Human Terrain: The Movie

I haven’t seen the movie, but the trailer for “Human Terrain” looks intriguing.

22 thoughts on “Human Terrain: The Movie

  1. Just speculating, but after a number of years will this affect what is taught in universities as “anthropology”? Will those who served in HTS become like so many of the British Orientalists of the past as leading figures in the field? Will this encourage a split in social anthropology between those studying post-modern approaches and theory focused on domestic societies, and those looking “outward” to Islamic societies focusing on practical approaches? Anthropology is already splintered between physical and archaeology and social; the effect of this in a decade may further divide the social into two disciplines.

  2. Fred, in the hopes of provoking further discussion, allow me to offer a competing hypothesis: The split has already occurred. It has not yet been ratified by the Ivy League and its peers in other places. It has been well over a decade since I attended a meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropologty, where I found myself talking to all sorts of happily employed people with degrees from places with names like Memphis State, South Florida, North Texas, and Wayne State, where applied anthropology programs were flourishing. Rick, the applied anthropoloogist who used to annoy so many people here, was I believe a graduate of one of these places.

  3. Jon, in what respect would you like clarification? I am, let me say from the start, no expert on applied anthropology. I am an anthropologist who stumbled out of academia and into advertising, where I have worked as a copywriter and creative director, not as a market researcher. My impressions are based on that SfAA meeting I attended now well over a decade ago. Serendipitously it was in Seattle on the same weekend and only a couple of blocks away from that year’s meeting of the American Ethnological Society(AES). I vividly remember the contrast between the two meetings. The participants in the SfAA meeting were smiling, laughing, visibly enjoying sessions addressing issues in the schools, hospitals, banks, police or other government agencies in which they had found employment. I found a similar atmosphere at the EPIC (Ethnographic Praxis in Corporations) meeting I attended in Tokyo last year. In contrast the mood at the AES meeting in Seattle was, in contrast, gloomy to the point of depression, with much of the program and more of the hallway conversation devoted to whether anthropology had any future at all.

  4. I think at the time we all were suffering from HTS fatigue, glad to see the topic is getting picked up again.

    Most people are hung up on the ethical implications of HTS. I am hung up on the fact that it is an absolutely stupid, stupid name. Land relief and human populations are unalike things. The distinction between physical and human geography is not a spurious one. I might be over-thinking this, but when professional soldiers compromise in terms of defensible (real) terrain because it has been impressed upon them that human terrain is just as important I have to wonder if the difficulties with the term are more than semantic.

  5. From a military perspective the name makes good sense. Soldiers are trained to maneuver across and within the geographic landscape. They assess the usefulness of certain areas and places (good ambush sites, places to camp, places to make air drops, etc). To make these decisions they have to have a system (regular heuristics and rules that help assess places). Extend this to maneuvering through a human landscape and making similar assessments (who are friendlies/enemies, helpful/not helpful, etc). It is right brained spatial thinking, very common in our postmodern military. The battlefied is nonlinear.

  6. Yes, from a military perspective “Human Terrain” makes perfect sense. The sense it makes may, however, be disturbing to those with different perspectives. It suggests that human beings are part of the terrain, i.e., potential shields, traps, obstacles, occasionally unavoidably to be broken or destroyed as collateral damage.

  7. Yes, very true.
    I suggest the HTS program is signaling a change in values among anthropologists. In 1960 many anthropologists were openly involved in the CIA and other federal agencies, assisting the federal agenda. In the early 1980s there was a flair up in AAA about not working for the government in this way. Today, we see the debate again, with many younger folks apparently willing to work for the federal agenda. Where Boomers mostly questioned authority, don’t be surprised that many Gen Xers and Millennials actually wave the flag and stand up for it.

  8. Extend [these regular heuristics and rules] to maneuvering through a human landscape and making similar assessments (who are friendlies/enemies, helpful/not helpful, etc).

    At the level of situational awareness that’s fine. But at the level that soldiers and Marines are expected to wage influence the human as terrain analogy is farcical. Human beings are like geographic features insomuch as they can be observed to a greater or lesser extent. Human beings are unlike geographic features insomuch as they have hopes and fears, agency, and shifting subjectivities (for starters).

  9. i saw the human terrain film, and it has a lot of problems.

    unlike the actual movie, the trailer is quite good, it suggests that there is a fairly even treatment of the issues with equal time for both sides, instead it is a sloppily produced lopsided, overly emotional, pitch for Human Terrain with about 45 minutes of pro-HTS footage, and probably about 6 minutes of critical footage. The last half of the film is almost unwatchable for its corny sentimentality over the death of the political science human terrain social scientist who was killed by an ied explosion. too bad the film maker didn’t work on making a film that explored the issues in some depth and didn’t try and make the dead kid who was just trying to pay off some debts a hero.

    i’m disappointed because i wanted something balanced to show to classes.

  10. Was just pointing out the metaphor, which doesn’t need to make literal sense or be non-farcical. The military has weird names for all kinds of stuff. So does anthropology; I never cared for Culture Area or Human Relations Area Files.

