ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Anthropology and
Militarism
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Hugh Gusterson
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia 22030; email: Hgusters@gmu.edu

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:155–75 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on ethnic cleansing, terror, nuclear, genocide, memory, responsibility
May 31, 2007

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094302
Copyright  c 2007 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
0084-6570/07/1021-0155$20.00
Anthropologists’ selections of topics and field sites have often been
shaped by militarism, but they have been slow to make militarism,
especially American militarism, an object of study. In the high Cold
War years concerns about human survival were refracted into de-
bates about innate human proclivities for violence or peace. As “new
wars” with high civilian casualty rates emerged in Africa, Central
America, the former Eastern bloc, and South Asia, beginning in the
1980s anthropologists increasingly wrote about terror, torture, death
squads, ethnic cleansing, guerilla movements, and the memory work
inherent in making war and peace. Anthropologists have also begun
to write about nuclear weapons and American militarism. The “war
on terror” has disturbed settled norms that anthropologists should
not assist counterinsurgency campaigns, and for the first time since
Vietnam, anthropologists are debating the merits of military anthro-
pology versus critical ethnography of the military.

155
 ANRV323-AN36-10
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
INTRODUCTION
Militarism is integral to global society today. It
can be seen around the world in the presence
of standing armies, paramilitaries, and mili-
tary contractors; the stockpiling of weaponry;
burgeoning state surveillance programs; the
colonization of research by the national se-
curity state; the circulation of militarized
imagery in popular culture; “the tendency to
regard military efficiency as the paramount in-
terest of the state,” (Oxford English Dictionary
as quoted in Bacevich 2005, p. 227) and “the
shaping of national histories in ways that
glorify and legitimate military action” (Lutz
2002b, p. 723). In militarized societies, war
is always on our minds, even if we are tech-
nically at peace. No one in the world to-
day is untouched by militarism. However,
given the enormous range of local experi-
ences of the phenomenon from the immis-
erated war refugee of the Congo to the subur-
ban American happily watching Saving Private
Ryan on his flat panel living room TV, it may
be as appropriate to speak of militarisms as of
militarism.
Anthropologists who work on war, mili-
tarism, and violence routinely complain that
these subjects receive too little attention in
anthropology (Ben-Ari 2004; Hinton 1996;
Lutz 1999, 2002a,b; Nagengast 1994; Simons
1999). “With a few notable exceptions, an-
thropologists have barely studied modern
wars,” writes Simons (1999, p. 74) at the out-
set of her own Annual Review article on the
anthropology of war. Arguably, war and mili-
tarism have stood in the same kind of relation-
ship to anthropology as has colonialism. For
an earlier generation of anthropologists, colo-
nialism powerfully shaped access to the field
and the choice of research topics but was itself
rarely brought into focus as a topic of ethno-
graphic research or reflexive self-questioning.
Similarly, anthropology has been more or less
subtly molded by the priorities of the national
security state and the exigencies of other peo-
ples’ wars, but until recently, anthropologists
have written little about militarism or inter-
156 Gusterson
national conflict. They have written still less
about their own relations with the national
security state.
Yet the discipline of modern anthropol-
ogy crystallized in the context of war. In
the United States, anthropology emerged as
the state sought to understand and admin-
ister native populations in the Indian wars
(Borneman 1995). In England, Malinowski—
a Pole, and therefore an enemy alien during
World War I—devised anthropology’s signa-
ture methodology of extended participant ob-
servation when he was advised, for his own
good, to extend his sojourn in the Trobriand
Islands for the duration of the war.
Anthropologists’ choices of field sites and
research projects were also often shaped by
war. Anthropologists have generally sought
to avoid field sites engulfed by war, and
in the Cold War, they found the territory
of the Soviet bloc largely off limits even as
they had easy access to countries controlled
by the Western powers (Lutz 1999). Mean-
while, from World War II through the first
decades of the Cold War many anthropolo-
gists were sponsored by the national security
state to carry out research on places of in-
terest to the national security state, whereas
others learned during the McCarthyist years
not to ask the wrong kinds of questions about
the Cold War order (Lutz 1999; Nader 1997;
Price 1998, 2002a, 2004; Yans-McLaughlin
1986). During World War II, a small num-
ber of anthropologists were also, in one of the
more shameful episodes in the discipline’s his-
tory, involved in the administration of intern-
ment camps for Japanese Americans (Starn
1986). Benedict’s (1989) World War II study
of Japanese national character is the classic
example of ethnographic work commissioned
by the national security state. It was followed
during the Cold War by more anthropolog-
ical studies of national character, by the rise
of area studies, and by the emergence of a
positivistic approach to cultural description
that was favored by government agencies. (For
analyses of the way the Cold War shaped the
academy more generally, see Chomsky et al.
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
1997, Edwards 1996, Leslie 1994, and Lowen
1997).
