Originally published in a 1969 Enyclopedia Brittanica yearbook in the wake of the wave of student rebellions across the world, and republished in his crucial early collection of writings, For Reasons of State, this essay raises a number of timely and important issues for anti-complicity activists.
In his typically perceptive and incisive fashion, Chomsky contrasts the concept of the ideal intellectual community articulated by the philosopher von Humboldt with the reality of the university in state capitalist society. Like other radicals, Chomsky naturally argues that the university is inextricably tied to the society in which it functions, and is thus subject to external economic, political, and ideological pressures and demands. Given this inevitable relationship, Chomsky praises the seemingly inherent quality of freedom consitutive of the academy and argues that the non-coercive atmosphere it affords can potentially be used by radical students and intellectuals who require an effective base of operations for launching their campaigns of critique.
Although he indeed notes that "the sharp challenges that have been raised by the student movement are among the few hopeful developments of these troubled years," he is careful to qualify his remarks by referring to the "exaggerations and even flights of fancy" to which radical students appear to be susceptible. In particular, he argues that the funding sources and location of military research projects are ultimately irrelevant, and furthermore, that anti-complicity protests could have the undesired effect of simply pushing the research into private, less visible, and less accountable settings. Most importantly, perhaps, he contends that anti-complicity campaigns that target researchers and scientists could actually have the unintended consequence of introducing the principle of coercion into the academic arena.
To quote at length:
"In certain respects, the specific issue of Defense Deparment funding of research is a misleading one. Research on chemical and biological warfare or counterinsurgency would be no more benign if funded by the National Institutes of Health or the Social Science Research Council, just as work on high energy physics is not corrupted if funding comes through the Department of Defense. The important question is the nature of the work and the uses to which it is likely to be put, not the bureaucratic issue of the source of funding. The latter is of some significance, insofar as one might argue that the Pentagon gains respectability and power by its support of serious research. For American society as a whole, this development is a very minor symptom of a real tragedy, the ongoing and perhaps irreversible militarization of American society. But in the particular case of the universities, these considerations seem to me marginal. Another side issue, in my opinion, is the question of a campus base for military research. In fact, the Vietnamese care very little whether the counterinsurgency technology that is used to destroy and repress them is developed in the halls of the university or in private spin-offs on its periphery. And the victims of the endless arms race - the present victims of the waste of resources, material and intellectual, that are desperately needed elsewhere, or the possible future victims of a devastating catastrophe - to these unfortunates it is of little interest whether their fate is determined in a Department of Death on the university campus or in Los Alamos or Fort Detrick, hundreds of miles away. To move such work off campus is socially irrelevant. It might, in fact, even be a regressive step. It might be argued that as long as such work continues, it would be preferable for it to be done on campus, where it can become a focus for student activism and protest that may not only impede such work but also contribute to growing public awareness."
I rarely disagree with Mr. Chomsky - in fact, this may be the first time - but I find his reasoning to be somewhat questionable in this case.
First, although he's certainly correct to assert that those at the receiving end of US state violence most likely couldn't care less as to the specific origin of the weapons technologies used against them, I think he perhaps forgets that those trapped inside "the belly of the beast" may care, and indeed, should care about our institutional ties to the killing machine. We should ask ourselves: Is it morally acceptable for my university or college to serve as a site for military research, especially during an ongoing imperial occupation of Iraq? Why should an educational institution - purportedly devoted to the expansion of knowledge, the enrichment of culture, and the betterment of the human condition - be allowed to materially and functionally assist in the creation of ever-more effective techologies built to secure and extend the domination of man by man, and country by country? In fact, as Chomsky may ask, do we wish to live in a society that pursues military research in any capacity, no matter where or in what particular settings it takes place?
Second, I entirely agree with Chomsky that the "important question is the nature of the work and the uses to which it is likely to be put." Of course! One might justifiably wonder, however, just exactly what other possible motivations the DofD. may in fact have in funding military research. It's difficult to believe that DARPA would direct funding towards any project that could not have some military utility in the future.
