Theoretical and Applied Aspects of the Martial Anthropology

Author

Bekh Mykola

a Ph.D. in History, a senior research fellow at the Ukrainian Ethnological Centre Department of M. Rylskyi Institute of Art Studies, Folkloristics and Ethnology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine).

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4186-1339

Theoretical and Applied Aspects of the Martial Anthropology

Abstract

The article is devoted to the theoretical and applied aspects of the martial anthropology and its formation as a separate scientific branch at the late 20th – early 21st century. In Western European and American anthropological studies, scientists often complain that little attention is paid to military topics. The main reason for ignoring military problems by academic science in Western democracies is the fear of researchers that they will be suspected of cooperation with state security agencies, since this sometimes contradicts ethical norms, for example, the code of the American Anthropological Association (hereinafter – AAA). However, after the events of 2001 (terrorist act in New York), the issue of cooperation between anthropologists and state authorities have become more relevant. These events have made it clear that the existing AAA code of ethics is insufficient in a situation where anthropology is of a great importance to the national security of a state, and a significant community of «practicing anthropologists» may face ethical dilemmas. At the late 2000s, in the process of constant scientific discussions about the significance of anthropological methods in modern wars and about the specifics of cooperation between anthropologists and the military, the formation of martial anthropology as a separate discipline has taken place.

Militarism today is an integral part of a global society, and it is especially typical for modern Ukraine, which for ten years has been forced to defend its territory from aggression by the Russian Federation. Military culture is inherent in constantly operating armies and paramilitary formations, as well as for the entire Ukrainian society, because military efficiency today is the key task for the state. One way or another, Ukrainians are constantly forced to think about war, even when they are in relative safety (in particular, abroad). Therefore, a thorough study of the military cultural and historical traditions of Ukrainians and their modern life is one of the priority areas for modern ethnological science. Analysis of various approaches to the study of military culture, theoretical and applied aspects developed in the world humanities is critically necessary for modern ethnological research.

Keywords

martial anthropology, anthropological aggression, anthropological defense, ethnographic research methods, army.

References

1. DODONOV, Roman, ed. Hybrid War: in verbo et in praxi: A Monograph. Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University. Vinnytsia: Nilan limited, 2017, 412 pp. [in Ukrainian].
2. KARPIUK, Yuliia. Axiological and Anthropological Factors of the Military Conflict in Ukraine. Valentyna ZARYTSKA, ed. Theory and Practice of Modern Psychology. Collected Scientific Works. Zaporizhzhia: Classical Private University, 2018, iss. 2, pp. 231–240 [in Ukrainian].
3. BORNEMAN, John. American Anthropology as Foreign Policy. American Anthropologist, 1995, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 663–672 [in English]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1995.97.4.02a00080.
4. BOROCH, Robert. Analytical Futurology as a Tool for Strategic Planning in Social War Games. Security Dimensions, 2017, no. 24, pp. 62–75 [in English].
5. BOROCH Robert, Anna KORZENIOWSKA-BIHUN. Preface FACE. Wiedza Obronna [Defense Knowledge], 2021, vol. 274, no. 1, pp. 5–6 [in English].
6. BOROCH Robert. Military Anthropology – Specialisation Frame. Wiedza Obronna [Defense Knowledge], 2021, vol. 274, no. 1, pp. 63–73 [in English].
7. EVANS, Andrew David, ed. Anthropology at War: World WarI and the Science of Race in Germany. University of Chicago Press, 2010, 302 pp. [in English].
8. GUSTERSON, Hugh. Anthropology and Militarism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2007, vol. 36, pp. 155–175 [in English]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094302.
9. KORZENIOWSKA-BIHUN, Anna, Robert BOROCH. Ukrainian Theatrical Projects as an Example of Anthropological Defense in Terms of Anthropology as Contemporary Social Warfare. Security Dimensions, 2017, vol. 24, pp. 122–136 [in English].
10. LUKAS, George R. Anthropologists in Arms: The Ethics of Military Anthropology. Altamira Press / Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, pp. 234 [in English].
11. MOOS, Felix. Some Thoughts on Anthropological Ethics and Today’s Conflicts. Anthropology News, 2005, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 40–42 [in English]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/an.2005.46.6.40.
12. SIMONS, Anna. War: Back to the Future. Annual Review of Anthropology, 1999, vol. 28, pp. 73–108 [in English]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.73.
13. STARN, Orin. Engineering Internment: Anthropologists and the War Relocation Authority. American Ethnologist, 1986, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 700–720 [in English]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1986.13.4.02a00070.
14. VIVOD, MARIA. Fields of Research of Military Anthropology. Wiedza Obronna [Defense Knowledge], 2021, vol. 274, no. 1, рр. 63–73 [in English].