American Academy of Political and Social Science

Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy Author(s): Janine R. Wedel, Cris Shore, Gregory Feldman, Stacy Lathrop Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 600, The Use and Usefulness of the Social Sciences: Achievements, Disappointments, and Promise (Jul., 2005), pp. 30-51 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25046109 Accessed: 23/02/2009 17:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org As the rational choice model of "policy" proliferates in the "policy studies," social sciences, modern govern and a of ments, organizations, everyday life, number are a anthropologists beginning to develop body of work in the anthropology of public policy that critiques the of as a assumptions "policy" legal-rational way of getting things done. While de-masking the framing of public an policy questions, anthropological approach attempts to uncover the constellations of actors, activities, and influences that their shape policy decisions, implemen and their results. In a an tation, rapidly changing world, Toward and methods anthropologists' empirical ethnographic can show how create new policies actively categories of individuals to be governed. They also suggest that the Anthropology frameworks of "state" and long-established "private," "local" or "national" and "macro" of Public "global," and "micro," down" and "bottom and and Policy "top up," "centralized" "decentralized" not fail to current only capture dynam ics in the world but obfuscate the actually understanding of many policy processes.

By Keywords: anthropology of public policy; studying R. through; globalization; ethnographic JANINE WEDEL, social network ethics methods; analysis; CRIS SHORE, codes GREGORY FELDMAN, and STACYLATHROP in have been long engaged Anthropologistsresearch that implicitly deals with public for issues to policy, that pertain directly policy lie at as the heart of anthropology. These issues, Shore and Wright (1997) observed, include institutions and power; interpretation and

R. the to win the Janine Wedel, only anthropologist pres tigious Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World is an associate in the School Public Order, professor of Policy at George Mason University. She has testified committees and written the before congressional for as major press, such The New York Times and the Finan cial Times. is Inter She cofounderand coconvenerofthe est Group for the Anthropology of Public Policy (IGAPP). Cris Shore is a at the Univer professor of anthropology in sity of Auckland New Zealand. His research interests are in the political anthropology, particularly European Union, and issues around governance and power in com societies. A editor in Action plex former of Anthropology and The Anthropology of Europe, he also coedited, with

DOI: glO. 1177/0002716205276734 30ANNALS, AAPSS, 600, July 2005 TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 31

meaning; ideology, rhetoric, and discourse; the politics of culture, ethnicity and an ever-more inter identity; and interactions between the global and the local. In connected world, public policies, whether originating with governments, busi nesses, supranational entities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private or some are to actors, combination of these, increasingly central the organization of connect actors in resource society. Public policies disparate complex power and a in relations and play pervasive, though often indirect, role shaping society. Anthropologists studying globalization, the state, politics, development, and elites, other are the of to their and a among topics, discovering centrality policy research, of in is some body work the anthropology of policy developing. Although anthro in or sev pologists who study policy become involved public debates advocacy, and movements in eral anthropology encourage activism, the anthropology of public is to into policy devoted research policy issues and processes and the critical of analysis those processes.2

Legacy of Anthropological Research on Policy Issues

Anthropologists of American, British, and other traditions have long recognized In the intertwining of anthropological topics with policy. the United States, for Franz Boas example, early debates among and other prominent anthropologists of centuries over went to the late nineteenth and early twentieth evolutionary theory core race the of public policies dealing with and gender (Stocking 1968; Smedley At issue was "race" are or 1993). whether and "gender" biological social and are or as whether they fixed changing. Some anthropologists, such Louis Henry and in Morgan Edward Tylor, assumed their comparative studies of kinship and other institutions that human cultures (often corresponding with nineteenth notions a century Western of "biological races") developed through series of evolu to as tionary stages, from "savagery" "civilization." Other scholars, such Boas, chal s lenged these assumptions. For example, Boas studies of immigrants, conducted at the behest of the United States Immigration Commission, demonstrated that is a construct "race" changing, social and that physical differences between "races" are on context. variable and depend

Susan of on Governance Power Wright, Anthropology Policy: Critical Perspectives and and, more with Dieter recently, Hatter, Corruption: Anthropological Perspectives (Pluto Press, 2005). Feldman is an assistant at Gregory professor of international migration the University of British Columbia. His research interests on the the principal focus anthropology of state; globalization, minorities issues in He is coconvener culture, and security; and Europe. cofounder and of the Interest Group for the Anthropology of Public Policy (IGAPP). Stacy Lathrop received the Earl S. and Esther Johnson Prize for her paper, "Venting in the Army Blood and Fire: the Salvation while the in the Tenderloin of " Narrating Army Feeding Elderly of San Francisco. The the Master Arts in prize, granted by University of Chicago's of Program the Social Sciences in awards the best achievement with con 2001, paper combining high scholarly cern humanistic the She is the editor for aspirations and practical applications. managing of News. Anthropology 32 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

was not Across the Atlantic, the work of British anthropologists just as, if more, In Sorcerers An interconnected with policy. The Apprentice: Anthropology of Pub an at lic Policy (1976), Cyril Belshaw, who entered anthropology program the Lon don School of Economics in the 1940s after a stint as a colonial administrator in in not Oceania, argued reality that anthropology has always studied, albeit maybe self-consciously, policy. Given that the discipline developed alongside colonialism, it has inmany ways studied the effects of those colonial processes on social groups as and organizations. Many British social anthropologists, such Edward E. Evans in as Pritchard and Max Gluckman, and those trained this tradition, such Raymond Firth and Frederik Barth, have studied how social institutions and social policies are organized, function, and change and the way these influence social actors, construction social boundaries, and the of social identities. Belshaw argued that at anthropologists should look social interactions, exchanges, and processes, such as in to nationalism and development, from the ground up, relation colonialism in in and those power; he suggested that understanding these relationships and we can in men women create messy processes, glimpse the way which and society. As "In an is he summed it up, ultimate sense, society itself policy making" (p. xv).

Given that [anthropology] developed alongside colonialism, it has in many ways studied the on effects of those colonial processes social groups and organizations.

Since the publication of The Sorcerers Apprentice, many scholars have pointed out in are to limitations anthropology, limitations that the result of its intimate ties as as new colonialism, well possible directions for the field. Postcolonialists?those who study the social, political, economic, and cultural practices that have emerged in resistance to response and colonialism?suggest that anthropologists' "cri are tiques" of cultural practices, including policy processes, partially influenced by their particular social position(s) (Marcus and Fisher 1986; Fisher 2003). Today, many anthropologists study contemporary global processes and how entities interact global, transnational with states, nations, and local groups. There are in those who study militarism and national security policies the United States (Lutz 2002, 2005), Europe (Feldman 2003), Latin America (Gill 2004), and the Middle East (Bornstein 2001). Others study donor politics, foreign and domestic 2001 tensions aid (Wedel ), research funding (Brenneis 1999), and between anthro pologists and human rights lawyers and journalists (Merry 2003). These anthropol TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 33

