Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War Paperback – June 9, 2008

The title "Anthropological Intelligence" is a little misleading. Even the subtitle "The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War" falls short of the reality of this encyclopaedic account of anthropology, anthropologists, and other social sciences and scientists in World War II.This may be the definative study of the roles and impacts of social scientists in World War II, but this only made it harder to rate. It is not a book to casually sit down and enjoy, but it runs the gamut from riveting to painfully dry to deeply moving to somewhat sermonizing through the 280+ pages of text. David Price examines the history of the use of anthropology as an enabler and tool for the instruments of national power. The book was written from an anthropologist's perspective, and often agonizes over the ethical conflicts of the use of an academic discipline as a tool of power. It is interesting to me that the underlying issue goes back millenia, but Price never developed it and barely mentioned it; the conflict between the values of the contemplative life and the active life. Despite the ups, downs, and doldrums of reading it, I learned a lot and have a deeper context for current issues that I have been exposed to.Price starts out with the background of dissent from academics regarding the application of their disciplines prior to WWII. He pays considerable attention to conflicts within the American Anthropoligical Association around Franz Boas protests of the use of anthropology and archeology by the government during WWI. Setting the pattern for the rest of "Anthropological Intelligence", Price neglects to acknowledge the possibility that protests against anthropologists and archeologists supporting the government may have had more to do with guilt, cowardice, or resentment towards the success of the scientists who went into harms' way for the war effort, than the high-minded ideals that the protesters asserted. Regarding the dehumanizing uses of anthropology, I concur with Price, that WWI developed models of using social sciences as unethical tools that was carried on during WWII. But to compare field researchers volunteering to share their observations with government intelligence agencies with the use of anthopology to lay the foundations of German racial policies is as irrational as comparing radio interceptions with the use of physically abusive interrogation methods.The rest of the book covers in great depth the roles of anthropologists in WWII. Some, like the academics who ended up fighting on the front lines of the Pacific campaign, are heroic and inspiring characters, and others, like the ones who worked in support of the internment of the Japanese Americans are shameful. All aspects of the war are addressed; Pacific theater, European theater, domestic issues for several of the combatant nations, tactical operations, and geopolitical influences. The diverse roles of anthropologists in the OSS was especially interesting to me. From senior leadership positions to field operators, the social sciences were well represented in the predecessor of the CIA and Special Forces.Throughout the book, in the commentaries Price agonizes over the fundamental conflict between academics and geopolitical actors. He clearly supports the idea that science should never prostitute itself (p. 16, 268), but never reconciles this with his acceptance of the use of science for professional benefits (p.270). So it is morally intolerable to use social sciences in support of national interests and the body politic, but just fine to use it for the personal benefit of academics? The undertone of the entire book is that there should be a complete seperation of academic research and the actions of the government. Apparently, this is because the democratically elected government is somehow an inappropriate body to apply the results of academic work. At the same time, Price makes it clear that social scientists have special insights into a vast number of cultures, languages, and other aspects of the world, but sharing the fruits of this work with nonacademics is somehow suspect.This book was well worth reading and dealt with extremely complex issues, but was very much a social scientist's perspective, and dealt with some of the geopolitical and military aspects in a naive fashion.E. M. Van Court

Los estudios de inteligencia tienen una larga data. Lo nuevo aquí es que se les aplique a las actividades antropológicas. Se va configurando, en el estudio de Price y otros del mismo, una estructura dual, donde de un lado están los antropólogos patriotas y de otro los antropólogos comprometidos.