  11. Dalton wrote:

    “…instead it is a sloppily produced lopsided, overly emotional, pitch for Human Terrain with about 45 minutes of pro-HTS footage, and probably about 6 minutes of critical footage.”

    You saw it as a pro-HTS film? From what I saw, the film was definitely critical of HTS, and especially the superficial use of anthropology. I think it makes some strong points about how HTS makes “culture” the problem, which sidesteps numerous social and political issues in Iraq and Afghanistan. HTS frames the conflicts in terms of culture, as if the source of conflict is just some issue that needs decoding–and that’s why they want anthropologists on board. But, as anthros like Gusterson and Lutz point out, the HTS folks are working with a seriously limited understanding of anthropology, and completely glossing over all of the politics while acting as if they are trying to be more “humane.” I definitely think the film had room for improvement, but it certainly made some strong points about HTS, anthropology, ethics, and politics. Also, while the story of Bhatia certainly complicates the presentation, I definitely do not think they simply presented him as some kind of hero. Overall, I am surprised that you think this is a pro-HTS piece. I thought it was pretty critical–I just saw it a few weeks back.

  12. The typical argument against HTS is that it militarizes anthropology. If we start looking at it as the anthropologizing of the military, maybe we will see the light. We should be complaining how the disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics are used to make weapons and kill victims en masse.

    I don’t see anything objectionable in the activities of military sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists in areas of conflict who work for cultural understanding and social stability, management of risk and casualty on both sides, and implementing developmental projects such as in agriculture, education, and business.

    With anthropology, winning a war is treated holistically. It’s not only through bombing mountains and caves that victory can be attained, but also through gaining trusts from and establishing relationships with local residents.

    I don’t know why some anthropologists think they have the monopoly on studying culture or applying anthropology. If anthropology is, indeed, a holistic discipline, we should acknowledge that culture is everywhere, and that anthropology is relevant even in war.

  13. If we start looking at [HTS] as the anthropologizing of the military, maybe we will see the light.

    The United States Government employs a group of civil servants (CIA case officers) to do ethnography in the interest of national security and then arbitrarily disregards the data they collect. It also maintains a corps of soldiers who specialize in interaction with local populations (the USASF) who are deployed to aid in the overthrow of democratically elected governments just as often as they are tasked to help overthrow repressive dictators. The notion that more social science at the squad level is going to make up for poorly informed policy decisions is more of the same.

  14. MTBradley:

    “The notion that more social science at the squad level is going to make up for poorly informed policy decisions is more of the same.”

    Exactly. And that was one of the points that I think the film makes pretty well. HTS folks frame the issues as if the violence etc is a “culture” problem, and all that’s needed is some social science to make things better on the ground. As if the issues in Afghanistan are simply a matter of cultural misunderstandings or something. The real issues lie at the policy level–this is a matter of politics, not understanding “cultural differences.” But the HTS rhetoric glosses right over that.

  15. Ryan, you’re only seeing one side of HTS. Military operations are not all fighting and combat. US Military engineers build schools not just barracks. Without US military-embedded anthropologists who can advise whether building schools in Afghan villages that have mostly female would-be students is culturally feasible, the military engineers’ community operation will end up a failure and waste of military funds due to lack of substantial knowledge about how women/girls are traditionally treated and deprived of education in Afghanistan. I read somewhere about American soldiers who used their degrees in agriculture to start community development programs in villages, and they even taught agriculture at Kabul University.

  16. Without US military-embedded anthropologists who can advise whether building schools in Afghan villages that have mostly female would-be students is culturally feasible, the military engineers’ community operation will end up a failure and waste of military funds due to lack of substantial knowledge about how women/girls are traditionally treated and deprived of education in Afghanistan.

    You’re thinking at the wrong scale, M. Izabel. Before worrying about whether a girls’ school is going to succeed someone should have years ago evaluated the feasibility of the entire ISAF enterprise. Despite the assertion that anthropologists are too Ivory Tower to worry about practical matters, I’m pretty sure a few of them did actually predict that things in Afghanistan would end up looking a lot like they do today if the NATO member countries did not alter the hows and whys of the intervention.

  17. I’m one of those who believe that it’s not the job of anthropologists to predict cultural problems but to analyze and solve them. There is already an on-going conflict where going back to the past policy blunders won’t help. Learning from past mistakes is good, but those who commit them should make them right. So, they need experts to avoid committing mistakes again.

    That Afghan girls are deprived of education is the reality army generals are not trained to analyze and solve. Don’t you see the relevance of anthropology and anthropologists in that cultural phenomenon that is misogynist?

    Besides, a good anthropology to me is the one that studies particulars, specifics, or small scales.

  18. This thread should be about the movie, and not a general debate about the merits of HTS. Please don’t make me shut the comments down…

  19. Weird. Thought I posted something here earlier. Must have gotten lost in the internets. Ok, take 2:

    “This thread should be about the movie, and not a general debate about the merits of HTS.”

    The film is definitely worth checking out. It’s not a perfect film by any means, but it brings up some important issues, IMO. We showed it on campus a few weeks back and it certainly sparked some good discussion.

Comments are closed.