on a in the field. Some Nader ogists build longtime development thirty years ago, to to to (1974,1980) appealed the discipline "study up"?that is, analyze powerful societies?as an to the traditional focus institutions and elites of complex antidote on "A Nader poor, colonized, and marginalized peoples. reinvented anthropology," institutions bureaucratic in the wrote, "should study powerful and organizations our United States, for such institutions and their network systems affect lives and have studied all also affect the lives of people that anthropologists traditionally around the world" (1974,292-93). Wolf (1974,261) similarly urged anthropologists to out of which created the cultural "spell the processes power present-day systems notable works these calls include and the linkages between them." Other heeding in Marcus's (1992) study of dynastic-business families late-twentieth-century in a America and Gusterson's (1996,1999) study of nuclear engineers weapons lab war. are oratory at the end of the cold There also those, like Marietta Baba (2000, must institutions 38-39), who argue anthropologists begin studying professional as which and organizations, such medical, legal, industrial, and educational ones, are most forces the human condition now "rapidly becoming the powerful shaping and the future." wrote are even more so While the "powerful institutions" about which Nader connected have tended today, anthropologists studying globalization and subjects to on communities. focus how global processes affect local Appadurai's (1996) treatment of actors who are important of globalization from the angle profoundly is a case in little work affected by global processes point. Relatively anthropological to networks transna has been done explore how social organization and organize decision and those who tional players and policy processes, global elites, makers, are influence decisions. Two recent exceptions, however, Catherine Lutz's (2005) on Lutz is and Lesley Gill's (2004) research militarism. currently conducting into U.S. in the Asia-Pacific ethnographic research the role of the military region to U.S. local and linked and resulting responses military bases by transnationally interviews bases with local social movements. Her study includes about military U.S. and activists, base neighbors, and military diplomatic personnel. Similarly, Americas included interviews of U.S. offi Gill's study of the School of (SOA) Army cers and the Latin Americanists who trained at the school, anti-SOA activists, and were forces Andean coca-growing peasants who often targeted by security during on the "War Drugs."

What Public Policy Is and How Policy Questions Are Framed

an to is to examine The starting point of anthropological approach public policy for a case of the assumptions and framing of policy debates (see the appendix study an arise out of contexts and in such approach). Policies particular many ways entire and culture of the that as "encapsulate the history society generated them," it.While be clothed in neutral Shore and Wright (1997, 7) expressed policies may 34 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

to or language?their ostensible purpose merely promote efficiency effective are In "a ness?they fundamentally political. fact, key feature of modern power," is Shore and Wright contended, the "masking of the political under the cloak of neutrality" (pp. 8-9). as an The anthropology of policy takes public policy itself object of analysis, as a is rather than the unquestioned premise of research agenda. Anthropology to well suited explore the cultural and philosophical underpinnings of policy?its uses. enabling discourses, mobilizing metaphors, and underlying ideologies and can Anthropologists explain how taken-for-granted assumptions channel policy in certain are debates directions, inform the dominant ways policy problems iden tified, enable particular classifications of target groups, and legitimize certain policy solutions while marginalizing others.

Key questions for an anthropology of policy An is not anthropology of policy simply concerned with representing local, or to or indigenous, marginalized "cultures" policy makers, government agencies, NGOs. is narrower: concerned Its focus instead simultaneously wider and wider as its aim to state to more insofar is explore how the (or be exact, those policy mak ers are to act in to and professionals who authorized the state's name) relates local narrower to extent its to populations; and the that ethnographic focus tends privi state are lege the goal of understanding how policies and government processes at in experienced and interpreted by people the local level, keeping mind that are the "local" or the to anthropologists recasting "community"3 capture changing" realities. Comaroff and Comaroff (1999, 294), for example, stressed that 'Local is not nor same sometimes it a ity' everywhere, for every purpose, the thing; is fam sometimes a a a or a a ily, town, nation, sometimes flow field, sometimes continent or even or more the world; often it lies at the point of articulation among two of these things." An is in anthropology of policy, however, equally interested understanding the cultures and worldviews of those policy professionals and decision makers who seek to maintain vision implement and their particular of the world through their an in policies and decisions. From anthropological perspective, what happens the executive or boardroom, the cabinet meeting, the shareholders' annual general is no occurs at meeting less important than that which the level of the factory floor or an to locality. Thus, anthropological approach the study of policy incorporates in the full realm of processes and relations involved the production of policy: from initiatives to the policy makers and their strategic the locals who invariably shape it into action. In and mediate policy while translating and implementing this vein, an anthropology of policy asks the following:

What exactly is "policy?" How should we that tend to create com conceptualize policy processes particular "policy constellations of and influences munities," that is, specific actors, activities, that shape policy? TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 35

What role do policies play in the fashioning of modern subjects and subjectivities? In other words, how do policies shape a community s ideas about human beings and being human? How useful is it to view as a or a state s policy "political technology," viewing policy through administrative and Is it useful to view as a of rules, laws, judicial rulings? policy "technique the self or a of a s of and meaningful projection community understanding itself, others, the world? And are the limits to awareness the constraints what given particular imposed by governing bodies? (Foucault 1977; Rabinow 1984; Rose 1990,1999). how can we and what is distinctive about Finally, study policy processes anthropologically, an anthropologically informed set of perspectives?

is What "policy"? is an Policy anthropologically interesting word. Despite its frequency of use, is on an an there still little agreement authoritative definition of policy. However, is anthropology of policy less concerned with assigning abstract and immutable term in definitions of the "policy" than with understanding how policy functions the of In other the is not "What is shaping society. words, key question policy?" but in name term rather, "What do people do the of policy?" An etymology of the "pol to some of its is icy" itself helps expose social functions. The word commonly used as a shorthand a of "economic or for field activity (for example, policy" "foreign pol a at icy"), for specific proposal (for example, the EU's Health and Safety Work or a it to a directive), piece of government legislation. Elsewhere, is used describe or state as a to general program desired of affairs or, alternatively, label describe outcomes or uses are what governments actually achieve. These consistent with what has become the standard modern sense of the term understood as a "course of a statesmen or action adopted and pursued by government, party, ruler, etc," any course action as an of adopted expedient.4 From anthropological reading, this defi nition to in sense a has notable similarities that of "myth" the Malinowskian of or a "charter for action" (Malinowski 1926) charter conveying assumptions, values, and meanings about how to live. semantics term However, the historical of the "policy" also reveal other, equally on important clusters of meaning that shed light other aspects of the concept. What is in particularly interesting about the medieval French origins of the word "policy" sense are the of governing and management its close semantic associations with now "policing" (policie) and "polishing." Although obsolete, the sixteenth-century use as a to more "to of policy verb meaning police or, precisely, organize and regu is some con late the internal order of," suggestive of what are, perhaps, of the less no an spicuous but less unimportant functions. This centuries-old definition bears to now in uncanny resemblance the critical angle that many anthropologists favor state. A is to out their studies of the modern key part of this research draw how pol state in icy aids the shaping, controlling, and regulating heterogeneous populations through classificatory schemes that homogenize diversity, render the subject to transparent the state, and implement legal and spatial boundaries between dif as an ferent categories of subjects (cf. Trouillot 2001). Similarly, when used adjec tive to describe and "civilization" more "elegancy," "refinement," "culture," or, pre or sense term cisely, the "polishing refining of manners," the older of the "policy" 36 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

its in as as a might also find modern counterpart the idea of policy "spin" and verbal to note sense as a sound bite designed strike the right among electors. The of policy or "contract of insurance" "daily lottery," stemming from the Greek "demonstrate" resonate (apodeiknynai) and "proof (apodeixis), might also with ideas about or are to "accountability" and "transparency" that governing bodies accountable or to their citizens, members, investors and obligated communicate their activities and decisions to them.

