Professional Ethics or Gamesmanship?

What are some of the beat examples of ethical codes? I think of the Ten Commandments in the Bible or Jesus' "Love the Lord God Almighty with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself" These are short, simple, statements which serve as personal guidelines for one's actions.

 For anthropology the initial concern about professional ethics was two fold. First was to insure that the field ethnographer would have access to their subjects by requiring him/her to behave in a manner that would not prejudice the situation for the next field worker. The second concern was to uphold the scientific integrity of the research product produced from the field work, i.e. be honest and objective in your analysis and share it with colleagues. Two very simple principles.

Religions and philosophies take these statements and then build complex fishnets out of them. So full of  knots to trap you and so many loop holes to allow you to wiggle through, the ethical code becomes a game instead of guide. It becomes a legalistic pastime for those with nothing better to do but to write more specific interpretation of the principle to trap and more subtle distinctions to escape the intent. Anthropological codes put forward over the past 50 years have tended to follow the same course.

As I have seen it, the profession has fail to come to grips with three major problems anthropology faces to achieve these simple goals by writing a code of ethics.

First is a failure to understand the difference between the sub-disciplines and what this means in terms of the ethical challenges one faces. Academic cultural anthropologist assume that cultural academic anthropology is Anthropology and demand an ethical code that represents that point of view. Its rules become too complex and specific for themselves and irrelevant for others such as the applied, administrative, policy or clinical roles or for those who work primarily with material culture, linguistic, or biological subjects or materials.

Second is the failure to distinguish the individual's position in life as a whole person and his/her "professional" role as an "anthropologist." As anthropologist, the individual is representing the tribe of anthropologists. As an individual, he/she is representing themself. As a result of this lack of distinction, codes have been proposed seeking to control the whole range of personal activity under the umbrella of anthropological ethics. Anthropology is a "profession" not a religion.

Third, a professional code and a personal code are very different. A professional code is a door or gate through which the profession (tribe) admits and judges members. It requires an individual to accept the tenets as a condition of acceptance into and by the profession. AND once admitted, it requires the members to adhere to the principles under penalty of ostracism and loss of professional privilege and status if the ethics are breached. Neither major anthropological association, AAA or SfAA, requires acceptance nor imposes punishment of what is called their principles, thus they have unenforceable codes. Such unenforceable codes actually defeat the original purpose for such codes.

In the past fifty years that I have participated, thought about, and written about ethics in anthropology I have yet to see a draft, much less an approved version, of the AAA Code or the SfAA code that addresses the issues outline above in a way that one could actually point to as an ANTHROPOLOGICAL ETHICS CODE.

In the age of Twitter, an ethical principle < 140 characters + (Specific = to define + general = to be understood by all ) might be the best example of what an code of ethics for anthropologist should be.

Why Professional Ethics Count!!

World War II was a watershed for anthropology both here in the US and for anthropology in the European colonial powers. How each reacted, and how individuals from the different traditions reacted to the wartime experience and the post war environment is a fascinating story and chapter in the history of anthropology as an institution and a culture.

While we, as anthropologists, advocate and believe that we can be both "participants" and "observers," the truth is we can never separate the two roles like our physical and biological science colleagues can. We will always be both, even when we attempt to dehumanize our "participant" role to become "more" objective. It is this fact alone which makes "professional" ethics an important and extremely complex issue in my opinion.

For example, the choice to not participate with the military in such areas as human terrain analysis is an individual moral and ethical choice. But is not a collective (professional) excuse nor escape from the consequences of the choice since collective is made up of the range of individual choices.

As a profession, for example, we have no moral right to criticize the actions of others (outsiders) who could have benefited from an anthropological input but were denied that input because some members objected to their colleagues working with the particular group or in a particular situation.

The profession must take a stand on what is ethically acceptable behavior of its members and which is the demarcation between Us (those we speak for i.e. the profession) and Others (those we do not speak for nor represent). The role of the profession is to define and mediate the limits of a member's acceptable behavior as it applies to its unique jurisdictional claim over a member's public behavior as it reflects on the profession and membership.as a whole.

A professional organization is by its very structure both a social/economic institution representing a group of specially trained individuals; and is the intermediary between the professional practitioner and the general public. In the role of intermediary, it sets ground rules for the interaction and, in return, receives (formally or informally) the right to administer those rules from the governing public authority. It is authorized to be self-governing as these rules apply to its official members. But it also limits the professional organizations authority over its members. And this is the problem we face in our organization and structure as "professional" anthropologists.

Where does anthropology fit in this Brave New World

Anthropology has long had a holistic and historical focus on its subject matter. Culture is historical in the sense of the generational transmission of societal experience and values. When we enter periods such as today and forget or ignore the lessons of the past.and as we anthropologists enter the real world of marketing and seek to build our careers in it, what are we bringing with us in terms of anthropological values and ethics. And what are we giving up to make a buck? 

