[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-321557-105":59,"doc-detail-321557-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","introduction-anthropologys-military-shadow","Introduction - Anthropology’s Military Shadow","","Anthropology’s military shadow is traced through the post-9/11 reintensification of using culture and social science for intelligence, warfare, and counterinsurgency. The text links earlier research efforts and archival documentation of interactions between American anthropologists and military/intelligence agencies to a broader critique of how funding, institutional incentives, and national-security structures reshape research agendas. It argues that repeated efforts to acquire and weaponize anthropology misunderstand the discipline’s ethical and transformative potential, while also noting common misrepresentations by scholars seeking military support.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/introduction-anthropologys-military-shadow/321557/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/introduction-anthropologys-military-shadow/321557.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jiven","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-27","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How does the text describe anthropology’s shift toward military and intelligence uses after 9/11?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It argues that post-9/11 conditions and renewed Pentagon/CIA interest revived militarized uses of culture and social science, reframing anthropological knowledge as a tool for intelligence, warfare, and counterinsurgency.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What role does funding and institutional structure play in the weaponization critique?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The text contends that reductions in traditional academic funding and the emergence of narrow, security-linked incentives steer researchers into increasingly constrained ways of thinking and studying.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Why does the author claim the military misunderstands anthropology?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"It emphasizes that anthropology is not merely a usable product; when practiced ethically it can transform understandings and ties researchers to the communities they study, limiting purely instrumental appropriation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},321557,1790237770,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},1099513958607,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002390cf8733938c?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1778829742770036399","Dedication  \nFor Laura Nader, who teaches anthropologists to study up and confront power; and who taught me that critics have to work harder than those aligned with power.  \nIntroduction: Anthropology’s Military Shadow  \nJust as it was becoming passé to remark on anthropology’s status as colonialism’s wanton stepchild, George Bush’s Terror War rediscovered old militarized uses for culture, and invigorated new modernist dreams of harnessing anthropology and culture for the domination of others. Because I began in the early 1990s using the Freedom of Information Act, interviews, and archival research to document American anthropologists’interactions with military and intelligence agencies, by the time the post- 9/11 push by the Pentagon and CIA to again use anthropological knowledge as tools for intelligence, warfare and counterinsurgency, I had a decent head start on documenting and thinking about some of this history. By the time America got its terror war on, I had already documented the details of how this worked in the past, and had thought about the core of the ethical, political and theoretical fundamentals of a critical approach to questions relating to the weaponization of anthropology.  \nBut beyond my work on the ways that McCarthyism limited critical political debates in the 1950s, this head start o􀂝ered little preparation for the wave of American jingoistic support for all things military and CIA asthe nation willfully forgot the CIA’s past involvement in torture, illegal arms deals, assassinations, undermining foreign democratic movements not to its liking, and embraced new forms of militarization as if this past had nothing to do with the rise of anti-American militarism around the globe.  \nToday’s weaponization of anthropology and other social sciences has been a long time coming, and post-9/11 America’s climate of fear coupled with reductions in traditional academic funding provided the conditions of a sort of perfect storm for the militarization of the discipline and the academy as a whole. While all societies have links between the production and use of knowledge and larger economic and political structures, in the United States, the structural desires and holes that anthropological knowledge are desired to ¦ll have been apparent for at least the past century.  \nAnthropology has always been funded to ask certain types of questions, orto know certain types of things: sometimes this has meant that there were more funds available to study the languages and cultures of speci¦c geographic regions, in other times this meant entire theoretical approaches  \nwere fundable (like the simplistic culture and personality studies of the postwar period, used to study our enemies at a distance), while others (critical Marxism, ca. 1952), were not. But even while the directions taken by anthropologists were frequently steered in general directions by the selective availability of funds, this arrangement allowed for some great variations in approaches or areas of study. But the post-9/11 world brought new variations on these old themes where a new form of the National Security State now wanted to cherry-pick individuals early in their careersand secretly place them in departments even while they maintained secret relationships and contacts with the CIA and other agencies. As the chapterson Minerva and the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Programs argue, these new initiatives are built out of a recognition that military and intelligence agencies are ill-prepared to confront the issues and problems raised ¦rst by Bush’s Terror Wars, and then Obama’s Counterinsurgency Wars. Instead of freely funding social scientists to conduct research of their own choosing, the government now funds academics to think in increasingly narrow institutional ways—ways that are institutionally linked to the damaging narrow ways that the Pentagon, CIA and State already approach these problems.  \nAs others have pointed out, while World War I was the Chem","cbCait2LTWgyUgkW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCait2LTWgyUgkW","pdf",1419172,176,"English","# Introduction: Anthropology’s Military Shadow\n## Militarized uses of culture after 9/11\n## Funding structures and selective research agendas\n## Human Terrain Teams and counterinsurgency needs\n## Ethical limits and transformative potential of anthropology","[{\"question\":\"How does the text describe anthropology’s shift toward military and intelligence uses after 9/11?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that post-9/11 conditions and renewed Pentagon/CIA interest revived militarized uses of culture and social science, reframing anthropological knowledge as a tool for intelligence, warfare, and counterinsurgency.\"},{\"question\":\"What role does funding and institutional structure play in the weaponization critique?\",\"answer\":\"The text contends that reductions in traditional academic funding and the emergence of narrow, security-linked incentives steer researchers into increasingly constrained ways of thinking and studying.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the author claim the military misunderstands anthropology?\",\"answer\":\"It emphasizes that anthropology is not merely a usable product; when practiced ethically it can transform understandings and ties researchers to the communities they study, limiting purely instrumental appropriation.\"}]","Introduction - Anthropology’s Military Shadow | PDF",1789959661,444]