relations and constraints are gists everywhere would be trapped in either quite obvious, as when neoliberal scientific pol- serving the nation or the empire, which is just icies are implemented and university adminis- not the case: there are also anthropologies of trators become preoccupied mainly with diversity building. economic calculations. Nation-building, empire-building, or diver- Explicit reflection on the positions, perspec- sity-building anthropologies: What are these la- tives, and practices anthropologists have re- bels telling us about the relationships between garding powerful and powerless groups and anthropology and security? They clearly indi- projects are, however, always of importance. cate that the roles of anthropologists vary ac- These positions are related to the political, cording to their political positions and methodological, and theoretical options an an- involvement in processes related to the security thropologist has, situating his/her work in a of empires, nations, or differentiated groups. critical or conservative vein. Anthropology can Nation-state elites may vary their conceptions provide certain groups, either powerful or pow- on security according to different junctures and erless, with knowledge that legitimizes claims interests. But, in any given time period, the over ethnic and cultural diversity as well as over military—thanks to the hierarchical structures access to natural and social resources. All this it is part of—knows the answer to the question leads to the conclusion that it is impossible to that is the title of this article: Security for whom? separate anthropological practices and knowl- Anthropologists need to have much clearer an- edge from political awareness: Anthropological swers to this question if they are to be conscious knowledge is already always political. I see an- political actors in conflictive scenarios. In any thropology as a cosmopolitics (Ribeiro 2006b) case, there is no doubt a discipline based in a and, today, the control of cosmopolitics is a method that depends on mutual trust— crucial objective of hegemonic global powers. ethnography—is highly vulnerable to suspi- Anthropologists and repressive state elites 153 cions of espionage and bad faith. Nothing less gency manual FM 3–24 and the military- than the future of anthropology is at stake. anthropology complex. Anthropology Today 23 (3): 14–19. Gusterson, Hugh, and David Price. 2005. Spies in our midst. Anthropology News 46 (6): 39–40. Gustavo Lins Ribeiro is a professor at the De- Horowitz, Irving Louis, ed. 1967. The rise and fall partment of Anthropology of the University of of Project Camelot: Studies in the relationship be- Brasilia and a researcher of the National Coun- tween social science and practical politics. Cam- cil for Scientific and Technological Develop- bridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. ment of Brazil (CNPq). He was a member of Houtman, Gustaaf. 2006. Double or quits. Anthro- the Advisory Council of the Wenner-Gren pology Today 22 (6): 1–3. ˆ Foundation for Anthropological Research and L’Estoile, Benoit de, Federico Neiburg, and Lygia Advisory Editor of Current Anthropology, presi- Sigaud. 2002. Antropologia, impe´rios e estados dent of the Brazilian Association of Anthropol- nacionais: Uma abordagem comparativa [An- thropology, empires and nation-states: A com- ogy (ABA—2002–2004), and the facilitator of parative approach]. In Antropologia, impe´rios e the World Council of Anthropological Associa- estados nacionais, ed. Benoiˆt de L’Estoile, Feder- tions (2004–2005). He has published books and ico Neiburg, and Lygia Sigaud, 9–37. Rio de Ja- articles in Latin America, North America, Eu- neiro: Relume Dumara´/FAPERJ. rope, and Asia on development, globalization, McFate, Montgomery. 2005. Anthropology and and transnationalism. counterinsurgency: The strange story of their E-mail: [email protected] curious relationship. Military Review (March– April): 24–38. Price, David. 2004. Threatening anthropology. Mc- Notes Carthyism and the FBI’s surveillance of activist anthropologists. Durham, NC: Duke University 1. This text was originally written for the session Press. “Debating anthropological practice and national Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins. 2006a. IRBS are the tip of security,” organized by Laura Graham and Kath- the iceberg: State regulation, academic free- ryn Libal, for the 2006 meeting of the American dom, and methodological issues. American Eth- Anthropological Association in San Jose, Cali- nologist 33 (4): 529–31. fornia. ———. 2006b. World anthropologies: Cosmopoli- 2. See for example Weber (2002) for some of the tics for a new global scenario in anthropology.¸ dilemmas of French ethnology under the Vichy Critique of Anthropology 26: 363–86. government. Stocking, George W. 1982. Afterword: A view from the center. Ethnos 47 (1): 173–86. UNESCO. 2004. UNESCO and the issue of cultural References diversity: Review and strategy, 1946–2004. Paris: Mimeo, Division of Cultural Policies and Inter- Copans, Jean, ed. 1975. Anthropologie et impe´ria- cultural Dialogue. lisme. Paris: François Maspero. Vakhtin, Nikolai. 2006. Transformations in Sibe- Goldman, Marcio, and Federico Neiburg. 2002. rian anthropology. In World anthropologies: Dis- Da naçaõ ao impe´rio: A Guerra e os estudos ciplinary transformations in systems of power, do ‘cara´ter nacional’ [From nation to empire: ed. Gustavo Lins Ribeiro and Arturo Escobar, War and ‘national character’ studies]. In Antro- 49–68. Oxford: Berg Publishers. pologia, impe´rios e estados nacionais, ed. Benoiˆt Weber, Florence. 2002. A cieˆncia social em guerra: de L’Estoile, Federico Neiburg, and Lygia Si- Folclore, histo´ria e estado na França, 1937– gaud, 187–217. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Du- 1945 [Social sciences in war: folklore, history, mara´/FAPERJ. and state in France, 1937–1945]. In Antropo- Gonzales, Roberto J. 2007. Towards mercenary an- logia, impe´rios e estados nacionais, ed. Benoiˆtde thropology? The new US Army counterinsur- L’Estoile, Federico Neiburg, and Lygia Sigaud, 154 Gustavo Lins Ribeiro

219–34. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumara´/ Wolf, Eric R., and Joseph G. Jorgensen. 1975. FAPERJ. L’Anthropologie sur le Sentier de la Guerre en Wolf, Eric R. [1969] 1974. American anthropolo- Thaı¨lande [Anthropology on the warpath in gists and American society. In Reinventing an- Thailand]. In Anthropologie et impe´rialisme, ed. thropology, ed. Dell Hymes, 251–63. Nova Jean Copans, 61–93. Paris: Franc¸ois Maspero. Iorque: Vintage Books. Yamashita, Shinji. 2006. Reshaping anthropology: ———. 2001. Anthropology among the powers. A view from Japan. In World anthropologies: In Pathways of power: Building an anthropology Disciplinary transformations in systems of power, of the modern world, 63–80. Berkeley, CA: Uni- ed. Gustavo Lins Ribeiro and Arturo Escobar, versity of California Press. 29–48. Oxford: Berg Publishers.