Should archaeologists make an effort to voice their political views?

Question

As an Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology major, I feel that it is not our place as archaeologists to speak out on political issues (i.e. the war in Iraq) in relation to archaeological issues. Of course, for example, we can state whether or not certain military actions are negatively affecting archaeological sites. However, as archaeologists, I don't think that it is our place to publicly condemn or condone government actions. We can do so as private citizens, but not as archaeologists for it is not our area of expertise. What do you think? Do you think it is our responsibility as archaeologists to consider present-day social issues, as they may pertain to our studies?

I would like to solicit the opinions of other archaeologists.

Answer 1

Apologies if this is disjointed or totally nonsensical - it's late, I can't sleep, but my antihistamines seem to working anyway...

As an ABD student in a department in the thick of the politics involved in the Middle East, I wish that we could remain totally objective. (Actually, I wish everyone would just get over themselves so I can dig in peace, but that isn't sufficiently sensitive to whatever the hell it is I'm supposed to be sensitive to this week.) Unfortunately, not everyone does so, nor is it necessarily desirable to do so. I try very hard to keep my personal politics/religion/etc. out of my professional responsibilities, but honest introspection (and reading way too much archaeological theory) forces me to admit that I'm not always successful. I like to think that at least admitting it is a step in the right direction... (Oh dear, I think I've just compared archaeology to AA. It was bound to happen eventually.)

There are many archaeologists, especially among the post-processualists (Ian Hodder comes to mind as the most prominent example - if memory serves, the whole last chapter of the latest edition of *Reading the Past* is devoted to his notion of archaeology and politics) who suggest that the whole point of archaeology is to BE political - to use the discipline to create social change. Frankly, I find this attitude disquieting. Anyone with even the barest notion of more modern history should be well aware of the problems that can (note I say "can" not "always do") arise when the social sciences are combined with public policy or political ideology - eugenics, Social Darwinism, genocide, etc. Especially problematic is when archaeology is used to further the political agenda of a certain group or to justify the actions of such a group.
Cetainly we don't operate in a vacuum - we can't. And for those of us working in what are euphemistically termed "unstable" regions of the world, the problem is exacerbated. Political decisions affect our ability to work, our ability to find funding, and our safety in the field. And many people, especially senior scholars who have spend decades of their lives living and working in regions such as the Middle East have a special view of the issues involved, one that is often quite different from what the policy advisors to their own government present. I think that issue, more than anything else, is what has led so many scholars to speak out on issues beyond "you're blowing up/running over the sites and letting looters run riot." That and, as you should well know, giving a professor a soap-box is asking for trouble. :)
What is needed, and what I have found to be sorely lacking (at least in my institution) is a more formal discussion of the ethics of the practice of archaeology and history in relation to modern politics. (I mean, students and faculty occasionally sit around and discuss it over drinks, but I really hope that my entire ethical base isn't based on the last pitcher I bought at Jimmy's.) Other archaeologists have already taken steps in that direction - especially those trained to work in the public sector in the US. While there are works available on the ethics of archaeology, the ones I've seen are primarily concerned with specific regions (usually the US). We need a dialogue on ethics that goes beyond just "professional" ethics, eg. beyond "plagiarism is bad, mmmkay."

And on another note - your phrase "pertaining to our studies" is sticking in my brain. I will be very interested to look back at journals and monographs from the years surrounding the recent war to see how much interpretations were affected, consciously or otherwise, by world events and how they were affected. You can see that sort of thing in some of the work that came out during WWII especially and I find it a fascinating glimpse into the contextual nature of life and thought.

Answer 2

This is iffy because when it comes to the MIDDLEEAST, ARCHAEOLOGY may be the only way to show how this thousand year old upheaval started and by whom. The tension in the middleast is old, older than the UNITED STATES, and older than the ROMAN IDEALS we have adopted into our political forums. It's very possible that many of the people in the MIDDLEEAST don't even remember how the battle started! Imagine the answers archaeology could provide and then after the info has been presented, let the people take it from their.

Answer 3

You should definitely consider how world politics effect and affect your studies. you should not make your politics part of your scientific research, but it will creep in anyhow.
You should be able to state your political views as a private citizen, but this will naturally be misunderstood by most of your colleges and critics, not stating your views will not help either, Look at the mess that resulted from the work of Darwin and how the controversy still echos.
So show no fear and say what ever you believe will benefit you the most, a cynical approach I know, leave the most disturbing or damaging stuff in your private papers, If you achieve an renown for your work postmortem controversy will only sustain it and support the spread of your work

Answer 4

I think scientists must be much more active in politics and in public life. Children and teens are brainwashed, basically forced to listen what obscure actors, models, singers, athletes or rich cronies say. What means ‘not our area of expertise’? Does some son of a president have better understanding of the world we live in?
It is only good if a scientist is getting out and delivers personal opinion based not only on his/he experience as a private citizen, but also on professional knowledge and professional critical thinking.

Answer 5

Yes, you have rights as private citizens to express your feelings but it would be unfair to do it as a professional group unless 100% of you feel exactly the same which is not likely. Social issues will always pertain to anthropological information but to take sides is not the way to go.

Answer 6

I received my degree studying Anthropology (ethnology), and went on to become a professional soldier as my career. In both instances I do not state my political positions. Like you, as an anthropologist I am not an expert on such matters, and as a soldier it is my job to follow orders and be apolitical. Like you I express my opinion as a private citizen. I whole heartedly agree with you. I only wish our celebrities (many of whom do not have the luxury/burden of higher education) followed your fine example.

Answer 7

I think archeologists would be wiser than the attorneys we have for politicians now. Archeologists would be more familiar with cultural mistakes of the past and would know not to make the same mistakes again. They also have seen how humankind has changed/evolved in the past and can predict how they will change/evolve in the future.

Answer 8

I agree with you, it is not your place to voice political views as an archeologist except when the politics affects sites or your acess to them.

Answer 9

of course..that was why archaeology is taught in anthropology departments.....of course unless you are from england er elsewhere....etc.