Third, Chomsky begs the question by asserting that it may be more advantageous for the student antiwar movement to actually maintain the presence of military research on campus, so that "it can become a focus for student activism and protest that may not only impede such work but also contribute to growing public awareness." Again, one might justifiably wonder about his logic in this case. Wouldn't an effective anti-complicity campaign that successfully "impedes" military research most likely result in the research moving off-campus? Perhaps Chomsky is here distinguishing between protest on the one hand and resistance on the other, with the former taking on a more symbolic meaning and the undeclared latter posing a more obstructive threat.
Posted: November 16, 2007 3:46 am by Joshua Jackson | 0 comments
Tags: complicity, militarism, military research, Noam Chomsky, student activism
For those interested in science fiction . . .
DARPA's Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) is currently running program apparently devoted to designing "hybrid insects".
From the HI-MEMS site:
"The HI-MEMS program is aimed at developing tightly coupled machine-insect interfaces by placing micro-mechanical systems inside the insects during the early stages of metamorphosis . . . The goal of the MEMS, inside the insects, will be to control the locomotion by obtaining motion trajectories either from GPS coordinates, or using RF, optical, ultrasonic signals based remote control. The control of locomotion will be investigated using several approaches. These include direct electrical muscle excitation, electrical stimulation of neurons, projection of ultrasonic pulses simulating bats, projection of pheromones, electromechanical stimulation of insect sensory cells, and presentation of optical cues with micro-optical visual presentation. The intimate control of insects with embedded microsystems will enable insect cyborgs, which could carry one or more sensors, such as a microphone or a gas sensor, to relay back information gathered from the target destination."
I think that perhaps "intimate control" is the single-most interesting phrase above.
I've got a hunch that DARPA has been conducting field tests of their "hybrid insects" in the Washington, D.C. area, if one can give any creedence to a recent Washington Post article that reports alleged sightings of some rather odd-looking insects at recent antiwar protests. The piece mentions the HI-MEMS program. Also see the Defense Science Office's "Nano Air Vehicle" program
Posted: November 9, 2007 12:57 am by Joshua Jackson | 0 comments
Tags: complicity, DARPA, military research
First stop on the DARPA Trail: the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Here is housed MIPS, or the Harvard Center for Microfluidic and Plasmonic Systems, which was "recently formed with support and funding from industry groups and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA)." It appears to be doing basic research around nanotechnology, a very "trendy" field closely watched by Pentagon planners. My guess is that MIPS is funded through DARPA's Advanced Electronics Technology program, which for FY 2007 was budgeted over $243 million, according to the Dept. of Defense's 2008/09 budget estimates.
Posted: November 9, 2007 12:22 am by Joshua Jackson | 0 comments
Tags: complicity, DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Harvard, military research
Did you happen to see the latest PR piece in the mainstream media about driverless cars? The title alone had "DARPA" written all over it. Who the fuck else would want to invent a "driver-less" car?
DARPA, which stands for Defense Advanced Research Pojects Agency, is the section of the Pentagon that directs and funds military research throughout the military-industrial-academic complex. The motivations for the above-mentioned competition, of course, are obvious: IEDs and EFPs are blowing the shit out of military vehicles in Iraq and account for a large proportion of US casualites. Fewer casualties = less media attention, and - they hope - less public concern.
If the student antiwar movement ever decides to strategically tackle academic complicity with the war, they will have to confront DARPA, this many-tentacled Leviathan of military research.
We can expect a common refrain from researchers and professors working on DARPA-funded projects: "We're doing basic research that has no military application." Don't buy this line of bullshit. No matter how abstract and unrelated it may seem to the uninformed observer, DARPA-funded projects are military research projects. If their research couldn't be translated into an increased capability for the killing machine, DARPA wouldn't bother to fund it! In fact, the extent to which DARPA research has been used for crafting deadlier weapons is proudly trumpeted in an extensive report that highlights many of the Agency's successful so-called "technology transitions." Hell, I wouldn't be using this blog if it weren't for DARPA!
