Anthropology of Policy

American Academy of Political and Social Science
Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy

Author(s): Janine R. Wedel, Cris Shore, Gregory Feldman and Stacy Lathrop
Source: The 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: 15-09-2017 22:39 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Sage Publications, Inc., American Academy of Political and Social Science are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science
This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Fri, 15 Sep 2017 22:39:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
As the rational choice model of "policy" proliferat
"policy studies," the social sciences, modern gov
ments, organizations, and everyday life, a numbe
anthropologists are beginning to develop a body of w
in the anthropology of public policy that critiques
assumptions of "policy" as a legal-rational way of get
things done. While de-masking the framing of pu
policy questions, an anthropological approach attem
to uncover the constellations of actors, activities,
influences that shape policy decisions, their implem
Toward an tation, and their results. In a rapidly changing wo
anthropologists' empirical and ethnographic meth
can show how policies actively create new categorie
Anthropology individuals to be governed. They also suggest that
long-established frameworks of "state" and "priva
of Public Policy "local" or "national" and "global," "macro" and "mic

"top down" and "bottom up," and "centralized"
"decentralized" not only fail to capture current dyn
ics in the world but actually obfuscate the understan
of many policy processes.
By Keywords: anthropology of public policy; study

through; globalization; ethnographi
JANINE R. WEDEL, methods; social network analysis; ethic
CRIS SHORE, codes
GREGORY FELDMAN,
and
STACY LATHROP
Anthropologists research
research that that implicitly
implicitly have been deals long with engaged public in
deals with public
policy, for issues that pertain directly to policy lie
at the heart of anthropology. These issues, as
Shore and Wright (1997) observed, include
institutions and power; interpretation and
Janine R. Wedel , the only anthropologist to win the pres-

tigious Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World
Order, is an associate professor in the School of Public
Policy at George Mason University. She has testified
before congressional committees and written for the
major press, such as The N ew York Times and the Finan-
cial Times. She is cofounder and coconvener of the Inter-
est Group for the Anthropology of Public Policy
(IGAPP).
Crs Shore is a professor of anthropology at the Univer-
sity of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests
are in political anthropology, particularly the European
Union, and issues around governance and power in com-
plex societies. A former editor of Anthropology in Action
and The Anthropology of Europe, he also coedited, with
DOI: glO. 1177/0002716205276734
30 ANNALS, AAPSS , 600, July 2005
TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF PUBLIC POLICY 31
meaning; ideology, rhetoric, and discourse; th

identity; and interactions between the global and
connected world, public policies, whether orig
nesses, supranational entities, nongovernmen
actors, or some combination of these, are increas
society. Public policies connect disparate actor
relations and play a pervasive, though often
Anthropologists studying globalization, the state
among other topics, are discovering the centralit
body of work in the anthropology of policy is d
pologists who study policy become involved in pu
eral movements in anthropology encourage ac
policy is devoted to research into policy issu
analysis of those processes.2
Legacy of Anthropological Resea
Anthropologists of American, British, and othe

the intertwining of anthropological topics wit
example, early debates among Franz Boas and o
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centurie
the core of public policies dealing with race an
1993). At issue was whether "race" and "ge
whether they are fixed or changing. Some an
Morgan and Edward Tylor, assumed in their c
other institutions that human cultures (often
century Western notions of "biological races") de
tionary stages, from "savagery" to "civilization."
lenged these assumptions. For example, Boas s
at the behest of the United States Immigratio
"race" is a changing, social construct and that ph
are variable and depend on context.
Susan Wright, Anthropology of Policy: Critical Pers

more recently, with Dieter Hatter, Corruption: Anthro
Gregory Feldman is an assistant professor of internation
Columbia. His principal research interests focus on the
culture, and secuty; and minorities issues in Europe.
Interest Group for the Anthropology of Public Policy (
Stacy Lathrop received the Earl S. and Esther Johnson Pr
of Blood and Fire: Narrating the Salvation Army while
San Francisco. " The prize, granted by the University of
Social Sciences in 2001, awards the best paper combining
cern for humanistic aspirations and the practical app
Anthropology News.
32 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
Across the Atlantic, the work of Britis

interconnected with policy. In The Sorce
lic Policy (1976), Cyril Belshaw, who ente
don School of Economics in the 1940s after a stint as a colonial administrator in
Oceania, argued in reality that anthropology has always studied, albeit maybe not
self-consciously, policy. Given that the discipline developed alongside colonialism,
it has in many ways studied the effects of those colonial processes on social groups
and organizations. Many British social anthropologists, such as Edward E. Evans-
Pritchard and Max Gluckman, and those trained in this tradition, such as 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,
social boundaries, and the construction of social identities. Belshaw argued that
anthropologists should look at social interactions, exchanges, and processes, such
as nationalism and development, from the ground up, in relation to colonialism
and those in power; he suggested that in understanding these relationships and
messy processes, we can glimpse the way in which men and women create society.
As he summed it up, "In an ultimate sense, society is itself policy making" (p. xv).
Given that [anthropology] developed alongside

colonialism, it has in many ways studied the
effects of those colonial processes on social
groups and organizations.
Since the publication of The Sorcerers Apprentice , many scholars have pointed
out limitations in anthropology, limitations that are the result of its intimate ties to
colonialism, as well as possible new directions for the field. Postcolonialists - those
who study the social, political, economic, and cultural practices that have emerged
in response and resistance to colonialism - suggest that anthropologists' "cri-
tiques" of cultural practices, including policy processes, are partially influenced by
their particular social position(s) (Marcus and Fisher 1986; Fisher 2003).
Today, many anthropologists study contemporary global processes and how
global, transnational entities interact with states, nations, and local groups. There
are those who study militarism and national security policies in 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
aid (Wedel2001), research funding (Brenneis 1999), and tensions between anthro-
pologists and human rights lawyers and journalists (Merry 2003). These anthropol-
ogists build on a longtime development in the field. So