The World War II generation of an-
thropologists, their attitudes shaped by the
“good war” against fascism, saw their work
for the national security state as relatively
unproblematic. By the Vietnam years a
new generation of anthropologists—trained,
ironically, thanks to the educational largesse
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
generated by the GI Bill and Cold War boom
years—began to question anthropology’s pri-
vate bargains with the national security state.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
This generation had, by and large, no record
of military service1 and, in a reprise of Franz
Boas’s (1919) critique of anthropologists
who doubled as spies during World War I,
they questioned (and, according to their
opponents, exaggerated) anthropologists’
covert work in the service of counterin-
surgency in Latin America and Southeast
Asia in the 1960s (Berreman 1968; Nader
1997; Price 2000, 2004; Wakin 1992; Wolf
& Jorgenson 1970). Anthropology after the
1960s embodied a strong sentiment against
war and militarism, and the 1971 American
Anthropological Association Principles of
Professional Responsibility (http://www.
aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm) took a
clear stand against the kind of covert anthro-
pological work the national security state had
sponsored in the past.
Given the geopolitical context in which
anthropology grew to maturity, some strik-
ing gaps exist in the targets of the ethno-
graphic gaze during the Cold War. Anthro-
pologists hardly wrote about nuclear weapons,
about the U.S. military bases in the coun-
tries where they did their fieldwork, or about
the Cold War as a cultural system. And, al-
though the Vietnam War fractured the Amer-
ican Anthropological Association in the late
1
Few contemporary anthropologists have much military
experience. One notable exception is the Israeli anthropol-
ogist and military officer Ben-Ari (1989, 1998). Lt. Colonel
David Kilcullen (see Kilcullen 2006), who was appointed
chief adviser to the U.S. military on counterinsurgency in
Iraq in 2007, was described as an anthropologist in the
New Yorker (Packer 2006), although his PhD is in political
science.
1960s, anthropologists have written very lit-
tle about Vietnamese culture or about the
Vietnam War—the defining event for the gen-
eration of anthropologists now nearing retire-
ment (although see Kwon 2006 and Petersen
1992). Instead, during the Cold War, anthro-
pologists struck an informal bargain with po-
litical scientists, ceding to them the interna-
tional state system while taking for themselves
the “tribal zone.”
This article proceeds by surveying briefly
the anthropological work on “primitive war”
during the high Cold War years, arguing that
such work did not so much escape the Cold
War as displace its concerns onto the “sav-
age slot.” As the Cold War ended, anthropol-
ogists began to dissolve the traditional divi-
sion of labor with political science and to write
about war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, nuclear
weapons, and the international security sys-
tem as a whole. More recently, September
11, 2001, and the emergence of the so-called
war on terror have raised anew the question
of whether anthropologists should consult for
the national security state.
AGGRESSION, HUMAN
NATURE, AND PRIMITIVE WAR
Although such estimates are notoriously
problematic, according to Ferguson (2006),
180 million people died in war in the twen-
tieth century. As humanity was engulfed by
two world wars, then developed weapons ca-
pable of extinguishing all human life, the
question of whether human beings were in-
herently warlike became increasingly urgent.
As early as 1932, in a famous exchange with
Einstein, Freud wrote that war was grounded
in intertwined noble and destructive impulses
and was essential to human nature. In 1940
Margaret Mead, optimistic despite the erup-
tion of world war in Europe, staked out the
other end of the debate. She argued that vi-
olence might be universal, but war was a cul-
tural institution, not an instinct, and could
be uninvented. These two short pieces de-
fined early on the basic positions in the
www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 157
 ANRV323-AN36-10
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
anthropological debate on war, violence, and
human nature.
During the high Cold War years anthro-
pologists did not make the Cold War and its
tributary conflicts a direct object of study, but
they refracted the supreme question raised by
the Cold War and the arms race—“can we get
along?”—into their mappings of the “savage
slot.” Often assuming that “primitive man”
was man in his “natural” state, anthropolo-
gists scoured the ethnographic horizon for
warlike and peaceful cultures, argued about
the reasons for war in “simple” societies, and
in keeping with the evolutionist strand in an-
thropology after the 1950s, debated the evolu-
tion of war from acephalous to state societies.
(For reviews of the voluminous literature pro-
duced, see Ferguson 1989, 1990b; Groebel
& Hinde 1989; Nagengast 1994; Otterbein
2000; Reyna & Downs 1994; Simons 1999;
Sponsel 2000; and Whitehead 2000.)
Although societies (allegedly) without war
were scarce in the ethnographic record and
only became scarcer as the twentieth cen-
tury progressed, they generated a dispro-
portionate amount of ethnography (Dentan
1968, Gregor 1996, Howell & Willis 1989,
Lee 1984, Montagu 1978, Robarchek 1977,
Sponsel & Gregor 1994, Thomas 1958,
Turnbull 1961). This literature sometimes ig-
nored Mead’s vital distinction between vio-
lence and war, arguing that its ethnographic
subjects not only fought no wars, but also were
nonviolent. In the Cold War context, this lit-
erature on peaceful societies represented a dis-
placed critique of the status quo, the salvage of
a different potentiality in human nature. The
elaboration of this literature paradoxically in-
tensified just as these peaceful cultures were
disappearing into the mists of ethnohistory.
