Ethics of Publishing Studies on Modern Societies
Throughout the years anthropologists have been asking tough questions about the ethics involved in studying other cultures. Many answers to these tough questions have been given, but few of these answers are shared universally by anthropologists. Anthropologists have come to follow a set of guidelines based strongly on anonymity and objectivism, but as the world grows into a more modern state these guidelines must be reviewed and questioned as the nature of research changes. Two separate ethnographies detailed in the essays “The Anthropological Looking Glass” and “Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage” written and performed by Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Renato Rosaldo, respectively, show the broad range of consequences that occur in the societies under study when following similar ethical codes of conduct. More specifically, the change that may occur in these societies is a result of the publishing of the studies, not necessarily the act of performing the study in and of itself. The current code of ethics shared by the anthropological community is ill equipped to deal with studies involving modern societies. Modern societies, those that are well connected with the world outside of them, are exposed to cultural interference from the publication of ethnographies performed on them. This interference can cause change in a subject society’s normal and natural rate and direction of cultural growth. Cultural interference and the change imposed in a society as a result of this interference is not compatible with the ethical tenant to “do no harm”. Since the ethical debate is at the heart of anthropology, it is important to fully understand what ethics is and what it is not. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ethics is “that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.” Ethics is not morality, for morality is the way people or groups relate their actions and beliefs to the broad understanding of right and wrong, or more succinctly, morality is ethics in action. It is important to differentiate between the two because it is not the goal of this composition to question individual anthropologist’s moral conduct or adherence to ethical standards, but rather to explore how the current ethical philosophy of anthropology holds up to a broader sense of ethical right and wrong. It is difficult to precisely identify the goal that the philosophy of ethics seeks to achieve, but for the goal of this essay; the broad purpose of ethics is to do no harm. Ruth Benedict, an author and expert on Native Americans, was quoted as saying, “The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences” (SOLGA). It is thus inconceivable that ethics and anthropology could exist independently; they depend on one another for depth, meaning, and most importantly a sense of humanity. The ethical standards that anthropologists have been refining over the years work well in many situations. However, with the convergence of societies increasing as communication outside of one’s own locale becomes more widely available, anthropologists are finding themselves studying subjects whom may lie closer to them in terms of position in the power hierarchy than ever before. Sabine Frühstück, author of “New Conversations, New Truths”, explores how the current code of ethics used by American anthropologists fails to fully take into account this trend of societies’ positions converging on the power hierarchy. She writes, for anthropologists based in the United States, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) has created a Code of Ethics, but this code does not sufficiently acknowledge the challenges posed for anthropologists based in the West who “study up” and “across” rather than “down” the partly imagined power hierarchy within which the researcher and her host members position themselves. The code thus proves inadequate for the ethical dilemmas that emerged from the projects analyzed here. (609-610)
She explains that the code of ethics that researchers abide by today, at least in American circles, is not sufficient when the anthropologist attempts to study subjects that share close positions with them. The idea of studying “up” and “across rather than “down” seems vague without defining the properties that these positions hold. Rosaldo explains the relationships between the positions that the ethnographer and subjects share. He writes, “the notion of position … refers to how life experiences both enable and inhibit particular kinds of insight,” and that “by the same token, so-called natives are also positioned subjects who have a distinctive mix of insight and blindness” (486). Position, either that of the researcher or the subject, is a collection of experience and learned behaviors that influence the ways a person or group of persons identifies with and interprets the world around them. So then studying “across” rather than “down” refers to the act of studying a society that closely shares the experiences and methods of interpretation with the researcher. When examining the wide range of cultures that different societies have, one may begin to see a pattern emerge, the more modern the society, the closer the positions between the observer and the subject become. The result of this is that the study of a modern society begins to raise ethical concerns that once were more easily dealt with. As the positions between the anthropologist and the subject merge, with current ethical norms no longer providing adequate guidance, the ethnography, or more accurately the publishing of said ethnography, causes interference with the natural growth of the subject society. A notable example of this occurred after Scheper-Hughes published her ethnography on a small Irish society examining in detail a topic close to their hearts; gender disconnection and how it produced abnormally high rates of mental illness. One factor that exacerbated the cultural interference produced by her work was that she had specifically written her book for the layman to understand, drawing even closer the positions of author and subject. Upon receiving feedback from the Irish community after having read and interpreted her published work, Scheper-Hughes noted that the community “[has] lost a hitherto unchallenged native interpretation of the meaning of their lives as ones based on the implicitly cherished values of familistic loyalty, obedience and sacrifice” (578). Having read an outsiders opinion, the opinion of one whose position was close to their own, the people in the Irish community were faced with a challenge to their widely held beliefs and values. The Irish were forced to seriously examine their own beliefs and values as they shared a similar, though not identical, bank of experience and methods of interpretation as the author; these shared positions brought validity to what she had written. One might conclude that Scheper-Hughes had overstepped her duties as an anthropologist. She was no longer a student of the Irish people engrossed in the their differences; she had in fact become their moral judge. The particular moment of ruling did not occur during her time spent with the community, but rather at the moment her book was published for their eyes to read and their minds to grasp that the very foundation of their lives was considered “wrong” to the rest of mankind. A village schoolmaster stated, "It’s not your science [i.e. your accuracy] I’m questioning, but this: don’t we have the right to lead unexamined lives, the right not to be analyzed? Don’t we have the right to hold on to an image of ourselves as ‘different’ to be sure, but as innocent and unblemished all the same?" (577). This villager questions the inherent claim of equality, saying that it is everyone's inalienable right to live and progress their lives on their own terms without being analyzed and judged against their will. One then might question whether it is truly possible to study modern societies under a microscope with a lens of both ethical principles and scientific reasoning.