(1974, 1980) appealed to the discipline to "study up" - t
institutions and elites of complex societies - as an antid
on poor, colonized, and marginalized peoples. "A rein
wrote, "should study powerful institutions and bure
United States, for such institutions and their network
also affect the lives of people that anthropologists h
around the world" (1974, 292-93). Wolf (1974, 261) simi
to "spell out the processes of power which created the
and the linkages between them." Other notable work
Marcuss (1992) study of dynastic-business families
America and Gusterson s ( 1996, 1999) study of nuclear
oratory at the end of the cold war. There are also thos
38-39), who argue anthropologists must begin study
and organizations, such as medical, legal, industrial,
are "rapidly becoming the most powerful forces shapin
and the future."
While the "powerful institutions" about which Nad
today, anthropologists studying globalization and co
to focus on how global processes affect local comm
important treatment of globalization from the angle o
affected by global processes is a case in point. Relativel
has been done to explore how social organization and
tional players and policy processes, global elites, dec
influence decisions. Two recent exceptions, however
and Lesley Gills (2004) research on militarism. Lut
ethnographic research into the role of the U.S. militar
and resulting responses to U.S. military bases by loc
social movements. Her study includes interviews abo
activists, base neighbors, and U.S. military and dipl
Gills study of the School of Americas (SOA) included in
cers and the Latin Americanists who trained at the sch
Andean coca-growing peasants who were often targeted
the "War on Drugs."
What Public Policy Is and How

Questions Are Framed
The starting point of an anthropological approach to

the assumptions and framing of policy debates (see the
such an approach). Policies arise out of particular c
"encapsulate the entire history and culture of the socie
Shore and Wright (1997, 7) expressed it. While polici
language - their ostensible purpose merely

ness - they are fundamentally political. In fa
Shore and Wright contended, is the "mask
neutrality" (pp. 8-9).
The anthropology of policy takes public p
rather than as the unquestioned premise o
well suited to explore the cultural and philo
enabling discourses, mobilizing metaphors,
Anthropologists can explain how taken-for
debates in certain directions, inform the dom
tified, enable particular classifications of t
policy solutions while marginalizing others.
Key questions for an anthropology of poli
An anthropology of policy is not simply

indigenous, or marginalized "cultures" to po
concerned NGOs. Its focus instead is simul
insofar as its aim is to explore how the state
ers and professionals who are authorized to ac
populations; and narrower to the extent that
lege the goal of understanding how state p
experienced and interpreted by people at t
anthropologists are recasting the "local" or th
realities. Comaroff and Comaroff (1999, 29
ity' is not everywhere, nor for every purpose
ily, sometimes a town, a nation, sometimes a
or even the world; often it lies at the point o
these things."
An anthropology of policy, however, is equa
cultures and worldviews of those policy pr
seek to implement and maintain their particu
policies and decisions. From an anthropolog
executive boardroom, the cabinet meeting,
meeting is no less important than that which
or locality. Thus, an anthropological approa
the full realm of processes and relations invo
the policy makers and their strategic initiativ
and mediate policy while translating and imp
an anthropology of policy asks the following
What exactly is "policy?"

How should we conceptualize policy processes t
munities," that is, specific constellations of act
policy?
What role do policies play in the fashioning of modern

words, how do policies shape a community s ideas about
How useful is it to view policy as a "political technology,
administrative rules, laws, and judicial rulings? Is it usef
the self' or a meaningful projection of a community's u
the world? And what are the limits to awareness given
by governing bodies? (Foucault 1977; Rabinow 1984; R
Finally, how can we study policy processes anthropolog
an anthropologically informed set of perspectives?
What is "policy"?
Policy is an anthropologically interesting word

there is still little agreement on an authoritative de
anthropology of policy is less concerned with ass
definitions of the term "policy" than with underst
the shaping of society. In other words, the key que
rather, "What do people do in the name of policy?"
icy" itself helps to expose some of its social functio
as a shorthand for a field of activity (for example, "
icy"), for a specific proposal (for example, the E
directive), or a piece of government legislation. Else
general program or desired state of affairs or, alter
outcomes or what governments actually achieve.
what has become the standard modern sense of the
action adopted and pursued by a government, party
course of action adopted as expedient.4 From an ant
nition has notable similarities to that of "myth"
"charter for action" (Malinowski 1926) or a charter
and meanings about how to live.
However, the historical semantics of the term "po
important clusters of meaning that shed light on o
is particularly interesting about the medieval F renc
the sense of governing and management are its
"policing" (policie) and "polishing." Although now
use of policy as a verb meaning to police or, more p
late the internal order of," is suggestive of what ar
spicuous but no less unimportant functions. This ce
uncanny resemblance to the critical angle that man
their studies of the modern state. A key part of this
icy aids the state in shaping, controlling, and regul
through classificatory schemes that homogeniz
transparent to the state, and implement legal and s
ferent categories of subjects (cf. Trouillot 2001). Sim
tive to describe "elegancy," "refinement," "culture,"
cisely, the "polishing or refining of manners," the
might also find its modern counterpart i

