If you’re following up on this blog post, would you mind elaborating on what you mean by the following statements, specifically the discussion of ‘necessary complicity’:

“…most anthropologists, as are citizens in general, complicit with their government’s policies, especially when security colors defense, colors warfare.”

“Ethics is about acting professionally within these layers of political implication and necessary complicity, short of protest.”

I can understand saying that if anthropologists are in *agreement* with their government’s policies, for their own security, this will tie into the ethics of the situation, for them.

But why use the phrase *necessary complicity*? It seems to imply that anthropologists HAVE to act within this relationship, be complicit with government policies, whether they want to or not. In the U.S., citizens have to pay taxes, but beyond that there’s no duty to develop a working relationship with the military. Am I wrong?

At the very least, the word “complicity” implies “association or participation in or as if in a wrongful act” (Merriam-Webster Online).

How can *ethics* be about about “acting professionally within…layers of…necessary [participation in a wrongful act]“?

It’s possible I misunderstood your intentions, so this is why I’m asking for clarification.

Thanks,

Stacie