a [T]he word "policy9 is concept laden with it is a often quite contradictory meanings; word that can he coded and decoded to convey very

ambiguous messages.

even more are term two But significant the associations of the "policy" with rival over sets of meaning and the way these have shifted the centuries. In fifteenth- and was as a noun sixteenth-century English, "policy" commonly used for political or in execution same sagacity, prudence, skill the of statecraft. However, during the itwas as an to were period, also used adjective describe types of conduct that both one good and bad. On hand, policy evoked the idea of "diplomacy," "prudence," in its it meant and "expediency," but bad sense, also "shrewdness," "cunning," two "craftiness," and "dissimulation." Again, these alternative readings would also seem to uses be salient for understanding contemporary and meanings of the word two are "policy." When these meanings put together, they show how statecraft, which is invariably concerned with consolidating social order, inherently privileges some over it is an people others without revealing the fact that producing order of must to a state. inequality; policy be "bad" achieve the "good" of stable The impor to in is tant point deduce from this brief exercise historical semantics that the word is a it is a "policy" concept laden with often quite contradictory meanings; word that can to be coded and decoded convey very ambiguous messages.

in The proliferation of "policy" everyday discourse

term now in in The "policy" frequently appears both the language of elites and seems to in everyday life. The word have become ubiquitous the discourse of gov ernments in and organizations, particularly the way these bodies represent them or raison selves, define their goals, justify their d'?tre. "Policy" has become the leit motif of modern organizations. As Shore and Wright (1997) argued, policy has TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 37

an in on become increasingly central organizing principle contemporary societies, a as par with other key mobilizing concepts such "community," "society," and are as "nation." However, whereas the latter usually recognized contested ideologi terms are or seems to no cal that seldom innocent politically disinterested, there be or such critical sensibility public skepticism toward the idea of "policy." Typically, is as is a mere "policy" represented something that both neutral and rational: tool serves to unite means or that and ends bridge the gap between goals and their a execution?in short, legal-rational way of getting things done. to to Our argument is that these assumptions (even the claim "rationality") need at it be questioned rather than taken face value, and whatever else might be, policy as a as a must also be understood type of power well as the embodiment of certain reason. kind of instrumental Indeed, the field of policy studies has often evaded serious it not narratives critique because has adequately explored how policy mobi can lize the language of science, reason, and "common sense." Policy be presented as it to or incon apolitical because appeals seemingly neutral scientific reasoning assertions nature. can mute testable about human In this way, policy makers oppo sition not maneuvers counter through crafty Machiavellian but by simply casting as or a arguments "irrational" "impractical." Thus, key task for the anthropology of is to statements policy expose the political effects of allegedly neutral about reality. From an a anthropological perspective, striking aspect of modern-day society is extent to in the extraordinary which the idea of policy has become implicated the one or now organization of human affairs. Indeed, policies of kind another shape our entire existence. to and regulate the conditions of From the cradle the grave, are norms modern human subjects governed by?and through?the and dictates of particular policies, whether these be concerned with public health, employment or practices, education, national security, taxation regimes, "good governance," race equal opportunities and relations legislation. Indeed, almost every aspect of is now to or ren contemporary life subject the implementation of policy has been an or one can a dered object "target" of policy makers: from the age vote, drive car, or to care retire, have legal sex, the and schooling of children, the conduct of par ents and professionals, and the design of homes. Even the concepts of individual in In it is rights and the "private citizen" are, effect, artifacts of policy. this sense, to not it useful think only of the constraining dimension of policy but also of how fashions modern identities and ideas about what it means to be human. as By classifying people and problems (and particular people particular policy create new as problems), policies actively categories of individuals, such "citizens" and seekers" and "economic "ratepayers," "asylum migrants," "geriatric mothers," "adjunct professors," "self-employed consultants," "the long-term unemployed," is a was and the "working poor." The latter category that itself recently invented by it the British government through itsWorking Poor Initiative?an initiative, might to it be added, that the government implemented address the poverty trap that had to its previously helped bring about by earlier policies of deregulation and labor is not its market flexibility. The point here that policy dictates the behavior of target it an a citizen population but rather that imposes ideal type of what "normal" a must measure should be. Individuals of population contend with, up to, subvert, 38 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

or internalize as own manipulate, simply these ideal types part of their identity. In modern functions not a short, power largely by brute imposition of state's agenda to one but by using policy limit the range of reasonable choices that can make and to or "normalize" particular kinds of action behavior. Many anthropologists study these processes ethnographically For instance, Les Field demonstrated (1999) that the policies developed by the U.S. Bureau of Indian and its Affairs, those who work for Branch of Acknowledgement Research, who can be as an bureaucratically stamp federally recognized "Indian," thereby the fate of to determining many unrecognized tribes, their lands, and their ability in lucrative not to mention participate gambling ventures, deciding which kinds of tribal are relevant and which are not. are knowledge Similarly, anthropologists the effects of the 1993 Native Act in act is studying Title Australia. This predicated on the notion that common law can the recognize "rights and interests" held by Australian in lands can show aboriginals only they they have continuously inhab ited on as through history and which they have practiced traditional customs, such and other Yet such a some hunting practices. notion, argue anthropologists, ignores the forcible and removal relocation of these groups, meaning they often cannot to a court's prove satisfaction traditional continuity with their lands and practices (Glaskin2000; Povinelli 2002).

as "Policy" the object of analysis in a The model of policy making the rationality project is production model, where policy is created in a ordered of almost as if on an line. fairly sequence stages, assembly Many in of the elements" of An issue is political scientists, fact, speak "assembling policy. "placed on the it moves the and executive agenda," gets defined; through legislative branches of where alternative solutions are government proposed, analyzed, legitimized, elected, and a solution is the executive and refined; implemented by agencies constantly challenged and revised by interested actors, perhaps using the judicial branch; and finally, if the pol is it a means of and icy-making process managerially sophisticated, provides evaluating revising implemented solutions. (Stone 1988, 8)

The anthropology of policy brings much-needed perspectives to the influential area field of public policy and the growing of enquiry that falls under the broad of heading "policy studies." The problem with much of the latter is that it continues to a treats as a an operate within positivistic paradigm that policy reified entity and or own unanalyzed given, seldom questioning the conceptual cultural bases of its As a analytical assumptions. the above quote by Stone ( 1988) indicates, there is also to view if not as a as a tendency policy, linear process, then neat, logical, orderly, and rational set of move flows and procedures that rationally and systematically from to formulation and design execution and evaluation. In other is as an or words, public policy often thought of "assembly line" "con But a veyor belt." policy making and implementation hardly follow linear process a outcome. with predetermined On the contrary, policy processes often encounter are unforeseen variables, which frequently combined in unforeseen ways and with as in unforeseen consequences. For example, Wedel (2001,8-9) found her study of TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 39

to more a series Western assistance eastern Europe, aid policies may appear like of are "chemical reactions" that begin with the donor's policies but transformed by the agendas, interests, and interactions of the donor and recipient representatives at recent each stage of implementation and interface. Despite ethnographies illus trating the limitations of the rational choice model in "policy studies," anthropolo to a gists have yet put forth compelling, coherent critique ofthat model.