sound bite designed to strike the right n
"contract of insurance" or "daily lottery,
(apodeiknynai) and "proof' ( apodeixis
"accountability" and "transparency" or
their citizens, members, or investors and
and decisions to them.
[T ]he word "policy" is a c

often quite contradictory m
that can be coded and deco
ambiguous messages.
But even more significant are the associa

sets of meaning and the way these have sh
sixteenth-century English, "policy" wa
sagacity, prudence, or skill in the executi
period, it was also used as an adjective to
good and bad. On one hand, policy evok
and "expediency," but in its bad sense,
"craftiness," and "dissimulation." Again, t
seem to be salient for understanding cont
"policy." When these two meanings are
which is invariably concerned with conso
some people over others without revealin
inequality; policy must be "bad" to achiev
tant point to deduce from this brief exerc
"policy" is a concept laden with often quit
can be coded and decoded to convey ve
The proliferation of "policy" in everyd
The term "policy" now frequently appea

everyday life. The word seems to have be
ernments and organizations, particularly
selves, define their goals, or justify their
motif of modern organizations. As Sho
become an increasingly central organizing principle

a par with other key mobilizing concepts such a
"nation." However, whereas the latter are usually re
cal terms that are seldom innocent or politically di
such critical sensibility or public skepticism toward
"policy" is represented as something that is both ne
that serves to unite means and ends or bridge t
execution - in short, a legal-rational way of getting
Our argument is that these assumptions (even the
be questioned rather than taken at face value, and w
must also be understood as a type of power as well
kind of instrumental reason. Indeed, the field of
serious critique because it has not adequately explor
lize the language of science, reason, and "common
as apolitical because it appeals to seemingly neutr
testable assertions about human nature. In this way
sition not through crafty Machiavellian maneuvers
arguments as "irrational" or "impractical." Thus, a k
policy is to expose the political effects of allegedly n
From an anthropological perspective, a striking as
the extraordinary extent to which the idea of polic
organization of human affairs. Indeed, policies of
and regulate the conditions of our entire existence.
modern human subjects are governed by - and th
of particular policies, whether these be concerned w
practices, education, national security, taxation
equal opportunities and race relations legislation
contemporary life is now subject to the implement
dered an object or "target" of policy makers: from
retire, or have legal sex, to the care and schooling o
ents and professionals, and the design of homes.
rights and the "private citizen" are, in effect, artif
useful to think not only of the constraining dimen
fashions modern identities and ideas about what it
By classifying people and problems (and particu
problems), policies actively create new categories of
and "ratepayers," "asylum seekers" and "economic m
"adjunct professors," "self-employed consultants
and the "working poor." The latter is a category tha
the British government through its Working Poor
be added, that the government implemented to add
previously helped to bring about by its earlier p
market flexibility. The point here is not that policy
population but rather that it imposes an ideal ty
should be. Individuals of a population must contend
manipulate, or simply internalize these ideal

short, modern power largely functions not b
but by using policy to limit the range of rea
to "normalize" particular kinds of action or b
Many anthropologists study these processes
Field (1999) demonstrated that the polic
Indian Affairs, and those who work for its B
bureaucratically stamp who can be federal
determining the fate of many unrecognized
participate in lucrative gambling ventures, n
tribal knowledge are relevant and which a
studying the effects of the 1993 Native Title
on the notion that common law can recogn
Australian aboriginals only in lands they can
ited through history and on which they have
hunting and other practices. Yet such a notio
the forcible removal and relocation of thes
prove to a courts satisfaction traditional cont
(Glaskin 2000; Povinelli 2002).
" Policy " as the object of analysis
The model of policy making in the rationality pro

is created in a fairly ordered sequence of stages,
political scientists, in fact, speak of "assembling th
on the agenda," gets defined; it moves through th
government where alternative solutions are propo
refined; a solution is implemented by the execu
and revised by interested actors, perhaps using th
icy-making process is managerially sophisticated
revising implemented solutions. (Stone 1988, 8)
The anthropology of policy brings much-ne

field of public policy and the growing area
heading of "policy studies." The problem with
to operate within a positivistic paradigm that
unanalyzed given, seldom questioning the c
analytical assumptions. As the above quote by
tendency to view policy, if not as a linear pro
rational set of flows and procedures that mov
formulation and design to execution and ev
In other words, public policy is often thoug
veyor belt." But policy making and implemen
with a predetermined outcome. On the contr
unforeseen variables, which are frequently co
unforeseen consequences. For example, as W
Western assistance to eastern Europe, aid policies

"chemical reactions" that begin with the donor
the agendas, interests, and interactions of the don
at each stage of implementation and interface. De
trating the limitations of the rational choice mod
gists have yet to put forth a compelling, coheren
Analyzing Policy Processes and