Recently Bill Moyers addressed this question indirectly in an interview with Marty Kaplan, director of USC’s Norman Lear Center and an entertainment industry veteran. The title of the show is Full Show: Big Money, Big Media, Big Trouble

 I found the questions Moyers is asking here to be a real challenge to the science of anthropology and to our professional ethics as we move into the world of consumer behavior both academically and as practitioners. As Moyers points out in his talk with Kaplan, "... taking news out of the journalism box and placing it in the entertainment box is hurting democracy and allowing special interest groups to manipulate the system."

This is a bigger question than just TV journalism. Journalism has been, at its best, the public record and the first cut at history of a community and a society. For the historian and anthropologist journalistic reports have been and are a starting for digging into the great and the mundane issues and facts that we rely upon to build a history of the events and context of our studies. The facts reported also help those of us who are practitioners  to understand and interpret the context of our practice and enable us to respond accordingly.

Moyers and Kaplan raise important questions, I feel, for modern anthropology as a profession and a discipline

What are we doing to study this phenomena? 

How is it shading and influencing the way we understand the events and context of the times?

How are we preparing students, especially those who are training for careers in marketing and media, to deal with the ethical issues they will be facing?

And, most of all what does this tell us about the social and cultural forces that are shaping the world's impression of what the world is?

I am interested in your responses.

How the American Anthropological Association got Ethics wrong

For more than 40 years (1970 - 2010), the American Anthropological Association has struggled with the question of professional ethics. In the early 1990s, the Executive Board of the AAA established a Commission to look into the question of professional ethics. "The AAA Executive Board charged the Commission to Review theAAA Statements on Ethics to examine the purposes, content and procedures of the Association Statements on Ethics." 

 To its credit the Commission outlined the problems that it found while the trying to address the problem. The Commission, in its report, lays out a set of "General Principles Applying to Codes of Ethics." These principles were, and are, however, critically flawed. And because they are, the Commission perpetuated the major flaw in the profession's thinking about ethics and especially professional ethics.

 To date anthropologists have failed to distinguish between what are “professional” ethics and what is "religious orthodoxy" or "disciplinary dogma." By “professional ethics” I mean, "What are the moral rules that apply to the unique role of being a professional anthropologist; that is, one who earns their living practicing the discipline of anthropology." By “religious orthodoxy,” I mean those claims to some divine, universal revelation of  what any anthropologically  trained individual is expected to do in all aspects of their personal and public life.

 Anthropologists have failed to apply their own disciplinary rules and principles to study this very cultural of phenomena; nor have they applied the results of such study to the problem's solution. It is by examining these General Principles and evaluating them in terms of anthropological and sociological principles that we can find the fatal flaw in the profession's reasoning as expressed by the Commission report.

In the analysis below the Commission's key principles are numbered and are presented in italics along with my comments in non-italic form on each major principle.

.III. General Principles Applying to Codes of Ethics

In reviewing the purpose and content of a Code of Ethics, the Commission profited from discussions with Bernard Gert, Professor for the Study of Ethics and Human Values, Dartmouth College. Professor Gert provided some general guidelines for developing a disciplinary and professional code of ethics. By way of background, the Commission lists some of those guidelines, some of which were drawn from "Morality, Moral Theory, and Applied and Professional Ethics," (Gert, Professional Ethics, Vol. 1, Nos. 1 & 2, 1992.) 

             1. The  primary  purpose(s) of a professional code of ethics is to help educate and socialize new entrants to the field as well as current members of the discipline; therefore, a code must be of some practical use.

 

 The primary purpose is not to educate new entrants, rather it is set the moral and ethical context/constraints that govern professional behavior of those who claim or are certified as professionals in the discipline. A code of ethics is a social contract and therefore is a statement of the collective beliefs of the membership and the standard by which members evaluate one another’s behavior and enforce a collective standard. Certainly neophyte require training and indoctrination -- but only if it is to be meaningful upon completion of  their initiation.

The primary purpose of a professional Code of Ethics is to present to the society, of which the profession is but a part, a clear statement of the purpose and mission of the profession as it applies to its relation to the community at large. 

        2.  A professional code deals with how a person ought to act, and with behaviors required by one's societal role/job. A code of ethics does not define a person's job or professional title (that is, a code of ethics does not define terms such as "scientist," "humanist," or "anthropologist ").

 

 This is a contradictory statement to say the least, and very poor social anthropology at its worst. If the code deals with “how a person ought to act” then it is describing an ideal “role.” That means, it is MUST, by definition, define a person’s professional role -- regardless of the job or professional status. “Ethics” is about behavior, not a structural position in a social network.

“Professional” is about status in the social network. It is a status, which comprises the membership of the practitioners trained in the body of skills and knowledge that make up the discipline. Thus, unless the Code does define what that  discipline is and who is included and who is excluded, it fails the test of being professional.