Analyzing Policy Processes and Addressing Theoretical and Methodological Challenges

is at core The anthropology of public policy the of theoretical and methodologi its cal challenges currently facing anthropology?and potential contributions. of an While de-masking the framing public policy questions, anthropological constructs an on actors approach understanding of policy processes focused how mediate those processes. "Anthropologists," Shore and Wright (1997, 13) sug are gested, uniquely positioned "to understand the workings of multiple, intersect structures are to ing and conflicting power that local but tied non-local systems." An to uncover of anthropological approach attempts the constellations actors, activities, and influences that shape policy decisions and their implementation, out. to effects, and how they play Anthropology therefore gives particular emphasis must situ the idea that the study of policy decisions and their implementation be in an or context: cannot ated empirical ethnographic They be adequately mapped are an using variables whose values and correlations prespecified by abstract model.

Rethinking the "field" an Studying policy requires rethinking anthropological pillar?the discipline's a traditional concept of "the field"?as single and (relatively) geographically consists bounded place (Gupta and Ferguson 1997,37). Today, "the field" often of actors in loosely connected with varying degrees of institutional leverage located are not even multiple "sites" that always geographically fixed.5 With the post-cold war s states world increased delegation of authority by and international organiza a tions to private organizations, companies, and actors, the architects and agents of are no policy may be elusive, varied, and diffused. Policies longer formulated pri a marily by governments, but additionally by plethora of supranational entities, or some businesses, NGOs, private actors, combination of these. a illuminates the struc Anthropology offers social organizational approach that tures to An and processes that ground, order, and give direction policies. ethnogra institutions are pher explores how individuals, organizations, and interconnected to sustain connections even if the actors and asks how policy discourses help those are never even contact. involved in face-to-face (or direct) "Studying through" (Reinhold 1994, 477-79; Shore and Wright 1997), the process of following the 40 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

source a to of policy?its discourses, prescriptions, and programs?through those For affected by the policies does just that. example, Shore andWright ( 1999,2000) to examine have used this approach the cultural consequences and implications of since British government reforms of higher education the 1980s. Similarly, Wedel interactions to (2001) has studied "through" the of donors and recipients explore arenas the social organization linking the overlapping of activity navigated by actors. actors not By charting connections among who may know each other but are can situated among these arenas, "studying through" illuminate how different are organizational and everyday worlds intertwined?and their relationships of power and resources?across time and space. Interactions in these arenas are not actors on only between the ground (for example, donor and recipient representa tives to an and other parties aid process) but also between the larger systems they in represent (for example, nations Wedels study).

The value of social network analysis unites can Social network analysis, which both theory and method, help illumi nate a sites of articulation and interaction and thereby provide snapshot of the on workings of transnational policy processes. Network analysis, which focuses is not as a social relations rather than the characteristics of actors,6 powerful only as as method but also "an orienting idea," Scott (1991, 37) proposed. By linking can or is actors, network analysis show how the local regional level connected with or or the national level the local, regional, national level with the international. an can examine Employing network analysis, ethnographer relationships between individuals, groups, and organizations and the changing, overlapping, and actors multiple roles that within them may play. Social analysts have linked network structures to collective processes.7 Dezalay and Garth (2002, 10), for example, careers it ... showed that "tracing the of particular individuals makes obvious that the world of foundations and that of human rights NGOs have always been very concrete careers inter closely related; how through networks and theWorld Bank acts or with local situations; and how corporate law firms advocacy organizations on are to new modeled those in the United States brought terrains." can serve as a Such analysis persuasive basis for explaining policy decisions. a core Wedels (2004) social network study of group of "neoconservatives," first in a or so published The Washington Post, highlighted dozen long-connected play a at ers, "flex group," whose skill maneuvering between government and private at roles, relaxing both the government's rules of accountability and businesses' at state codes of competition, and conflating and private interests, proved essential on to the group's influence American public policy. The group's "flex organizing" it to a in U.S. East enabled play pivotal role shaping policy toward the Middle and to war in taking the United States Iraq. it a Network analysis?and the social organizational framework that implies?is to mixes "state" "macro" useful way conceptualize the of and "private," of and or versus "micro," of "local" "national" and "global," of "top down" "bottom up," versus transna and of "centralized" "decentralized" that today configure many TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 41

are to inter tional policy processes. Anthropologists thus well positioned track the actions interests between public policy and private and the mixing of state, is nongovernmental, and business networks that becoming increasingly prevalent around the globe. a can The value of theoretical and methodological framework that both dissect connect as as state and levels (such local and global) and spheres (such and private) is to overstate in a difficult multilayered and rapidly changing world. Today, many in most in are the world, obviously players policy processes, perplexed when asked is owns questions like "Whom do you work for?" "Who responsible?" "Who the or company?" "Whom does he represent?" Analysis of relationships between as an actors, both individual and collective (such network analysis reveals), enables to see arenas in one ethnographer different levels and of activity frame of study and are to observe how they interwoven.

Methods for an anthropology of public policy as a itsmost can Anthropology takes given that much of useful information only case be obtained through trusted "informants." The "extended method" (Van in actors Velsen 1967, 145), which the ethnographer follows interconnected a series to around particular of events, lends itself the study of ongoing policy pro cesses. to same The actors' responses the questions (regarding, for example, their own are and others' activities, perspectives, and networks) then compared and over time. actors in a are assessed Although involved particular "case" sometimes in are located different sites, they always connected by the policy process and/or by actual social networks. in as sites as strive to However, many possible, anthropologists conduct partici or at some association actors in own ter pant observation least long-term with their ritories is or (Agar 1996, 58). When this impossible impractical, however, they interviews is employ alternative methods. In "studying up," conducting often the means to only of gathering firsthand information and gaining entr?e difficult-to access as in institutions. For itwas "fields," such individuals powerful example, only amoment because the U.S. Army's School of Americas suffered from of public vul was nerability after pressures from human rights groups that Gill (2004) provided an to interviews are opportunity interview graduates of the school. When the pri source a mary of information from particular site, cross-checking critical informa tion sources is and corroborating key points with multiple crucial (Wedel 2003). as to Anthropologists employ additional methods well. "Talking and living with a the members of community," Gupta and Ferguson (1997, 37) reported, "are increasingly taking their place alongside reading newspapers, analyzing govern ment documents, observing the activities of governing elites, and tracking the internal logic of transnational development agencies and corporations." (In the we a the 2001 USA appendix, offer brief illustration of this argument using as a case PATRIOT Act study. Wedel) (2001,222-24) added that she consulted pro as as ject reports, internal memoranda (such materials obtained under laws such the Freedom of Information Act), and independent organizations. She also estab 42 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

lished mutually beneficial collaborations with congressional and parliamentary officials with staff, charged monitoring, and investigative reporters. Consulting such sources, she found, served to corroborate, broaden, and lend enhanced credence to her work.