The anthropological record also produced
bountiful evidence of the human predilection
for violence and war (See, e.g., Boehm 1984;
Chagnon 1983, 1988; Ferguson & Whitehead
1992; Haas 1990; Keiser 1991; Otterbein
2000; Rosaldo 1980). With the rise of socio-
biology in the 1970s and 1980s, debates in-
creasingly turned on the question of whether
158 Gusterson
war was biologically encoded by evolution,
with Chagnon (1988) (in)famously arguing
from his Yanomamo data that war maximized
“inclusive fitness” for the victors. Such argu-
ments offered an interesting parallel to the
rise in the international relations literature
of “realist” theories that used the rhetoric of
science to naturalize war as inherent to an
international system conceived as a Darwin-
ist jungle (e.g., Waltz 1979). The debate be-
tween Chagnon and his critics extended into
the 1990s and beyond, with questions about
human nature and war often focused on arcane
details about the dwindling Yanomami peo-
ple of the Amazonian rainforest. Quite aside
from allegations of unreliability in Chagnon’s
data-gathering (Borofsky 2005, Lizot & Dart
1994, Tierney 2000), critics questioned the
notion that the Yanomami were an untouched
people representing human nature in its es-
sential state. Ferguson (1990a, 1995) argued
that Chagnon, by introducing weaponry and
scarce resources worth fighting over, pro-
voked the fighting he claimed to have discov-
ered and that this represented a subset of a
broader process whereby state encroachment
produced war in the “tribal zone.” The vi-
olence modern researchers claimed as essen-
tial to the primitive, and therefore the human,
condition was a misrecognized artifact of the
militarizing processes of the Western state
system. By the 1990s, with increasing accep-
tance that “primitive war” could not be under-
stood apart from the colonial encounter, dis-
cussions took an evolutionist turn (Carneiro
1994, Ember & Ember 1992, Ferguson &
Whitehead 1992, Simons 1999, Otterbein
2000). A lively debate also ensued about
Turney-High’s (1991) thesis that states fight
instrumentally for land and resources, gener-
ating high casualties, whereas “primitive war”
is often ritualized conflict about honor and
status, with few casualties.
THE END OF THE COLD WAR
Starn (1991) argues that Andeanist anthropol-
ogists were blindsided by the emergence of the
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
Maoist Shining Path insurgency in 1980s Peru
because they had been attending too closely
to traditional cultural forms to notice the back
story of conflict, violence, and poverty in their
field sites. One could make a similar argu-
ment about anthropology’s myopia about mil-
itarism for much of the Cold War until mil-
itarism, terror, and violence finally began to
come into anthropological focus in the 1980s.
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
This change was partly because communal vi-
olence and terror in ethnographic sites such
as Sri Lanka and Latin or Central America
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
were becoming impossible to overlook, and
partly because theoretical shifts in anthropol-
ogy in the 1980s authorized the investigation
of new subjects, often by a generation of an-
thropologists who had come of age during or
after the Vietnam War. The end of the Cold
War also produced new structures of conflict
in the international system, stimulating new
theoretical and empirical work in response.
Early attempts to document and theo-
rize terror and communal violence include
Benjamin & Demarest (1988), Manz (1988),
and Taussig (1984, 1986) on Latin America;
Das (1990), Kapferer (1988), and Tambiah
(1986) on South Asia; Feldman (1991) and
Sluka (1989) on Northern Ireland; and Lan
(1985) on guerilla warfare in Africa. These
years also saw attempts to apply some tradi-
tional anthropological theories to the inter-
national security system as a whole (Foster &
Rubinstein 1986, Rubinstein & Foster 1997,
Turner & Pitt 1989), as well as compendia
on war, violence, and torture (Nordstrom &
Martin 1992, Nordstrom & Robben 1995).
Something Nordstrom (1997) called “war-
zone culture” and “warscapes” and Gusterson
(2004) called “securityscapes” was coming
into ethnographic focus.
Depressingly, the most influential theo-
rizations of the new global order emerging
from the ashes of the Cold War were by
such popular writers as Huntington (1996)
and Kaplan (2001). (Kaplan’s book grew out
of a 1994 Atlantic Monthly article that, re-
markably, the State Department faxed to ev-
ery U.S. embassy in the world.) Huntington
argued that Cold War bipolarity would be
succeeded by a seven-cornered struggle be-
tween civilizations, exacerbated by globaliza-
tion, that would throw the West into conflict
with China and the Islamic world. Kaplan
foresaw a combination of weak political struc-
tures, resource depletion, and overpopula-
tion in the Third World generating a tidal
wave of anarchy that would wash up against
the West (compare Homer-Dixon 2001). Al-
though anthropologists criticized Hunting-
ton and Kaplan for reifying cultural traditions,
for gross overgeneralization, and for exagger-
ating the extent of anarchy and violence in the
Third World (Besteman & Gusterson 2005;
Simons 1999, p. 92), they did not produce ri-
val general theories. Still, the post–Cold War
years saw some fine anthropological studies
of militarization, war, and violence that, taken
together, represent a major ethnographic and
theoretical advance. This body of work fo-
cused on ethnic violence and genocide; mem-
ory work; the phenomenology of violence;
nuclear weapons and, at last, American
militarism.
ETHNIC VIOLENCE AND
GENOCIDE
The political scientist Kaldor (1999) argues
that the 1990s saw the emergence, especially
in Africa and Eastern Europe, of what she
calls “new war,” characterized by “a blurring
of the distinctions between war . . . organized
crime . . . and large-scale violations of human
rights” (p. 2). Kaldor argues that “new war”
was produced by the confluence of neolib-
eral globalization and the end of the disci-
pline enforced by Cold War bipolarity. Glob-
alization eroded the state’s old monopoly
of legitimate violence from above—through
the “transnationalization of military forces”
(p. 4)—and from below, as force was in-
creasingly privatized (compare Singer 2004).