It’s been shown that the publication of ethnographies can cause social or cultural change in societies in that they become forced to analyze their own values and beliefs in a new light. One might argue that enabling a society to reflect on their own cultural values and beliefs is akin to providing them the opportunity for cultural and personal growth. Some responses Scheper-Hughes received from the Irish community she observed seemed to indicate that despite upsetting the cultural heritage of the community, some positive growth occurred as a result. One villager who now shares a newfound bond with another wife and mother in the community commented, “A kind of great burden has been lifted. There’s no need to hide it and worry over it alone – it’s part of the public record, now, anyway.” Having read Scheper-Hughes book and seeing the problems that the Irish community shared, the secrets that they all had in common, this particular villager and a friend of many years were able to open their relationship up to new horizons, and communicate on new levels. Another villager, a teacher in the community, had other insights to share, “we are less naïve now”, and that “we can see more clearly what our problems are, and how deep the roots of them go. Your book made me very sad. After all, it isn’t a very pretty picture. But I have said to myself, ‘Let’s stop grieving over it, and let’s get on with what has to be done.’” (581). This particular teacher acknowledges the pain that was caused in the community by publicly identifying and broadcasting the secrets and problems of their society to their society. However, even with the pain, the teacher accepts and is able to see the truth in these observations, further hoping to triumph over the pain these realizations have caused and to work to right the faults that exist in their community. Knowing the ethical dilemmas and likely outcomes of performing ethnographies on modern societies, researchers must go into the field with a defined set of rules for which to minimize any possible cultural interference. These rules must hold steadfast and hold relevance through the publishing stage. They must be the very fibers that weave the blanket of ethics and anthropology into a practical subject matter in which people come before practicality. Elvi Whittaker, author of "Ethics and Anthropology: Dilemmas in Field Work" wrote this about published ethnographies, "while anthropology and sociology have produced innumerable ethnographies and studies, no researchers have explored the ramifications of their finished efforts. Yet professional lore and selected interactional networks carry such information " (508). Whittaker is saying here that, at least up until the mid 1970's, there had been no strong movement for anthropologists or sociologists to explore the problems their published works caused in their studied societies, despite there being data available to analyze. It is of dire importance that the ethnographer extend his or her responsibilities to study the ramifications of their work in order to analyze potential ethical dilemmas and take action to minimize them in any future studies. Frühstück, on critiquing ethnographies, "[aims] at positing ethnography as a negotiated endeavor that seeks to empower consultants by deconstructing itself and by surrendering (varying degrees of) control over its final products - the ethnographic text" (612). What Frühstück means here, of course, is that as ethnography evolves it becomes a much more collaborative effort between the researcher and those who aim to benefit from the ethnography or have an investment in the research, these new relationships often remove or reduce the power of the ethnographer to maintain the ethical control over his or her work that ethical standards call for. Frühstück's critiques of ethnographies show that researchers must be given back the sole burden of making tough ethical decisions, while Whittaker's observations push for extending the responsibilities of the ethnographer beyond publication. It is the combination of these two movements that will produce results toward more ethically compliant behaviors in the field, and most importantly, post publishing. It is only then that researchers will be able to tailor the present set of ethical rules into a more inclusive agreed upon array of ethical standards that is aimed at minimizing, or removing altogether, cross-cultural contamination and cultural interference.
If anthropologists are failing to live up the tenant of “do no harm”, one must ask whether or not it makes ethical sense to continue publishing studies of modern cultures using the current code of ethics as a guide. At the same time it can be argued that ceasing the study of modern societies and cultures is not a rational goal, and could in fact take us backwards, potentially alienating ourselves from outside society. While answers to these questions will never cease to be difficult, a compromise must be made between advancing one’s society’s knowledge of the world and staying true to the ethical standards shared by that society. Is the accumulation of knowledge worth the debt of integrity that we inevitably accrue under the current code of ethics anthropologists practice? It is at this point the debate becomes one not of ethics, but of morality; maintaining strict adherence to a code of ethics known to be inadequate in upholding the “do no harm” philosophy is immoral at best, and at worst devalues the very sense of accomplishment that researchers have worked to achieve for hundreds of years.

Works Cited
Frühstück, Sabine. "NEW CONVERSATIONS, NEW TRUTHS: Commentary on "Politics and Pitfalls of Japan Ethnography: Reflexivity, Responsibility, and Anthropological Ethics." Critical Asian Studies 39.4 (2007): 609-616. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2010.
Rosaldo, Renato. “Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage.” Literacies. 2nd ed. Ed. Terence Brunk et al. New York: Norton, 2000. 469-487. Print.
Scheper-Hughes. “The Anthropological Looking Glass.” Literacies. 2nd ed. Ed. Terence Brunk et al. New York: Norton, 2000. 575-599. Print.
Whittaker, Elvi. "Ethics and Anthropology: Dilemmas in Field Work (Book)." Contemporary Sociology 6.4 (1977): 508. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. “ethics." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster Online. 20 April 2010 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics
Benedict, Ruth. The Society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists. Web. <http://solga.org/>.