Rethinking professional ethical codes

necessitates Studying "up" and "through" also rethinking the ethical codes in designed with studying "down" mind. Several anthropologists (including Wedel 2001, 223; Konrad 2002, 227; and Shore 2002,11) have called for a reexamination an to of the traditional ethic ordaining that anthropologist's "first responsibility is we are more those whose lives and cultures study."When the people being studied in powerful than the studiers, this precept the American Anthropological Associa tion's (AAA's) Code of Ethics (1998),8 and echoed in that of other social science is an organizations, problematic. Wedel (2001, 223), for instance, asked, "Does same to an a anthropologist have the responsibility agency that employs public as it to a relations staff does tribe facing extinction?" She reported that "anthropol in in on sensitive ogists engaged research government agencies issues may find it to difficult proceed without employing ethics from journalism because it will be as expected of them by their sources," such federal administrators, congressional aids, and other powerful individuals typically interviewed by journalists but not institutions actors anthropologists. She concluded that studying powerful and to should thus bind anthropologists the ethical code and practices of journalism to treatment with regard of "sources."

[The AAAs] code makes it clear that anthropologists primary ethical obligation is to the people they study and that anthropologists are to no to cautioned do harm the people with whom they work.

in contexts must Similarly, those anthropologists working medical and legal in as as inform themselves of the risks of working these settings, well what ethical an expectations their informants have. For example, the confidentiality of anthro notes attention pologists' field became the focus of when anthropologist Sheldon were in a Zink's field notes of the AbioCor artificial heart trial subpoenaed legal TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 43 case on to whether the hospital had failed inform the patient, who died, and his of case was con family about the dangers the trial (Free Sheldon.org 2003). Zinks was not or at a founded since her research, which federally funded based univer not to review sity, had been subjected institutional board oversight; further compli one to cating things, she changed her role from of researcher patient advocate time at to during her the hospital. In response Zink's ethical dilemma, the AAA a on (2003) adopted Statement the Confidentiality of Field Notes, reiterating that its it is to code makes clear that anthropologists' primary ethical obligation the peo are to no to ple they study and that anthropologists cautioned do harm the people At same it states with whom they work. the time, acknowledged that the code that "the degree and breadth of informed consent" is situational to the context inwhich a study takes place and the requirements of other "codes, laws, and ethics of the or in is is at country community which the research pursued." It the end of the statement AAA nature that the noted the changing of anthropological fieldwork: "We an environment notes are not believe that of distrust results if field protected use or or against the by public officials other persons having physical political to use notes to or power who might wish the investigate prosecute research sub or we jects people with whom work."

Critiquing Conventional Wisdom through Anthropological Analyses

to can counteract Bringing anthropological analysis public policy help three related is the to treat as an and dominant trends. The first tendency "policy" in unproblematic given, without reference to the sociocultural contexts which it is The of continues to embedded and understood. paradigm positivism dominate a nec much of the "policy studies" literature and approach. Anthropology provides corrective to a more essary both of these shortcomings and introduces reflexive on as an as as a set perspective policy idea well of processes. is even The second of these the domination of public policy and debate, and as scholarship, by ideologized discourses, such those of globalization, democratiza et tion, and privatization. Kalb al. (2000, 8) observed that the very "neglect, denial, or even conscious con repression, of institutional complexity, social relationships, into tingency, and possible contradictions" turned the concept of globalization the it interactions "ideological magnet" became. By highlighting and interfaces among to can a to parties the policy process, anthropology provide counterweight these discourses. can counteract is use The third trend that anthropological analysis help the of as versus versus flawed dichotomous frameworks (such "state" "private," "macro" down" versus "bottom "local" versus "centralized" ver "micro," "top up," "global," sus so in to "decentralized") prevalent public policy. These frameworks tend obfus cate, rather than shed light on, the workings of policy processes. By analyzing the construction and building blocks of policy?actors and organizations, their activi 44 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

ties and of can on points articulation?anthropology take the complexity, ambigu and messiness of In a ity, policy processes. rapidly changing world, anthropology's on to construct reliance ethnography help the variables being studied and its focus on the interactions in to which parties the policy process engage (regardless of so or or even see as ever whether they do willingly wittingly, themselves "parties") is more can outcomes are crucial. Anthropological analysis disentangle the that pro duced and help explain how and why they often contradict the stated intentions of policy makers. An not to anthropology of public policy should only add the body of substantive is it a cor knowledge about the way the world changing, but should provide critical rective to in the simplified models that work well journals and textbooks yet often to outcomes on fail produce desired the ground. It should spur theoretical and methodological development that strengthens both anthropology and the interdis ciplinary study of policy.

Appendix Case Study: The USA "PATRIOTAct"

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on theWorld Trade Center and in a was the Pentagon September 2001, hastily drafted antiterrorism bill presented to to Congress that, according both supporters and critics of the legislation, has laid the a foundations for domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and Known as technological prowess. the PATRIOT Act (its full title being the Uniting and to Protecting America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required Intercept and new on Obstruct Terrorism Act), the bill rapidly passed into law October 26,2001. The in new was wartime speed which the law ratified reflected the climate of politics mass (fuelled by fear of further terrorist attacks and "weapons of destruction") and the to on desire of the Bush administration capitalize quickly the bipartisan mood in Con gress. Among its provisions, the PATRIOT Act empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence; a charges the Treasury Department with building financial intelligence-gathering sys tem can whose data be accessed by the CIA; and, for the first time ever, gives the CIA to authority influence FBI operations inside the United States and obtain evidence as gathered by wiretaps and federal grand juries. More specifically, McGee (2001) tears observed, the bill "effectively down the legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during was the Watergate era, when the nation stunned by disclosures about presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political activists." as At its signing, President Bush described the bill "an essential step in defeating ter rorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans," which would "give new to a intelligence and law enforcement officials important tools fight present dan an ger" (Bush 2001). A few weeks later, President Bush also signed order empowering him to authorize military trials in the United States and abroad for international terror ists and their collaborators. These tribunals can sentences as severe as military impose TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 45