The old legitimating ideologies of the Cold
War were replaced by reinvented ethnona-
tionalisms, and wars took shape in which the
stake was identity. Partly because these wars
www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 159
 ANRV323-AN36-10
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
sought to settle the identities of entire pop-
ulations, 80%–90% of the casualties were
civilian—the exact inverse of the military-
civilian casualty ratio at the start of the twen-
tieth century. Such wars have taken place
in former Yugoslavia (Bringa 1993; Denich
1994; Hayden 1996, 2000; Olujic 1998),
Chechnya (Rigi 2007, Tishkov 2004), Sri
Lanka (Daniel 1996, Tambiah 1996), Somalia
(Besteman 1996a,b, 1999; Lewis 1998), and
Rwanda/Burundi (Barnett 1999; Gourevitch
1999; Malkki 1995, 1996; Mamdani 2002;
Taylor 1999, 2002).
Much of the work on these wars critiqued
the popular common sense, based on essen-
tialist notions of identity, that such wars were
caused by an eruption of ancient tribal iden-
tities in countries that were somehow defi-
cient in their pursuit of modernity. Malkki
(1995, 1996) shows how hard Hutu and Tutsi
had to work to tell each other apart. Denich
(1994) and Hayden (1996, 2000) argue that
ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia was so vicious
precisely because many parts of the Fed-
eration had become so multiethnic that it
took great violence to disaggregate popula-
tions, and Bringa (1993) offers vivid docu-
mentary evidence of Croats moving within
a few months from convivial friendship with
their Muslim neighbors to burning down
their houses. Meanwhile Appadurai (2002),
Borneman (1998), and Hayden (2000) sug-
gest that mass rape is often used to defile
and separate minority populations in eth-
nically mixed, contested territory. Besteman
(1996a,b, 1999) argues that clan mobilization
in Somalia glossed more powerful and novel
fracture lines of class and race, and the lit-
erary journalist Gourevitch (1999) suggests
that the 1994 Hutu slaughter of ∼800,000
Tutsis in Rwanda, largely with machetes, was
the product of Belgian colonial divide-and-
rule policies, the social agonies caused by
structural adjustment, and malevolent politi-
cal entrepreneurship more than ancient tribal
hatreds. This body of work is subtle and his-
torically sensitive in its deconstruction of pop-
ular deterministic assumptions about ancient
160 Gusterson
hatreds (Appadurai 2002). Still, it begs the
question of why identities that, according to
this literature, are manufactured and contin-
gent are nevertheless so powerful in mobi-
lizing populations for mass murder, and why
when nations fractured in the 1990s they so
often did so along ethnic lines.
It is no coincidence that these years, when
genocide reemerged in central Europe and
Africa, saw a flurry of articles on the Nazi
Holocaust (Connor 1989; Lewin 1992, 1993;
Wolf 2002; see also Kuper 1981, 1990). At
the same time Hinton (1998, 2002a,b, 2004)
produced a powerful body of work, centered
on the Cambodian genocide under Pol Pot
(which killed 1.5–3 million out of a population
of 7 million), revisiting some of the psycho-
logical lessons to emerge from the Nazi holo-
caust about processes of dehumanization and
obedience to authority and integrating them
with an analysis of particular Cambodian
cultural processes that facilitated genocide—
although the cultural internalism of this ana-
lytic frame arguably goes too far in absolving
the United States of its responsibility for this
Asian holocaust (see Shawcross 1979).
MEMORY WORK
War and memory are inextricably bound. Mo-
bilization for war often involves a collective
mobilization of memory about past injuries
(Wallace 1968); meanwhile the end of war in-
volves the selective memorialization and for-
getting of war’s pains (Fussell 1975, Scarry
1985, Shaw 2007, Sturken 1997, Yoneyama
1999). Arextaga (1997), Denich (1994), and
Hinton (1998, 2004), writing about Ireland,
Yugoslavia, and Cambodia, emphasize the im-
portance of atrocity memories in creating
what Denich calls a sense of “unfinished busi-
ness” that justifies the resort to war. Such
memories can be exploited by leaders seek-
ing war. They often attach to sites of past
atrocities, especially if bodies are exhumed
(Aretxaga 1997, Denich 1994, Sanford 2004).
Refugee communities may play a particularly
important role in keeping alive memories of
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
past injuries (Ballinger 2003; Bryant 2004;
Malkki 1995, 1996; Slyomovics 1998). Mean-
while ethnic cleansing and genocide often in-
volve a deliberate destruction of sites of col-
lective memory and identity, as in the Serbs’
targeting of cultural sites in Sarajevo in the
1990s.
When fighting ends, collective memory of
war and suffering is controlled through an in-
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
stitutionalized interweaving of remembrance
and, on the other hand, what Yoneyama (1999)
calls “amnesic elisions” and Lifton & Mitchell
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
(1995) call “historical cleansing.” This can
occur in civil conflicts through Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions, tried by South
Africa at the end of apartheid and in several
other countries subsequently. Such commis-
sions mobilize the testimony of victims and
executioners to create a new public memory
archive that acknowledges past injuries, al-
though the process is often in danger of coop-
tion by regimes whose legitimacy rests on se-
lective disclosure. Official narratives at the
end of war always stand in ambiguous rela-
tion to subcultural performances of memory
that may carry more emotional force (Shaw
2007)—as with Moroccan human rights ac-
tivists’ mock trials and poetry documented by
Slyomovics (2005), or the Vietnamese village
rituals analyzed by Kwon (2006) to honor the
women and children killed in the Vietnam
War2 whose deaths were seen by the govern-
ment as insufficiently heroic.