             3.  The development of a code of ethics assumes that the majority of persons affected by the code agree that there are shared ethical principles; that is,  "for the overwhelming majority of cases, any equally informed, impartial, rational person would come to the same conclusion " in determining a particular course of action 

.

 How does one determine what a majority is when there is no boundary established for inclusion and exclusion? Based on this definition, the population of the world is the universe. It would seem that the minority, anthropologists, do not constitute a majority to impose their standards on the world. Neither does it seem desirable that that be the case -- since the purpose of a professional code of ethics is to distinguish between what is “professionally” permissible behavior verses what is generally accepted  as permissible behavior. 

 For example, an ordinary citizen will violate the law and morality by using deadly force against another person (Thou shall not kill). He or she is acting immorally/unethically to do so. However, a police officer, as a professional law enforcer, is ethically bound to use such force in self defense AND THE DEFENSE OF THE PUBLIC.

The reason for distinguishing between general/universal ethics and professional ethics is specifically to identify specialized domains of activity (disciplines) which society deems worthy of or which require special identification, and exemption from the general ethical responsibility and accountability that applies to general population. If this were not the case there would be no need for a separate and exclusive professional code.

 4.  A code of ethics is a   "public moral system "  in that (1) all persons to whom it applies, those whose behavior is to be guided and judged by that system, understand it, i.e., know what behavior the system prohibits, requires and encourages; and (2) it is not irrational for any of them to accept being guided or judged by."

 

 I have no problem here because this assumption, or principle, addresses ethics in general. A personal, or even a public code of ethic, should be a public moral system which dictates how one behaves in public and toward others. However the phrase here is “all persons to whom it applies.“  A professional code does not apply to everyone -- it applies ONLY to those who are sanctioned by (1) the discipline, and (2) by the group that society sanctions to represent the discipline. 

 A public code of ethics is inclusive while a professional code of ethics is exclusive. As a citizen of the United States or the world, I am NOT bound by the AMA, nor the ABA, Codes of Ethics. However, I expect and demand that my doctor and my lawyer live up to their professional codes of ethics.

 5. "A public moral system " includes rules, which must be followed (unless a violation can be justified), and ideals, which encourage how people ought to behave.

 A “public moral system” consists of NORMS, not RULES as described here. NORMS are expectations of predictable behavior but not mandatory. RULES, as stated here, are LAWS which are mandatory and enforced by the society upon those over whom the society claims jurisdiction whether formally members of the society or not. “RULES” imply a formal process of enforcement, while NORMS only require an informal process. Breaking RULES carries consequences, breaking NORMS may carry shame or praise.

 As applied by the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Applied Anthropology, the “public moral system,” which their Codes of Ethics claim to represent, is an “IDEAL” set of principles lacking any formal system or process of enforcement.

       6.  Moral rules are not absolute, but justified violations must be impartial (that is, every person may violate the rule in the same situation) and must be public (that is, everyone knows that the specific violation is permitted). It also is understood that there will be disagreement on what constitutes the "same situation."

 

 Moral rules are “culturally” absolute. Moral norms are not.  The allege violation is subject to question on two grounds. Was it a violation of a RULE or a NORM; and Did the circumstances of the alleged violation fall under the jurisdiction of the RULE?

 If the alleged violation was the violation of a norm, then it is a relative violation in the sense that there may be a general agreement that something inappropriate happened but under the circumstances “we”, the public, can accept and forgive that it happened. 

 Rules are by definition RULES which are absolute. The question of whether there is a violation is not whether the violation is justifiable, it is whether the RULE applies under the alleged circumstances under which the alleged violation took place. 

 These are two different tests of the application of the ethical code, public or professional. 

 General conclusion:  The rationale adopted by the Commission on Ethics reflects a decision made by a committee based on politics rather than a logical, "scientific" or "scholarly", assessment of the concept of ethics and its application to the discipline or profession. While the Commission raises a number of valid issues, the poor quality of their standards of reference lead it to produce a confused and loosely defined set of ethical and professional concepts. The final product fails to distinguish the differences between professional and public behavior. 

 As a result the Codes developed under these guidelines are over reaches their jurisdictional claims and otherwise hide the core ethical  issues facing the profession. It is not that the Commission ignored, or even avoided, the conflict that such poorly defined principles reveal. It is that they did not see that the principles applied were flawed. As result, where there were differences in interpretation, the decision seems to have been made to achieve consensus, rather than validity or clarity.

 

 Unfortunately, their recommendations appear to have been accepted by the AAA as guidelines for how and why the AAA is to construct its ethics code.  As they state it, "..., the Commission's recommendation that the AAA focus on an ethics education program and no longer seek to adjudicate claims of unethical behavior has been adopted by the AAA Executive Board."

Today, if this is the case, we wonder why the AAA continues to concern itself with developing a theoretical code of ethics that, while idealistic, is not applicable to the profession or professionals? And further, how helpful can this be to train students, especially the majority of who will be going to work in the real world, to respond to the ethical challenges they will face in that world?