on a on death two-thirds vote, hold trials in secret, and rely evidence that would be a rejected in civil court. Furthermore, Bush's order does not allow for judicial review. an Some legal experts claim that the order appears to be attempt by the president to suspend the right of habeas corpus for those accused of plotting against the United war States (who would, by definition, be in violation of the laws of and therefore ineligi ble for protection under the U.S. Constitution). The American Civil Liberties Union has warned of the dangers to civil liberties posed by the bill. For example, section 802 of so now the act redefines "domestic terrorism" broadly that it could encompass World a Trade Organization protesters and Greenpeace activists.a The act also permits vast array of covert information gathering, effectively giving the Central Intelligence on Agency and National Security Agency license to spy Americans. The recent history in on seven of the CIAs involvement illegally spying thousand Americans inOperation CHAOS (including anti-Vietnam War protesters, so-called black nationalists, and stu was on dent activists) precisely what led to restrictions the CIA activities during the 1970s. one As might expect, many critics voiced opposition to the bill, particularly the way it on redraws the line between civil liberties and national security. Reflecting the history of intelligence abuses, Senator Frank Church warned that domestic intelligence gath was a ering "new form of power," unconstrained by law, often abused by presidents and as always inclined to grow (McGee 2001). Even conservative Republicans, such Robert L. as Barr Jr., characterized the government's plans ethnic profiling, power grabbing, and overzealous law enforcement. Still others have denounced the proposal for mili as tary tribunals and secret evidence "third world" practices (Lardner 2001). During over the debate the passage of the bill through congress, Senate Judiciary Chairman concerns. s Patrick Leahy raised several of these Attorney General John Ashcroft reply was was that "talk won't prevent terrorism," adding that he "deeply concerned about the rather slow pace of the legislation" (TheWashington Post 2001). Republican Sena tor an to in Orin Hatch voiced similar frustration with attempt debate the proposal the are our Senate; "[Delays] very dangerous things. It's time to get off duffs and do what's right" (ibid). Stepping back from all this, what is anthropologically interesting about the is in was to PATRIOT Act precisely the language which it presented the American pub was lic.While the dominant discourse national security and the threat by terrorists in no who, the words of George W. Bush (2001), "recognize barrier of morality," "have no was conscience," and "cannot be reasoned with," the policy narrative filled with a at to metaphors of "danger," "the urgency of nation war," and the need "bring down walls" between intelligence gathering and law enforcement. A recurring motif in the discourse of the U.S. was that these measures were tools" to government "necessary to enable "our nation's law enforcement, national defense and intelligence personnel" to "bring terrorists and other dangerous criminals justice" (U.S. Department of Justice 2004, 1). The very identification of these kinds of threats and crises in public policy serve as a foil against which national identity is consolidated and dissent pushed aside (Campbell 1998; Feldman 2005). Significantly, the U.S. Department of Justice new in to defended these powers terms of their contribution combating pedophiles a (the other folk devils that pose public threat to "our way of life"). 46 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

The very title of the legislation?with its flagrant exploitation of the themes of "patriotism," "state of emergency," and defense of the nation?were similarly designed to reassure the public about the righteousness of the proposed changes while to marginalizing opposition the bill. As U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft opined in November 2001, "The highest and most noble form of public service [is] the preserva tion of American lives and liberty" (U.S. Department of Justice 2001). This followed men women President Bush's call for public unity and support for those and in the FBI, law enforcement, intelligence, customs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and are Explosives (ATF), and secret services who "serving this country with excellence, and often with bravery" (Bush 2001). The PATRIOT Act passed with little vocal opposition. Most critics either stone or in to to vote walled simply caved pressure for the bill for fear of being deemed "soft on on terrorism" and, by implication, weak defense of the American nation. Insight were magazine reported that only two copies of the bill made available in the hours just before its passage, and most representatives admitted to voting for the bill without even it one seeing (Insight, November 9, 2001). As Republican critic of the bill (Texas representative Ron Paul) complained,

The insult is to call this a "patriot bill" and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought itwas undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it?and therefore I'm not a That's somehow patriot. insulting.

success in was The muting political opposition matched by the burden the act on placed the various nonstate actors whom it affects. One good example is found in air transportation. While the PATRIOT Act renders the violation of aircraft illegal, the enforcement of this law is largely left to private industry in the form of either private or are security companies the airlines themselves. Airlines understandably sensitive to occurs potential lawsuits if another terrorist attack after the culprits pass through their own to err on security checks. Thus, they have incentive the side of caution about let on even own ting passengers board if passengers fully pass their established security standards. are on The standards, however, flexible and subject to interpretation based the ste a an reotypes of who terrorist might be. For example, inDecember 2001, Assem Bayaa, American citizen of Middle Eastern descent, was removed from a United Airlines secu flight from Los Angeles to New York just prior to takeoff. Despite having cleared crew on was rity checks, the "felt uncomfortable" having him board the plane, and he ordered off of the plane without any questions and without having been searched. A was a civil rights lawsuit filed against United Airlines, which subsequently filed motion case. to dismiss the A federal judge rejected the motion and stated that despite pilots' in or not an not a having discretion deciding who may may board aircraft, they do have "license to discriminate" (American Civil Liberties Union 2002a). case a While the result in this particular constituted victory for civil liberties, the more to significant point note is the broad latitude that the private airlines have acquired in matters of "national security." The anthropological explanation for the not to of United pilot's removal of Assem Bayaa should be reduced the legal language TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 47

are more a simple "discrimination." The effects of the policy process complex. As pri concern a vate company, United Airlines's foremost is profit, which produces tension between the cost of potential lawsuits resulting from arguably insufficient security measures measures. and the cost of implementing those Yet underlying the pilot's was a mix action complex of social and cultural factors having to do with "riskmanage ment," "moral panic" (Comaroff and Comaroff 1999), and heightened public fear even no about Arabs and Islamic fundamentalists. If the pilot himself holds such ste as reotypes about Arabs dangerous extremists, it is hard for any pilot not to be influ or enced by public pressure popular representations that construe particular individu as on als likely terrorist suspects the basis of their physical appearance. case is What this study illustrates the triumph of the discourse of national security over as that of civil liberties?a triumph engineered much by the mobilization of as rhetorics of fear and "states of emergency" by those of patriotism and xenophobia. in some While anti-foreigner sentiments and Islamophobia certainly achieve victories instances, it is the narrative of "national security" that remains the irremovable refer ence point that sanctifies the PATRIOT Act and against which oppositional voices to it to struggle be heard. But would be misleading view the implementation and as a versus enforcement of the USA PATRIOT Act simply matter of the state civil soci in a ety. Like policy general, the PATRIOT Act binds together wide variety of actors, new institutions, and agendas in and ambiguous relationships. Actors with the legal, or can to political, institutional leverage "clarify" these relationships by appealing the current is discourses that dominate the political climate. "National security" perhaps in the foremost discourse of the American present, and itmanifests itself myriad ways in as as in it woven the practice of daily life well the way is into the fabric of public policy. The current state of alert and call to action for a "war on terrorism" recalls a comment made long ago by the critic Walter Benjamin (1969,257), writing against another call to on eve war: us crisis, and the of another "The tradition of the oppressed teaches that the we 'state of emergency' inwhich live is not the exception but the rule.We must attain to a in more conception of history that is keeping with this insight." Benjamin's thesis has current than passing relevance to U.S. defense policy. As Elaine Scarry (2002) wrote, over speed has repeatedly been invoked by governments the past fifty years to central or ize power; counter ethical, legal, constitutional objections; and sidestep the demo cratic process in the United States.

a. Section 802 the definition of terrorism to include as to interna expands "domestic," opposed terrorism. A in domestic terrorism if he or she commits act tional, person engages any "dangerous a or to human life" that violates the criminal laws of state the United States, if the act appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian influence the of a (1) population; (2) policy govern ment intimidation or or the conduct of a mass by coercion; (3) affect government by destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (American Civil Liberties Union 2002b).

