| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
173830
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Almost every war since the origins of the discipline at the beginning of the 19th century has involved anthropology and anthropologists. In some cases, anthropologists participated directly as uniformed combatants. Following the philosopher George Lucas, one might call this ‘anthropology for the military,’ having the purpose of directly providing expert knowledge with the goal of improving operations and strategy. In some cases this scholarship is undertaken, anthropologists have also studied State militaries, which following George Lucas might be considered ‘anthropology of the military.’ Sometimes this scholarship is undertaken with the objective of providing the military with information about its own internal systems and processes in order to improve its performance. At other times, the objective is to study the military as a human group to identify and describe its culture and social processes. Both ‘anthropology for the military’ and ‘anthropology of the military’ tend to have a practical, applied aspect, whether the goal is improving military effectiveness or influencing national security policy. On the other hand, anthropology as a discipline has also had a long history of studying warfare itself, known as ‘the anthropology of war.’ The papers in this special edition fall into these myriad categories of military anthropology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
184992
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
War is a social phenomenon and understanding the local context in which military forces fight should be a central concern of commanders. In Military Anthropology, Montgomery McFate sets out to understand the ways in which research of social practices and behaviours has influenced military action. In a broad historical sweep, McFate examines the lived experiences of several trained and amateur anglophone anthropologists, finding that careful study of societies can mitigate military missteps. The case for including social and cultural comprehension in contemporary military planning is forcefully made, but two distinct problems remain. Firstly, the study of social intangibles frequently fails to yield actionable insights relevant to planners. Secondly, granular understanding is often too localised to interact meaningfully with strategic plans. Underpinning both issues is an ongoing struggle within anthropology to establish a commonly accepted definition of culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
114710
|
|
|