War memories are also institutionalized
through official memorials and museums.
These are inevitably partial in their memori-
alization of suffering. Thus the Vietnam War
Memorial in Washington, DC, erases the suf-
fering of the Vietnamese (Sturken 1997), the
Hiroshima Memorial erases the South Korean
victims of the Bomb (Yoneyama 1999), and
the Holocaust Museum in Washington erases
much non-Jewish suffering in the Holocaust
(Linenthal 2001). Museums and memorials
can provoke intense conflict and revitalize
injured nationalisms, especially among war
2
Or, as the Vietnamese call it, the “American War.”
survivors, as in controversies over Japanese
politicians’ visits to World War II Shinto
shrines and in the public pillory and even-
tual collapse of the Smithsonian Museum’s
attempted 1995 exhibit on Hiroshima and
the end of World War II (Lifton & Mitchell
1995, Linenthal & Englehardt 1996, Nobile
1995). Once battlegrounds and memorials
lose their eruptive emotional power, they be-
come “sanitized” sites of “war tourism” (Lisle
2000).
Anthropologists have been doing their
own memory work, often feeling a duty to
bear witness to suffering endured by com-
munities they studied. Especially in Central
and Latin America, after two decades marked
by widespread torture, death squad activity,
and guerilla insurgency, some anthropologists
have sought (often at risk to themselves) to en-
sure that their writing speaks for the dead and
bereaved and does not contribute to the cul-
ture of silence that often enabled the killing
in the 1980s and 1990s (Binford 1996; Daniel
1996; Falla 1994; Green 1994, 1999; Manz
1988, 2005; Sanford 2004; Schirmer 1998;
Sluka 2000; Suarez-Orozco 1990; Warren
1993). Such work often builds on and revoices
in a more theoretical register an indigenous
tradition of “testimonio”—vivid, first-person
eyewitness accounts of terror and violence
(such as Menchu et al. 1987).
FEAR AS A WAY OF LIFE
Recent years have seen considerable work by
anthropologists on what we might call the
phenomenology of war and violence: how vi-
olence works as a set of cultural practices and
what it does to people to live in a society
wracked by civil war or state-sponsored ter-
ror (Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois 2003).
In a much-cited article Green (1994) says
“routinization allows people to live in a
chronic state of fear with a façade of nor-
malcy, while the terror, at the same time, per-
meates and shreds the social fabric” (p. 231).
We now know that in societies where fear is
“a way of life” one often finds the following
www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 161
 ANRV323-AN36-10
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
phenomena: a disabling uncertainty as to what
might get one killed and which neighbors and
friends might turn into enemies (Strathern
et al. 2005); a sense of “loss of the future”
(Nordstrom 2004, p. 59); the use of pain and
terror to “hyperindividuate” and socially dis-
connect victims (Daniel 1996, p. 144); a pub-
lic culture of silence and denial about atroci-
ties that are “public secrets” (Skidmore 2003,
Warren 1993); a pervasive militarization of
daily life often lived under surveillance (Orr
2004, Stephen 2000); waves of violence that,
taking people out of everyday mundane re-
ality, create a perverse sense of communitas
among perpetrators (Feldman 1991, Tambiah
1996); the sundering of families by death,
forced conscription, or eviction (Green 1994,
1999; Hinton 1996, 2004; Vine 2004); “bru-
tal forms of bodily discovery” that “take the
body apart . . . to divine the enemy within”
(Appadurai 2002, pp. 291–92; Feldman 1991);
dead, mutilated, and tortured bodies intended
by the perpetrators as semiotic messages in a
context where victims experience terror and
bodily suffering at the very boundaries of
representability (Daniel 1996, Feldman 1991,
Gusterson 1996); and exaggerated ideologies
of masculinity among perpetrators and the
feminization of male victims, often achieved
in part by the rape of “their” women [Gill
1997; Peteet 1991, 1994; Stephen 2000; see
also the extraordinary analysis of Nazi Freiko-
rps gender identity by Theweleit (1987) and
the important body of work on gender and
militarism by the prolific feminist interna-
tional relations theorist Enloe (1983, 1990,
1993, 2000, 2004)].
In situations of prolonged military occu-
pation and resistance (in Northern Ireland,
the West Bank, and Gaza, for example) such
conditions become internalized in processes
of cultural reproduction. Arextaga (1997) and
Peteet (1991, 1994) write about the ways in
which prison detention and torture at the
hands of security forces become rites of pas-
sage into adulthood among subordinate popu-
lations, often effecting shifts in the balance of
power between the sexes and the generations
162 Gusterson
in the process. In the Occupied Territories,
for example, the young men of the Intifada
have parlayed beatings and detentions into
enhanced authority within communities that
formerly accorded greater respect to an older
generation. Meanwhile, with ∼300,000 child
soldiers worldwide at the end of the twenti-
eth century,3 weapons training and combat are
increasingly common teenage and even pre-
teen experiences, especially in Africa (Singer
2005).