Theoretical and Methodologica
The anthropology of public policy is at the core

cal challenges currently facing anthropology -
While de-masking the framing of public polic
approach constructs an understanding of policy
mediate those processes. "Anthropologists," Sh
gested, are uniquely positioned "to understand the
ing and conflicting power structures that are loca
An anthropological approach attempts to unco
activities, and influences that shape policy dec
effects, and how they play out. Anthropology ther
the idea that the study of policy decisions and th
ated in an empirical or ethnographic context: T
using variables whose values and correlations
model.
Rethinking the "field"
Studying policy requires rethinking an anthro

traditional concept of "the field" - as a single
bounded place (Gupta and Ferguson 1997, 37). To
loosely connected actors with varying degrees o
multiple "sites" that are not always even geograph
war world s increased delegation of authority by
tions to private organizations, companies, and acto
policy may be elusive, varied, and diffused. Polici
marily by governments, but additionally by a
businesses, NGOs, private actors, or some comb
Anthropology offers a social organizational appr
tures and processes that ground, order, and give d
pher explores how individuals, organizations, an
and asks how policy discourses help to sustain tho
involved are never in face-to-face (or even dir
(Reinhold 1994, 477-79; Shore and Wright 199
source of a policy - its discourses, prescri

affected by the policies does just that. Fo
have used this approach to examine the
British government reforms of higher ed
(2001) has studied "through" the interac
the social organization linking the over
actors. By charting connections among
are situated among these arenas, "studyin
organizational and everyday worlds are
power and resources - across time and
only between actors on the ground (for e
tives and other parties to an aid process)
represent (for example, nations in Wed
The value of social network analysis
Social network analysis, which unites bo

nate sites of articulation and interactio
workings of transnational policy proce
social relations rather than the characteri
method but also as "an orienting idea,"
actors, network analysis can show how th
the national level or the local, regional, o
Employing network analysis, an ethn
between individuals, groups, and organiza
multiple roles that actors within them ma
structures to collective processes.7 Dez
showed that "tracing the careers of parti
the world of foundations and that of h
closely related; how through concrete net
acts with local situations; and how corp
modeled on those in the United States a
Such analysis can serve as a persuasiv
Wedels (2004) social network study of
published in The Washington Post , highl
ers, a "flex group," whose skill at mane
roles, at relaxing both the government
codes of competition, and at conflating st
to the group s influence on American pub
enabled it to play a pivotal role in shapi
taking the United States to war in Iraq.
Network analysis - and the social organi
useful way to conceptualize the mixes
"micro," of "local" or "national" and "g
and of "centralized" versus "decentraliz
tional policy processes. Anthropologists are thus w

actions between public policy and private inte
nongovernmental, and business networks that i
around the globe.
The value of a theoretical and methodological
and connect levels (such as local and global) and sp
is difficult to overstate in a multilayered and rap
in the world, most obviously players in policy pr
questions like "Whom do you work for?" "Who
company?" or "Whom does he represent?" An
actors, both individual and collective (such as netw
ethnographer to see different levels and arenas of
to observe how they are interwoven.
Methods for an anthropology of public policy
Anthropology takes as a given that much of its

be obtained through trusted "informants." Th
Velsen 1967, 145), in which the ethnographer
around a particular series of events, lends itself t
cesses. The actors' responses to the same questio
own and others' activities, perspectives, and ne
assessed over time. Although actors involved in
located in different sites, they always are connecte
actual social networks.
However, in as many sites as possible, anthropol
pant observation or at least some long-term associ
ritories (Agar 1996, 58). When this is impossib
employ alternative methods. In "studying up," con
only means of gathering firsthand information a
access "fields," such as individuals in powerful ins
because the U.S. Armys School of Americas suffer
nerability after pressures from human rights gro
an opportunity to interview graduates of the scho
mary source of information from a particular sit
tion and corroborating key points with multip
Anthropologists employ additional methods as w
the members of a community," Gupta and Fe
increasingly taking their place alongside readin
ment documents, observing the activities of g
internal logic of transnational development ag
appendix, we offer a brief illustration of thi
PATRIOT Act as a case study. ) Wedel (2001 , 222-2
ject reports, internal memoranda (such as mat
the Freedom of Information Act), and indepen
lished mutually beneficial collaboration

staff, officials charged with monitorin
such sources, she found, served to cor
credence to her work.
Rethinking professional ethical codes
Studying "up" and "through" also ne

designed with studying "down" in mind.
2001, 223; Konrad 2002, 227; and Shore
of the traditional ethic ordaining that an
those whose lives and cultures we study"
powerful than the studiers, this precept
tion s (AAA's) Code of Ethics (1998), 8
organizations, is problematic. Wedel (2
anthropologist have the same responsib
relations staff as it does to a tribe facing
ogists engaged in research in government
difficult to proceed without employing
expected of them by their sources," such
aids, and other powerful individuals ty
anthropologists. She concluded that stu
should thus bind anthropologists to th
with regard to treatment of "sources."
[The AAA's] code makes

anthropologists primary et
the people they study and
are cautioned to do no harm
whom they work.
Similarly, those anthropologists work

inform themselves of the risks of worki
expectations their informants have. For e
pologists' field notes became the focus
Zink s field notes of the AbioCor artif
case on whether the hospital had failed to in

family about the dangers of the trial (Free Sh
founded since her research, which was not fed
sity, had not been subjected to institutional re
cating things, she changed her role from o
during her time at the hospital. In respons
(2003) adopted a Statement on the Confidential
its code makes it clear that anthropologists' pr
ple they study and that anthropologists are ca
with whom they work. At the same time, it a
"the degree and breadth of informed consent"
a study takes place and the requirements of
country or community in which the researc
statement that the AAA noted the changing n
"We believe that an environment of distrust r
against the use by public officials or other
power who might wish to use the notes to i
jects or people with whom we work."
Critiquing Conventional Wis