Notes

1. American The Interest Group for the Anthropology of Public Policy (IGAPP), affiliated with the was in 2004 R. to an Anthropological Association, founded (by Gregory Feldman and Janine Wedel) provide to s to institutional framework identify and foster the work of anthropologists studying policy. IGAPP goal is 48 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

of of to the and to strengthen the contributions the anthropology public policy discipline interdisciplinary on theory policy. on to in 2. There have been many conscious efforts the part of anthropologists personally participate pub is Tax's "action lic debates and influence social and policy processes. One well-known example Sol (1975) on Tax new anthropology." Drawing the liberal-humanist tradition of John Dewey, stressed that research and knowledge should help humanity solve problems that inhibit growth and development. Believing that in action at a for anthropologists should engage aimed improving community's capacity self-determination, Tax as Fox and his students from the University of Chicago developed community projects, such the Indian Project in Tama, Iowa, which he directed from 1938 to 1962. in is on Another example of anthropologists taking part public debates Basch and colleagues' ( 1999) focus to academia and higher education policy. Basch and the other contributors Transforming Academia: Chal an an "to lenges and Opportunities for Engaged Anthropology promote "engaged anthropology," referring to to the anticipation of changes that will affect anthropology and developing strategies deal with them to stance proactively and intentionally, rather than waiting react" (p. 291). This shares much with the public interest in anthropology (first proposed Anthropology and the Public Interest; Sanday 1976), which emerged to on in one focus the relationship between basic and applied research anthropology, where anthropologists to can would contribute public policy by isolating "variables that be manipulated by public policy and with the at cost identification of the point which the of changing inputs outweighs the expected benefits" (p. xvii). a to or one Some contemporaries called this "social engineering" approach policy (Belshaw 1976), that does not in interest challenge the rational frameworks of the idea of policy making. Those engaged public anthro on to can to pology today have moved demonstrate how anthropologists contribute public education and movement debates (Sanday 1998). This is also the focus of the public anthropology spearheaded by Robert to more to a as an Borofsky, which also aims make anthropology accessible diverse public, seeing this ethical responsibility (PublicAnthropology.org n.d.). in an 3. Anthropological tradition lies studying the local level (often "on-the-ground" communities), but in nature ongoing discussion the discipline questions the of the local. Gupta and Ferguson (1997, 15) sug is not and its reexamination. Ortner gested that "the idea of locality well thought out" called for (1997, 76) "we can no communities to or at that observed that longer take be localized, on-the-ground entities, least is one moment site their local, on-the-ground form only and of their existence." 4. Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com (accessed April 28, 2005). are with one 5. Increasingly, anthropologists conducting de-localized fieldwork among people connected a once been an another. For example, Ortner (1997) studied high school graduating class that had part of is now the United States. "actual on-the-ground community" that dispersed throughout in were 6. Pioneers the field of social network analysis John Barnes, Clyde Mitchell, and Elizabeth Bott, at in saw all associated with the Department of Social Anthropology Manchester University the 1950s. They structure as on arose from social networks of relations and focused "the actual configuration of relations that the exercise of conflict and power" (Scott 1991,27). For analysis of the contribution of the Manchester school to see Scott the development of social network theory, (1991, 27-33). a can to 7. Laumann, Marsden, and Prensky (1989,62) maintained that "features of network be used... show the consequences of individual level network processes at the level of the collectivity." See also Marsden (1981). 8. American assertions reflected an The Anthropological Association's about ethics have always ongoing is to the disci assumption that anthropologists' primary ethical responsibility those they study. Still, through not been in about what this as evi pline's history, anthropologists have always agreement means, clearly in she consid denced by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology (1991). There, as censure in ered how controversies such the of Boas in 1919 and Project Camelot the 1970s illustrate in clandestine research. While disagreement about the role of anthropologists policy processes, particularly was Association his Boas censured by the American Anthropological for public outcry of anthropologists who to on behalf of the United States World War the association used their professional identity spy during I, which developed its first professional ethics code following debates about Project Camelot, had allegedly scientists in in South America for the United States proposed that social engage clandestine research govern ment. In its of the Association stated such should 1971 "Principles Professional Responsibility," engagements not be pursued. TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 49

More a on in Current focused recently, 1995 forum the topic of "Objectivity and Militancy" Anthropology on in science debates anthropology about the relationship between and advocacy. There, Nancy Scheper a one sure is Hughes proposed "militant anthropology," that makes the primacy of the ethical upheld through on on political engagements behalf of those studied. Roy D'Andrade, the other hand, defended objectivity an and science, maintaining that "any moral authority that anthropologists may hold depends upon objective to understanding of the world and that end moral and objective models should be kept distinct."

References

Press. Agar, Michael. 1996. The professional stranger. New York: Academic American Association 1998. Code of ethics of the American Associ Anthropological (AAA). Anthropological ation. http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm (accessed April 28, 2005). -. on notes, 2003. Statement the confidentiality of field http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/fieldnotes.htm (accessed April 28, 2005). s to ACLU American Civil Liberties Union. 2002a. Federal judge in CA rebuffs United Airline plea dismiss case. discrimination October 11. http://vv^vw.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=10869& c=28. -. Act 2002b. How the USA PATRIOT redefines "domestic terrorism," http://www.aclu.org/National/ Security/NationalSecurity.cfm?/ID=11437&c=lll (accessed April 28, 2005). 1996. at of Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press. in A Baba, Marietta L. 2000. Theories of practice anthropology: critical appraisal. Napa Bulletin 18:17-44. 1999. aca Basch, Linda G., Lucie Wood Saunders, Jagna Wojcicka Sharf, and James Peacock. Transforming an VA: American demia: Challenges and opportunities for engaged anthropology. Arlington, Anthropo logical Association. An New York: Belshaw, Cyril S. 1976. The sorcerer's apprentice: anthropology of public policy. Pergamon. an trans. Benjamin, Walter. 1969. Illuminations, edited and with introduction by Hannah Arendt, Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken Books.