Anthropologists have focused largely on
the world of terror’s victims. However, as
“studying up” becomes more common, an-
thropologists are writing about the cultural
reality of the perpetrators (Bickford 2003,
Feldman 1991, Gill 2004, Mahmood 1996,
Schirmer 1998, Suarez-Orozco 1990). Al-
though it is important work, Robben (1995)
warns of the danger of “ethnographic seduc-
tion” by military officers and torturers (see
also Gusterson 1993).
A decade that has seen increasing anthro-
pological interest in globalization has also
produced more studies exploring the transna-
tional linkages of cultures of violence and
terror: Gill (2004) analyzes the training at
the U.S. School of the Americas of Latin
American military officers involved in human
rights violations. If such violations were once
legitimated by the U.S. struggle against com-
munism, the organizing frame is now the “war
on drugs.” Nordstrom (1997, p. 5), saying
“the whole concept of local wars is largely a
fiction,” explores the enabling of local wars by
a globalized shadow economy of arms traffick-
ers, diamond smugglers, and even nongovern-
mental organization workers. Singer (2004)
probes the connection between wars in the
Third World and the recent growth of the
new mercenaries in the burgeoning military
services industry—an industry whose rise is
undermining the monopoly on the legitimate
use of violence that Weber saw as essential to
the modern state.
3
http://www.child-soldiers.org/childsoldiers/questions-
and-answers
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND U.S.
MILITARISM
From 1940 to 1996 the U.S. spent
∼$5.5 trillion (in 1996 dollars) on nu-
clear weapons (Schwartz 1998, p. 3), and yet
anthropologists hardly wrote about these
potentially omnicidal weapons until the Cold
War was almost over. When anthropologists
did finally write about nuclear weapons, they
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
produced, first, studies of what Kuletz (1998)
calls the “geography of sacrifice” (largely
by indigenous peoples) inherent in nuclear
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
weapons production, and second, studies of
the culture of nuclear weapons scientists and
war planners.
U.S. nuclear weapons testing and pro-
duction particularly harmed Pacific Islanders
and residents of the American Southwest,
who have suffered environmental contami-
nation and high rates of cancer and birth
defects. Their plight has been documented
by Barker (2003), Johnston (2007), Kuletz
(1998), Masco (2004a, 2006), and O’Rourke
(1986). In the 1960s, U.S. plans to use hy-
drogen bombs to excavate a harbor in Alaska
and a canal through Central America posed
a gross danger to indigenous populations.
These plans were halted by technical prob-
lems and by an upsurge of activist opposition
(Kirsch 2005, O’Neill 1995). The next gener-
ation of antimilitary activists, in the 1980s, was
documented by Epstein (1991), Gusterson
(1996), Krasniewicz (1992), Masco (1999,
2006), and Wilson (1988), with McCaffrey
(2002) studying the more recent upsurge of
protest against the U.S. base in Vieques,
Puerto Rico.
Anthropologists have not studied the nu-
clear weapons programs in France, the United
Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel,
although Abraham’s (1998) account of the In-
dian program is anthropologically inflected.
In the Soviet context Dalton et al. (1999),
Garb (1997), and Garb & Komarova (2001)
have written about the horrendous envi-
ronmental damage wreaked by the Soviet
nuclear weapons program, and Guillemin
(2001) has written on a deadly outbreak of
anthrax around the bioweapons facility in
Sverdlosk. (Other anthropological accounts
of bioweapons include Guillemin 2006 and
Lakoff et al. 2004).
In the 1990s American nuclear weapons
laboratories were the subject of ethnographic
studies by Gusterson (1996, 2004, 2005),
Masco (1999, 2002, 2004a,b, 2006), and
McNamara (2001). These ethnographies have
focused on the web of local relationships
within which weapons laboratories are em-
bedded and on the dynamics of simula-
tions in nuclear weapons scientists’ scien-
tific practices—a theme also analyzed by
the sociologists of science, Eden (2005) and
MacKenzie (1990). Nuclear ethnographers,
with other social scientists, have also been in-
terested in the public discourses that legiti-
mate nuclear weapons (Chilton 1996, Cohn
1987, Franklin 1988, Gusterson 1999, Klare
1995, Manoff 1989, Nathanson 1988, Slayton
2007, Taylor 1998).