Anthropological Analyses
Bringing anthropological analysis to publi

related and dominant trends. The first is
unproblematic given, without reference to the
embedded and understood. The paradigm o
much of the "policy studies" literature and app
essary corrective to both of these shortcom
perspective on policy as an idea as well as a
The second of these is the domination of
scholarship, by ideologized discourses, such as
tion, and privatization. Kalb et al. (2000, 8) obs
or even conscious repression, of institutional c
tingency, and possible contradictions" turned
"ideological magnet" it became. By highlightin
parties to the policy process, anthropology
discourses.
The third trend that anthropological analy
flawed dichotomous frameworks (such as "st
"micro," "top down" versus "bottom up," "loca
sus "decentralized") so prevalent in public polic
cate, rather than shed light on, the workings
construction and building blocks of policy - ac
ties and points of articulation - anthropol

ity, and messiness of policy processes. In
reliance on ethnography to help construct
on the interactions in which parties to
whether they do so willingly or wittingly
more crucial. Anthropological analysis c
duced and help explain how and why they
policy makers.
An anthropology of public policy should
knowledge about the way the world is cha
rective to the simplified models that wor
fail to produce desired outcomes on the
methodological development that strength
ciplinary study of policy.
Appendix
Case Study: The USA "PATRIOT Act"
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon in September 2001, a hastily drafted antiterrorism bill was presented to
Congress that, according to both supporters and critics of the legislation, has laid the
foundations for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and
technological prowess. Known as the PATRIOT Act (its full title being the Uniting and
Protecting America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act), the new bill rapidly passed into law on October 26, 2001 . The
speed in which the new law was ratified reflected the climate of wartime politics
(fuelled by fear of further terrorist attacks and "weapons of mass destruction") and the
desire of the Bush administration to capitalize quickly on 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;
charges the Treasury Department with building a financial intelligence-gathering sys-
tem whose data can be accessed by the CIA; and, for the first time ever, gives the CIA
authority to influence FBI operations inside the United States and obtain evidence
gathered by wiretaps and federal grand juries. More specifically, as McGee (2001)
observed, the bill "effectively tears down the legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during
the Watergate era, when the nation was stunned by disclosures about presidential
abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political activists."
At its signing, President Bush described the bill as "an essential step in defeating ter-
rorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans," which would "give
intelligence and law enforcement officials important new tools to fight a present dan-
ger" (Bush 2001). A few weeks later, President Bush also signed an order empowering
him to authorize military trials in the United States and abroad for international terror-
ists and their collaborators. These military tribunals can impose sentences as severe as
death on a two-thirds vote, hold trials in secret, an

rejected in a civil court. Furthermore, Bushs order d
Some legal experts claim that the order appears to b
suspend the right of habeas corpus for those accuse
States (who would, by definition, be in violation of the
ble for protection under the U.S. Constitution). The
has warned of the dangers to civil liberties posed by th
the act redefines "domestic terrorism" so broadly th
Trade Organization protesters and Greenpeace activi
array of covert information gathering, effectively
Agency and National Security Agency license to spy
of the CIAs involvement in illegally spying on seven
CHAOS (including anti-Vietnam War protesters, so-
dent activists) was precisely what led to restriction
1970s.
As one might expect, many critics voiced opposition t

redraws the line between civil liberties and national s
of intelligence abuses, Senator Frank Church warned
ering was a "new form of power," unconstrained by l
always inclined to grow (McGee 2001). Even conserv
L. Barr Jr., characterized the governments plans as e
and overzealous law enforcement. Still others have d
tary tribunals and secret evidence as "third world"
the debate over the passage of the bill through cong
Patrick Leahy raised several of these concerns. Attorn
was that "talk won't prevent terrorism," adding tha
the rather slow pace of the legislation" ( The Washin
tor Orin Hatch voiced similar frustration with an att
Senate; "[Delays] are very dangerous things. Its time t
right" (ibid).
Stepping back from all this, what is anthropologically interesting about the
PATRIOT Act is precisely the language in which it was presented to the American pub-
lic. While the dominant discourse was national security and the threat by terrorists
who, in the words of George W. Bush (2001), "recognize no barrier of morality," "have
no conscience," and "cannot be reasoned with," the policy narrative was filled with
metaphors of "danger," "the urgency of a nation at war," and the need to "bring down
walls" between intelligence gathering and law enforcement. A recurring motif in the
discourse of the U.S. government was that these measures were "necessary tools" to
enable "our nation s law enforcement, national defense and intelligence personnel" to
"bring terrorists and other dangerous criminals to 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
defended these new powers in terms of their contribution to combating pedophiles
(the other folk devils that pose a public threat to "our way of life").
The very title of the legislation - with i

"patriotism," "state of emergency," and de
to reassure the public about the right
marginalizing opposition to the bill. As U
November 2001, "The highest and most no
tion of American lives and liberty" (U.S. D
President Bush's call for public unity and s
law enforcement, intelligence, customs, B
Explosives (ATF), and secret services who
and often with bravery" (Bush 2001).
The PATRIOT Act passed with little voca
walled or simply caved in to pressure to vo
on terrorism" and, by implication, weak
magazine reported that only two copies of
before its passage, and most representativ
even seeing it ( Insight , November 9, 2001
representative Ron Paul) complained,
The insult is to call this a "patriot bill" and sug

finding out what is in it and voting no. I though
didn't vote for it - and therefore I'm someho
The success in muting political opposit

placed on the various nonstate actors whom
transportation. While the PATRIOT Act r
enforcement of this law is largely left to p
security companies or the airlines themsel
potential lawsuits if another terrorist attack
own security checks. Thus, they have ince
ting passengers on board even if passenge
standards.
The standards, however, are flexible and
reotypes of who a terrorist might be. For
American citizen of Middle Eastern desc
flight from Los Angeles to New York just
rity checks, the crew "felt uncomfortable
ordered off of the plane without any que
civil rights lawsuit was filed against United
to dismiss the case. A federal judge rejecte
having discretion in deciding who may or m
"license to discriminate" (American Civil
While the result in this particular case co
more significant point to note is the broa
acquired in matters of "national security.
United pilot s removal of Assem Bayaa sh
simple "discrimination." The effects of the policy