Charges of Luddism will follow, surely, and other counter-arguments equally as absurd. We will have to clearly state that we are not opposed to scientific enquiry or technological innovation, but rather we oppose the ends to which our society directs them: violence and domination, instead of peace and cooperation. How can the government justify throwing billions of dollars to DARPA for inventing better bombs and missiles when our bridges are collapsing, our suburbs are consumed by fire, and our cities are drowning? Until the US government decides to invest in healing human beings rather than harming them, military research should be challenged.
Posted: November 7, 2007 1:18 am by Joshua Jackson | 0 comments
Tags: complicity, DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, militarism, military research
Here are a few books on the subject.
Universities and empire : money and politics in the social sciences during the Cold War. Edited and introduced by Christopher Simpson. New York : New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton & Co., 1998.
Academic freedom in action: an up-to-date account of the counter-insurgency activities pursued by scholars round the world under the banner of ’academic freedom’. Hoch, Paul. London, Sheed and Ward, 1970.
The Cold War & the university : toward an intellectual history of the postwar years. Noam Chomsky ... [et al.]. New York : New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton & Co., c1997.
The Cold War and American science : the military-industrial-academic complex at MIT and Stanford. Stuart W. Leslie. New York : Columbia University Press, 1993.
Posted: November 3, 2007 1:47 am by Joshua Jackson | 0 comments
Tags: complicity, human rights, Iraq, militarism, torture, war crimes, war on terror
Here is a list of books you may wish to consult, all dealing in some way with the history and use of torture by the US.
Torture taxi : on the trail of the CIA’s rendition flights. Trevor Paglen and A.C. Thompson. Hoboken, N.J. : Melville House, 2006.
Ghost plane : the true story of the CIA torture program. Stephen Grey. New York : St. Martin’s Press, 2006.
American torture : from the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and beyond. Michael Otterman. London ; Ann Arbor, MI : Pluto Press, 2007.
American methods : torture and the logic of domination. Kristian Williams. Cambridge, Mass. : South End Press, c2006.
Torture and truth : America, Abu Ghraib, and the war on terror. Mark Danner. New York : New York Review Books, 2004.
A question of torture : CIA interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. Alfred W. McCoy. New York : Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Co., 2006.
Chain of command : the road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. Seymour M. Hersh. New York : HarperCollins, 2004.
Oath betrayed : torture, medical complicity, and the war on terror. Steven H. Miles. New York : Random House, 2006.
The torture papers : the road to Abu Ghraib. Edited by Karen J. Greenberg, Joshua L. Dratel ; introduction by Anthony Lewis. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2005.
The Breaking of bodies and minds : torture, psychiatric abuse, and the health profession. Edited by Eric Stover and Elena O. Nightingale.
New York : Freeman, 1985.
Medicine betrayed : the participation of doctors in human rights abuses / report of a working party [of the] British Medical Association . London ; Atlantic Highlands, N.J. : Zed Books, 1992.
Posted: November 3, 2007 1:13 am by Joshua Jackson | 0 comments
Tags: complicity, Iraq, militarism, torture, war crimes, war on terrorism
Hey all you anthro students out there! Are you bored to death in that stifling classroom environment? Are you ready to escape from the tedious lectures of your professors and the endless course readings they assign? Sign up with Uncle Sam, grab the nearest rifle, and suit up for a real adventure in the "field" (the battlefield, that is).
That's right. As part of the Pentagon's latest counter-insurgency strategy, the War Department has been recruiting anthropologists and social scientists in the hopes of actually understanding the cultures they're trying to dominate.
Thankfully, not everyone has responded to the call, and some academics in the discipline are speaking out against this blatant manifestation of ivory-tower imperialism (see the Network of Concerned Anthropologists).
Posted: November 3, 2007 12:32 am by Joshua Jackson | 0 comments
Tags: Afghanistan, anthropology, complicity, counter-insurgency, human rights, war crimes, war on terror