Nuclear ethnography was part of the emer-
gence, finally, of systematic anthropological
work on U.S. militarism itself—the unmarked
category. U.S. militarism was almost invisi-
ble in anthropology until recent years, despite
the fact that the United States accounts for
roughly 50% of all military spending and arms
sales in the world, while stationing half a mil-
lion troops, contractors, intelligence agents,
and their dependents on more than 700 over-
seas bases in 130 countries ( Johnson 2004,
2007; Lutz 1999, 2006). Militarism, work-
ing through a “permanent war economy”
(Melman 1974), provides a powerful set of
processes for structuring U.S. economy and
society, organizing U.S. relationships with al-
lies and adversaries, shaping the flow of in-
formation in the public sphere, and mold-
ing popular culture. In an important body
of work Lutz (1999, 2002a,b, 2006) shows
how military bases abroad exacerbate inequal-
ity and human rights abuses while military
bases at home deplete local resource bases,
inflect asymmetric race and gender relations,
and create a privileged category of militarized
www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 163
 ANRV323-AN36-10
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
“supercitizens.” At the same time, military
contracting shifts resources away from the old
industrial heartland and from human needs
(Markusen et al. 1991, Nash 1989, Peattie
1988). Less tangible but equally damaging
is the way militarist apologetics have dis-
torted U.S. media coverage of international
affairs (Hannerz 2004, Herman & Chom-
sky 2002, Gusterson 1999, MacArthur 1992,
Pedelty 1995) and helped shape a degraded
popular culture saturated with racial and na-
tionalist stereotypes, aestheticized destruc-
tion, and images of violent hypermasculin-
ity (Der Derian 2001, Feldman 1994, Gibson
1994, Weber 2005). In this cultural milieu,
the toxic combination of a smoldering back-
lash against national humiliation in Vietnam
and the hubris of being the world’s only su-
perpower, aggravated by the injuries of 9/11,
has produced a virulent militarist nationalism
that threatens both the American way of life
and the stability of the international security
system (Bacevich 2005; Carroll 2006; Johnson
2004, 2005; Gibson 1994).
If the deformative features of American
militarism are being mapped by an emer-
gent critical anthropology of militarism, re-
cent years have seen the parallel emergence
of anthropology contracted to, enabled by, or
in a broad sense allied with the military. Al-
though such work is not always uncritical of
the military, it is not grounded in a critique
of militarism, and it is marked by the more
empirical orientation of contract work and by
privileged access to military institutions. Ex-
amples include Hawkins (2001) on U.S. mil-
itary culture in Germany, Simons (1997) on
the culture of U.S. special forces, Johnston’s
(2005) study of weaknesses in the organiza-
tional culture of the intelligence community
leading up to 9/11, and Frese & Harrell’s
(2003) compendium on military culture.
9/11 AND BEYOND
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the “war
on terror” that followed intensified American
militarism while also stimulating both the
164 Gusterson
critical ethnography of militarism and mili-
tary contract ethnography. 9/11 was followed
by a massive attempt by scholars in many disci-
plines, anthropology included, to make sense
of the attacks. With the exception of Hirsch
(2006) the anthropological literature this pro-
duced (a special issue of Anthropological Quar-
terly at the end of 2001; Kapferer 2004a,b;
Tsing 2004) was largely ungrounded in long-
term field research projects and tended to be
more sharp than deep.
Meanwhile, deciding that anthropology
might be to the “war on terror” what physics
was to the Cold War, the national secu-
rity apparatus took a cultural turn (Packer
2006). Some anthropologists responded
enthusiastically. Moos (2005) helped win
Congressional funding for the Pat Roberts
Intelligence Program (PRISP)—a sort of
ROTC for spies—and McFate (2005a,b),
calling anthropology a “discipline invented
to support warfighting in the tribal zone,”
advocated weaponizing culture. The CIA
and a plethora of military institutes, colleges,
and contractors began advertising for an-
thropologists, and a listserv emerged for
anthropologists consulting for the military
(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mil
Ant Net/). Some anthropologists warned
that such initiatives would compromise the
open exchange of knowledge within the
discipline, harm the research of all anthro-
pologists by raising suspicions that they were
secretly consulting for the CIA, breach the
covenant of trust between ethnographers and
informants, and militarize a discipline more
often aligned with social critique (Gonzalez
2007; Gusterson & Price 2005; Price 2000,
2002a,b). Not since World War II had mil-
itary consulting been endorsed so publicly;
not since Vietnam had it been condemned so
fiercely.
These developments made clear that the
existing AAA ethics code is inadequate for a
situation where anthropology is of great in-
terest to the national security state and where
a sizeable community of “practicing anthro-
pologists” may encounter ethical dilemmas ill
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24
addressed by a code written largely for aca-
demic anthropologists. New rules of the road,
and a debate within the profession about the
perils inherent in the militarization of our dis-
cipline, are overdue.
CONCLUSION
In anthropology and cognate disciplines, a
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.
rich body of theory has emerged to ana-
lyze capitalism, (post)colonialism, globaliza-
tion, and identity politics. By comparison,
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
militarism is undertheorized. Mainstream se-
curity studies, a field that arose in response to
the needs of the national security state, often
offers little more than weakly theorized, pu-
tatively scientific, repetitive rationalizations
for U.S. military policies. What we need is
a body of work that offers us what we now
have for capitalism, colonialism, and global-
ization: a set of texts that analyze militarism
in relation to nationalism, late modern cap-
italism, media cultures, and the state while
mapping the ways in which militarism re-
makes communities, public cultures, and the
consciousness of individual subjects in mul-
tiple geographic and social locations. Mili-
tarism, like capitalism, is a life world with its
own escalatory logic that takes different local
forms while displaying fundamental underly-
ing unities. Despite these underlying unities,
local processes of militarization are invariably
defended as defensive reactions to someone
else’s militarism from which they therefore
differ in moral character. One task for anthro-
pological analysis is to unmask such ideologi-
cal processes of legitimation. Besides the work
described here within anthropology, one sees
partial theorizations of militarism elsewhere
with which interested anthropologists might
engage. Thompson (1982) uses Marxism to
theorize “exterminism.” Fornari (1975) the-
orizes militarism from a Freudian perspec-
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of
this review.
tive. Virilio (Virilio & Lotringer 1983, 1989)
foregrounds speed and processes of media-
tion as essential to today’s “pure war.” Gray
(1997, 2005) and Ignatieff (2000) theorize the
emergence of “postmodern war” and “virtual
war.” Sontag (2004) analyzes the ambiguity
and instability of visual representations of war.