vate company, United Airlines s foremost concern
between the cost of potential lawsuits resulting f
measures and the cost of implementing those me
action was a complex mix of social and cultural fac
ment," "moral panic" (Comaroff and Comaroff
about Arabs and Islamic fundamentalists. If even
reotypes about Arabs as dangerous extremists, it i
enced by public pressure or popular representation
als as likely terrorist suspects on the basis of thei
What this case study illustrates is the triumph o
over that of civil liberties - a triumph engineere
rhetorics of fear and "states of emergency" as by
While anti-foreigner sentiments and Islamophobi
instances, it is the narrative of "national security"
ence point that sanctifies the PATRIOT Act an
struggle to be heard. But it would be misleadin
enforcement of the USA PATRIOT Act as simply a
ety. Like policy in general, the PATRIOT Act bind
institutions, and agendas in new and ambiguous r
political, or institutional leverage can "clarify" th
discourses that dominate the current political cli
the foremost discourse of the American present, a
in the practice of daily life as well as in the way it is
The current state of alert and call to action for a "
made long ago by the critic Walter Benjamin ( 1969
crisis, and on the eve of another war: "The traditio
'state of emergency in which we live is not the exce
a conception of history that is in keeping with thi
than passing relevance to current U.S. defense po
speed has repeatedly been invoked by governments
ize power; counter ethical, legal, or constitutiona
cratic process in the United States.
a. Section 802 expands the definition of terrorism to in

tional, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism
to human life" that violates the criminal laws of a state
be intended to (1) intimidate or coerce a civilian populat
ment by intimidation or coercion; or (3) affect the cond
assassination, or kidnapping (American Civil Liberties
Notes
1. The Interest Group for the Anthropology of Public Policy (IGAPP), affiliated with the American
Anthropological Association, was founded in 2004 (by Gregory Feldman and Janine R. Wedel) to provide an
institutional framework to identify and foster the work of anthropologists studying policy. IGAPP s goal is to
strengthen the contributions of the anthropology o

theory on policy.
2. There have been many conscious efforts on the p
lic debates and influence social and policy process
anthropology." Drawing on the liberal-humanist trad
knowledge should help humanity solve problems
anthropologists should engage in action aimed at imp
Tax and his students from the University of Chicag
Project in Tama, Iowa, which he directed from 193
Another example of anthropologists taking part in
academia and higher education policy. Bsch and th
lenges and Opportunities for an Engaged Anthropolo
the anticipation of changes that will affect anthro
proactively and intentionally, rather than waiting to
interest anthropology (first proposed in Anthropolog
to focus on the relationship between basic and applie
would contribute to public policy by isolating "variab
identification of the point at which the cost of chan
Some contemporaries called this a "social engineerin
not challenge the rational frameworks of the idea of
pology today have moved on to demonstrate how a
debates (Sanday 1998). This is also the focus of the
Borofsky, which also aims to make anthropology mo
responsibility (PublicAnthropology.org n.d.).
3. Anthropological tradition lies in studying the lo
ongoing discussion in the discipline questions the n
gested that "the idea of locality is not well thought
observed that "we can no longer take communities t
their local, on-the-ground form is only one moment
4. Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www
5. Increasingly, anthropologists are conducting de-
another. For example, Ortner (1997) studied a high
"actual on-the-ground community" that is now dispe
6. Pioneers in the field of social network analysis w
all associated with the Department of Social Anthrop
social structure as networks of relations and focused
the exercise of conflict and power" (Scott 1991, 27). F
to the development of social network theory, see Sc
7. Laumann, Marsden, and Prensky (1989, 62) main
show the consequences of individual level network pr
(1981).
8. The American Anthropological Association's assertions about ethics have always reflected an ongoing
assumption that anthropologists' primary ethical responsibility is to those they study. Still, through the disci-
pline's history, anthropologists have not always been in agreement about what this means, as clearly evi-
denced by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban in Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology (1991). There, she consid-
ered how controversies such as the censure of Boas in 1919 and Project Camelot in the 1970s illustrate
disagreement about the role of anthropologists in policy processes, particularly clandestine research. While
Boas was censured by the American Anthropological Association for his public outcry of anthropologists who
used their professional identity to spy on behalf of the United States during World War I, the association
developed its first professional ethics code following debates about Project Camelot, which had allegedly
proposed that social scientists engage in clandestine research in South America for the United States govern-
ment. In its 1971 "Principles of Professional Responsibility," the Association stated such engagements should
not be pursued.
TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF PURLIC POLICY 49
More recently, a 1995 forum on the topic of "Objectivity and M