Bornstein, Avram. 2001. Crossing the Green Line between theWest Bank and Israel. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. at Science Brenneis, Don. 1999. New lexicon, old language: Negotiating the "global" the National Founda tion. In now: ed. Critical anthropology Unexpected contexts, shifting constituencies, changing agendas, George E. Marcus, 123-46. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research. at Patriot Act. Press 26. Bush, George W. 2001. Remarks by the president signing of the release, October www.whitehouse.gov/news.releases/2001/10/print/20011026-5.html. 1998. States and the 2nd ed. Campbell, David. Writing security: United foreign policy politics of identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Comaroff, Jean, and John L. Comaroff. 1999. Occult economies and the violence of abstraction: Notes from American 26 279-303. the South African postcolony. Ethnologist (2): in 36 399-408. D'Andrade Roy. 1995. Moral models anthropology. Current Anthropology (3): wars: Dezalay, Yves, and Bryant Garth. 2002. The internationalization of palace Lawyers, economists, and Press. the contest to transform Latin American states. Chicago: University of Chicago our on NATO. 19 1-2. Feldman, Gregory. 2003. Breaking silence Anthropology Today (3): -. to minorities the nation 2005. Essential crises: A performative approach migrants, and European 213-46. state. Anthropological Quarterly 78 (1): Field, Les. 1999. Complicities and collaborations: Anthropologists and the "unacknowledged tribes" of Cali Current 40:193-209. fornia. Anthropology Uni Fisher, Michael M. J. 2003. Emergent forms of life and the anthropological voice. Durham, NC: Duke versity Press. a new era. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. 1991. Ethics and the profession of anthropology: Dialogue for Philadel Press. phia: University of Pennsylvania Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. 50 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Last 2003. Free Sheldon.org. updated May 14, http://www.freesheldon.org/index.html (accessed February 20, 2005). 2004. the Americas: and violence in the Americas. Dur Gill, Lesley. The School of Military training political ham, NC: Duke University Press. current Glaskin, Katie. 2000. Limitations to the recognition and protection of native title offshore: The "acci Issues Native Issues no. 2000. Aus dent of history." Land, Rights, Law, of Title, Paper 5, June Canberra, tralia: AIATSIS Native Title Research Unit. as in Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1997. Discipline and practice: "The field" site, method, and location In locations: Boundaries and ed. Akhil anthropology. Anthropological grounds of afield science, Gupta Press. and James Ferguson, 1-46. Berkeley: University of California rites: A at cold war. Gusterson, Hugh. 1996. Nuclear weapons laboratory the end of the Berkeley: University of California Press. -. 1999. Nuclear weapons and the other in the Western imagination. Cultural Anthropology 14 (1): 111-43. van Kalb, Don, Marco van der Land, Richard Staring, Bart Steenbergen, and Nico Wilterdink, eds. 2000. The back in. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. ends of globalization: Bringing society across science new Konrad, Monica. 2002. Pre-symptomatic networks: Tracking experts medical and the Cris Shore and 227-48. genetics. In Elite cultures: Anthropological perspectives, ?d. Stephen Nugent, London: Routledge. 2001. concern over anti-terrorism moves. November Lardner, George. On left and right, Washington Post, 16, online ed. (accessed February 10, 2005). 1989. in Laumann, Edward O., Peter V. Marsden, and David Prensky. The boundary specification problem in ed. Linton S. R. network analysis. In Research methods social network analysis, Freeman, Douglas White, and A. Kimball Romney. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. A American twentieth Boston: Beacon. Lutz, Catherine. 2002. Homefront: military city and the century. -. new militarization. News 46 11. 2005. Military bases and ethnographies of the Anthropology (1): in London: Paul. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1926. Myth primitive psychology. Kegan in America. Marcus, George. 1992. Lives in trust: The fortunes of dynastic families late twentieth-century Boulder, CO: Westview. as An Marcus, George E., and Michael M. J. Fisher. 1986. Anthropology cultural critique: experimental Press. moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago into a American Marsden, Peter V. 1981. Introducing influence processes system of collective decisions. 86:1203-35. Journal of Sociology in online ed. McGee, Jim. 2001. An intelligence giant the making. Washington Post, November 4, (accessed February 10, 2005). 2003. Human law and the demonization of culture the Merry, Sally Engle. rights (and anthropology along Review 26 55-77. way). Polar: Political and Legal Anthropology (1): from In Nader, Laura. 1974. Up the anthropologist?Perspectives studying up. Reinventing anthropology, ed. Dell Hymes, 284-311. New York: Vintage. -. In 1980. The vertical slice: Hierarchies and children. Hierarchy and society: Anthropological per on M. Britan Institute for the of Human spectives bureaucracy, ed. G. and R. Cohen. Philadelphia: Study Issues. in and Humanism 22 61-80. Ortner, Sherry B. 1997. Fieldwork the postcommunity Anthropology (1): the Australian Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2002. The cunning of recognition: Indigenous alterities and making of multiculturalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. PublicAnthropology.org. n.d. http://www.publicanthropology.org/ (accessed January 26, 2005). Rabinow, Paul. 1984. The Foucault reader. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin "Positive and Section 28. Reinhold, Susan. 1994. Local conflict and ideological struggle: images" Unpub lished D.Phil, thesis, University of Sussex, UK. London: Rose, Nikolas 1990. Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. Routledge. -. Press. 1999. Powers of freedom. Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Reeves. the interest. New York: Academic Press. Sanday, Peggy 1976. Anthropology and public TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGYOF PUBLIC POLICY 51

-. 1998. R. statement at American Association Peggy Sanday's opening delivered Anthropological Sym a Public Interest 1998. posium, "Defining Anthropology," Philadelphia, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/ anthro/CPIA/whatispia/pial998.html (accessed April 28, 2005). 2002. in Scarry, Elaine Citizenship emergency. Boston Review, Oct/Nov. http://bostonreview.net/BR27.5/ scarry.html (accessed February 17, 2005). 1995. a Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. The primacy of the ethical: Positions for militant anthropology. Current Anthropology 36 (3): 409-20. Scott, John. 1991. Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage. Cris. 2002. Introduction. Towards an In Shore, anthropology of elites. Elite cultures: Anthropological per ed. C. S. 1-21. spectives, Shore and Nugent, London: Routledge. and Susan 1997. on Shore, Cris, Wright. Anthropology of public policy: Critical perspectives governance and power. London: Routledge. -. 1999. Audit culture and in anthropology: Neo-liberalism British higher education. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7 (4): 759-63. -. 2000. Coercive new its on In accountability: The audit culture and impact anthropology. Audit cul tures: in Anthropological studies accountability, ethics and the academy, ed. Marilyn Strathern, 57-89. London: Routledge. in a Smedley, Audrey. 1993. Race North America: Origin and evolution of worldview. Boulder, CO: Westview. W. 1968. and evolution: in New Stocking, George Race, culture, Essays the history of anthropology. York: Free Press. D. A. 1988. reason. Stone, Policy, paradox and political London: HarperCollins. Sol. 1975. Action Tax, anthropology Current Anthropology 16:171-77. 2001. state in Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. The anthropology of the the age of globalization: Close encounters of the Current 42 deceptive kind. Anthropology (1): 125-38. U.S. of 2001. Department Justice. Attorney General Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General Thompson announce reorganization and mobilization of the nation's justice and law enforcement resources. Novem 8. ber www.usdoj.gov/. -. 2004. Patriot Act at Report from the field: The USA work. Department of Justice, July, judi ciary.house.gov/Media/pdfs/PATRIOTReportfromtheField0704.pdf. Van 1967. The extended-case method and In The Velsen, J. situational analysis. craft of social anthropology, ed. A. L. Epstein, 129-52. New York: Tavistock. Post. 2001. Anti terrorism bill on Hill. 3. Washington hits snag the October http://www.cooperativeresearch. org/timeline/2001/wpostl00301b.html. R. 2001. case Wedel, Janine Collision and collusion: The strange ofWestern aid to eastern Europe. New York: Palgrave. -. 2003. case to Studying through transnational policy processes: The ofWestern aid eastern Europe. Presented at the American Association Anthropological Annual Meeting, Chicago, November 20,2003. -. 2004. Flex A to out. power: capital way gain clout, inside and The Washington Post, December 12, p. B4. Eric. 1974. American and American In Wolf, anthropologists society. Reinventing anthropology, ed. Dell Hymes, 251-63. New York: Vintage.