on debates in anthropology about the relationship between sc
Hughes proposed a "militant anthropology," one that makes sure
political engagements on behalf of those studied. Roy D'Andrad
and science, maintaining that "any moral authority that anthrop
understanding of the world and to that end moral and objectiv
References
Agar, Michael. 1996. The professional stranger. New York: Ac
American Anthropological Association (AAA). 1998. Code of ethi
ation. http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm
. 2003. Statement on the confidentiality of field notes, htt
(accessed April 28, 2005).
American Civil Liberties Union. 2002a. Federal judge in CA re
discrimination case. October 11. http://www.aclu.o
c=28.
. 2002b. How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines "domestic terrorism," http://www.aclu.org/National/
aa (accessed April 28, 2005).
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at large: Cultural dime
Minnesota Press.
Raba, Marietta L. 2000. Theories of practice in anthropology: A critical appraisal. Napa Bulletin 18:17-
Rasch, Linda G., Lucie Wood Saunders, Jagna Wojcicka Sharf, and James Peacock. 1999. Transforming aca
demia: Challenges and opportunities for an engaged anthropology. Arlington, VA: American Anthropo
logical Association.
Relshaw, Cyril S. 1976. The sorcerer's apprentice: An anthropology of public policy. New York: Pergamon
Renjamin, Walter. 1969. Illuminations, edited and with an introduction by Hannah Arendt, trans. Har
Zohn. New York: Schocken Rooks.
Rornstein, Avram. 2001. Crossingthe Green Line between the West Bank and Israel. Philadelphia: Univers
of Pennsylvania Press.
Rrenneis, Don. 1999. New lexicon, old language: Negotiating the "global" at the National Science Foun
tion. In Critical anthropology now: Unexpected contexts, shifting constituencies, changing agendas , e
George E. Marcus, 123-46. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.
Rush, George W. 2001. Remarks by the president at signing of the Patriot Act. Press release, October
www, whitehouse.gov/news. releases/200 l/10/print/2001 1026-5.html.
Campbell, David. 1998. Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. 2nd ed
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Comaroff, Jean, and John L. Comaroff. 1999. Occult economies and the violence of abstraction: Notes fr
the South African postcolony. American Ethnologist 26 (2): 279-303.
D'Andrade Roy. 1995. Moral models in anthropology. Current Anthropology 36 (3): 399-408.
Dezalay, Yves, and Riyant Garth. 2002. The internationalization of palace wars: Lawyers, economists, a
the contest to transform Latin American states. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Feldman, Gregory. 2003. Rreaking our silence on NATO. Anthropology Today 19 (3): 1-2.
. 2005. Essential crises: A performative approach to migrants, minorities and the European nati
state. Anthropological Quarterly 78 (1): 213-46.
Field, Les. 1999. Complicities and collaborations: Anthropologists and the "unacknowledged tribes" of Cali
fornia. Current Anthropology 40:193-209.
Fisher, Michael M.J. 2003. Emergent forms of life and the anthropological voice. Durham, NC: Duke U
versity Press.
Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. 1991. Ethics and the profession of anthropology: Dialogue for anew era. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Free Sheldon.org. Last updated May 14, 2003. http://

20, 2005).
Gill, Lesley. 2004. The School of the Americas: Military training and political violence in the Americas. Dur-
ham, NC: Duke University Press.
Glaskin, Katie. 2000. Limitations to the recognition and protection of native title offshore: The current "acci-
dent of history." Land, Rights, Law, Issues of Native Title, Issues Paper no. 5, June 2000. Canberra, Aus-
tralia: AIATSIS Native Title Research Unit.
Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1997. Discipline and practice: "The field" as site, method, and location in
anthropology. In Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of afield science, ed. Akhil Gupta
and James Ferguson, 1-46. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gusterson, Hugh. 1996. Nuclear rites: A weapons laboratory at the end of the cold war. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
. 1999. Nuclear weapons and the other in the Western imagination. Cultural Anthropology 14 (1):
111-43.
Kalb, Don, Marco van der Land, Richard Staring, Bart van Steenbergen, and Nico Wilterdink, eds. 2000. The
ends of globalization: Bringing society back in. New York: Rowman aa Littlefield.
Konrad, Monica. 2002. Pre-symptomatic networks: Tracking experts across medical science and the new
genetics. In Elite cultures: Anthropological perspectives, ed. Cris Shore and Stephen Nugent, 227-48.
London: Routledge.
Lardner, George. 2001. On left and right, concern over anti-terrorism moves. Washington Post, November
16, online ed. (accessed February 10, 2005).
Laumann, Edward O., Peter V. Marsden, and David Prensky. 1989. The boundary specification problem in
network analysis. In Research methods in social network analysis, ed. Linton S. Freeman, Douglas R.
White, and A. Kimball Romney. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
Lutz, Catherine. 2002. Homefront: A military city and the American twentieth century. Boston: Beacon.
. 2005. Military bases and ethnographies of the new militarization. Anthropology News 46 (1): 11.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1926. Myth in primitive psychology. London: Kegan Paul.
Marcus, George. 1992. Lives in trust: The fortunes of dynastic families in late twentieth-century America.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Marcus, George E., and Michael M. J. Fisher. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental
moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marsden, Peter V. 1981. Introducing influence processes into a system of collective decisions. American
Journal of Sociology 86:1203-35.
McGee, Jim. 2001. An intelligence giant in the making. Washington Post, November 4, online ed. (accessed
February 10, 2005).
Merry, Sally Engle. 2003. Human rights law and the demonization of culture (and anthropology along the
way). Polar: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 26 (1): 55-77.
Nader, Laura. 1974. Up the anthropologist - Perspectives from studying up. In Reinventing anthropology,
ed. Dell Hymes, 284-311. New York: Vintage.
. 1980. The vertical slice: Hierarchies and children. In Hierarchy and society: Anthropological per-
spectives on bureaucracy, ed. G. M. Britan and R. Cohen. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human
Issues.
Ortner, Sherry B. 1997. Fieldwork in the postcommunity Anthropology and Humanism 22 (1): 61-80.
Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2002. The cunning of recognition: Indigenous alterities and the making of Australia
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
Reinhold, Susan. 1994. Local conflict and ideological struggle: "Positive images" and Section 28. Unpu
lished D.Phil, thesis, University of Sussex, UK.
Rose, Nikolas 1990. Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Routledge.
. 1999. Powers of freedom. Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
Sanday, Peggy Reeves. 1976. Anthropology and the public interest. New York: Academic Press.
. 1998. Peggy R. Sanday's opening statement delivered at

posium, "Defining a Public Interest Anthropology," Ph
anthro/CPIA/whatispia/pial998.html (accessed April 28,
Scarry, Elaine 2002. Citizenship in emergency. Boston Revie
scarry.html (accessed February 17, 2005).
Scheper- Hughes, Nancy. 1995. The primacy of the ethical: P
Anthropology 36 (3): 409-20.
Scott, John. 1991. Social network analysis: A handbook . L
Shore, Cris. 2002. Introduction. Towards an anthropology of
spectives, ed. C. Shore and S. Nugent, 1-21. London: Ro
Shore, Cris, and Susan Wright. 1997. Anthropology of publi
power. London: Routledge.
. 1999. Audit culture and anthropology: Neo-liberalism
Royal Anthropological Institute 7 (4): 759-63.
. 2000. Coercive accountability: The new audit culture an
tures: Anthropological studies in accountability , ethics an
London: Routledge.
Smedley, Audrey. 1993. Race in North America: Origin
Westview.
Stocking, George W. 1968. Race, culture, and evolution: Essays in the history of anthropology . New York:
Free Press.
Stone, D. A. 1988. Policy, paradox and political reason. London: HarperCollins.

Tax, Sol. 1975. Action anthropology Current Anthropology 16:171-77.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 2001. The anthropology of the state in the age of globalization: Close encounters o
the deceptive kind. Current Anthropology 42 (1): 125-38.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2001. Attorney General Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General Thompson
announce reorganization and mobilization of the nation s justice and law enforcement resources. Novem
ber 8. www.usdoj.gov/.
. 2004. Report from the field: The USA Patriot Act at work. Department of Justice, July, judi
ciary. house.gov/Media/ pdfs/PATRIOTReportfromtheField0704.pdf.
Van Velsen, J. 1967. The extended-case method and situational analysis. In The craft of social anthropology
ed. A. L. Epstein, 129-52. New York: Tavistock.
Washington Post. 2001. Anti terrorism bill hits snag on the Hill. October 3. http://www.cooperativeresearch
org/timeline/2001/wpostl00301b.html.
Wedel, Janine R. 2001. Collision and collusion: The strange case of Western aid to eastern Europe. New York
Palgrave.
. 2003. Studying through transnational policy processes: The case of Western aid to eastern Europe.
Presented at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, November 20, 2003.
. 2004. Flex power: A capital way to gain clout, inside and out. The Washington Post, December 12, p.
B4.
Wolf, Eric. 1974. American anthropologists and American society. In Reinventing anthropology, ed. Dell
Hymes, 251-63. New York: Vintage.

Anthropology of Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthropology of Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Academy of Political and Social Science

Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy

of Public Policy "local" or "national" and "global," "macro" and "mic

By Keywords: anthropology of public policy; study

Janine R. Wedel , the only anthropologist to win the pres-

30 ANNALS, AAPSS , 600, July 2005

meaning; ideology, rhetoric, and discourse; th

Legacy of Anthropological Resea

Anthropologists of American, British, and othe

Susan Wright, Anthropology of Policy: Critical Pers

Across the Atlantic, the work of Britis

Given that [anthropology] developed alongside

ogists build on a longtime development in the field. So

What Public Policy Is and How

The starting point of an anthropological approach to

language - their ostensible purpose merely

Key questions for an anthropology of poli

An anthropology of policy is not simply

What exactly is "policy?"

What role do policies play in the fashioning of modern

Policy is an anthropologically interesting word

might also find its modern counterpart i

[T ]he word "policy" is a c

But even more significant are the associa

The proliferation of "policy" in everyd

The term "policy" now frequently appea

become an increasingly central organizing principle

manipulate, or simply internalize these ideal

" Policy " as the object of analysis

The model of policy making in the rationality pro

The anthropology of policy brings much-ne

Western assistance to eastern Europe, aid policies

Analyzing Policy Processes and

The anthropology of public policy is at the core

Rethinking the "field"

Studying policy requires rethinking an anthro

source of a policy - its discourses, prescri

The value of social network analysis

Social network analysis, which unites bo

tional policy processes. Anthropologists are thus w

Methods for an anthropology of public policy

Anthropology takes as a given that much of its

lished mutually beneficial collaboration

Rethinking professional ethical codes

Studying "up" and "through" also ne

[The AAA's] code makes

Similarly, those anthropologists work

case on whether the hospital had failed to in

Critiquing Conventional Wis

Bringing anthropological analysis to publi

ties and points of articulation - anthropol

death on a two-thirds vote, hold trials in secret, an

As one might expect, many critics voiced opposition t

The very title of the legislation - with i

The insult is to call this a "patriot bill" and sug

The success in muting political opposit

simple "discrimination." The effects of the policy

a. Section 802 expands the definition of terrorism to in

strengthen the contributions of the anthropology o

More recently, a 1995 forum on the topic of "Objectivity and M

Free Sheldon.org. Last updated May 14, 2003. http://

. 1998. Peggy R. Sanday's opening statement delivered at

Stone, D. A. 1988. Policy, paradox and political reason. London: HarperCollins.

You might also like