Above all, anthropologists should read the ex-
isting rich but neglected body of literature
in critical security studies (Campbell 1992;
Der Derian 2001; Enloe 1983, 1990, 1993,
2000, 2004; Gregory & Pred 2007; Klare
2001; Krause & Williams 1996; Shapiro 1997;
Shapiro & Alker 1996; Weldes et al. 1999).
More empirically, certain subjects are ur-
gently in need of ethnographic study.
 In war-torn countries: life alongside
landmines, the role of diasporic com-
munities in inciting war, the cultural
consequences of childhood soldiering,
war orphans, the new mercenary com-
panies, suicide bombing and insurgency,
the role of religion in combat, the ef-
ficacy of truth and reconciliation com-
missions, and resource conflicts and
war.
 Within the United States: veterans
groups; the cultural dynamics of basic
training; ROTC; military blogs; the de-
bate on gays and the military; the Senate
Armed Services Committee; military
contractors and lobbyists; the milita-
rization of public health since 9/11;
video games; Hollywood war cultures;
and activist campaigns against military
recruiting, landmines, and new weapons
systems.
Anthropology has much theoretical and
empirical work to do to illuminate militarism,
the source of so much suffering in the world
today. If we sell our skills to the national se-
curity state, we will just become part of the
problem.
www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 165
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Robert Albro, Catherine Besteman, Andy Bickford and Catherine Lutz for com-
menting on an earlier draft of this essay.

LITERATURE CITED
Abraham I. 1998. The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb. London: Zed Books
Appadurai A. 2002. Dead certainty: ethnic violence in the era of globalization. See Hinton
2002b, pp. 286–304
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

Aretxaga B. 1997. Shattering Silence: Women, Nationalism and Political Subjectivity in Northern
Ireland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Bacevich A. 2005. The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. New York:
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Oxford Univ. Press

Ballinger P. 2003. History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Barker H. 2003. Bravo for the Marshallese: Regaining Control in a Post-Nuclear, Post-Colonial World.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Barnett M. 1999. The UN security council, indifference, and genocide in Rwanda. Cult. An-
thropol. 12:551–78
Ben-Ari E. 1989. Masks and soldiering: the Israeli Army and the Palestinian uprising. Cult.
Anthropol. 4:372–89
Ben-Ari E. 1998. Mastering Soldiers: Conflict, Emotions and the Enemy in an Israeli Military Unit.
Oxford, UK: Berghahn
Ben-Ari E. 2004. The military and militarization in the United States. Am. Ethnol. 31:340–48
Benedict R. 1989. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2nd ed.
Benjamin P, Demarest W. 1988. The operation of a death squad in San Pedro La Laguna. In
Harvest of Violence, ed. R Carmack, pp. 119–54. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
Berreman G. 1968. Is anthropology alive? social responsibility in anthropology. Curr. Anthropol.
9:391–96
Besteman C. 1996a. Representing violence and “othering” Somalia. Cult. Anthropol. 11:120–33
Besteman C. 1996b. Violent politics and the politics of violence: the dissolution of the Somali
nation-state. Am. Ethnol. 23:579–96
Besteman C. 1999. Unraveling Somalia: Race, Violence, and the Legacy of Slavery. Philadelphia:
Univ. Penn. Press
Besteman C, Gusterson H, eds. 2005. Why America’s Top Pundits Are Wrong. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Bickford A. 2003. The militarization of masculinity in the former German Democratic Repub-
lic. In Military Masculinities: Identity and the State, ed. PR Higate, pp. 157–73. Westport,
CT: Praeger/Greenwood
Binford L. 1996. The El Mozote Massacre: Anthropology and Human Rights. Tucson: Univ. Ariz.
Press
Boas F. 1919. Anthropologists as spies. The Nation, Dec. 20:797
Boehm C. 1984. Blood Revenge: The Anthropology of Feuding in Montenegro and Other Tribal
Societies. Lawrence: Univ. Kans. Press
Borneman J. 1995. American anthropology as foreign policy. Am. Anthropol. 97:663–72
Borneman J. 1998. Subversions of International Order. Albany: State Univ. NY Press
Borofsky R. 2005. Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press

166 Gusterson
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Bringa T. 1993. Bosnia: We Are all Neighbors. Granada TV Film Production ITV. Chicago, IL:
Public Media/Films Inc. Video
Bryant R. 2004. Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus. London: I.B. Tauris
Campbell D. 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity.
Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Carneiro RL. 1994. War and peace: alternating realities in human history. See Reyna & Downs
1994, pp. 3–27
Carroll J. 2006. House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

Chagnon N. 1983. Yanomamo: The Fierce People. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. 3rd ed.
Chagnon N. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science
239:985–92
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Chilton P. 1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House.
New York: Lang
Chomsky N, Nader L, Wallerstein I, Lewontin RC, Katznelson I, Zinn H, eds. 1997. The Cold
War and the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years. New York: New
Press
Cohn C. 1987. Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals. Signs 12:687–718
Connor J. 1989. From ghost dance to death camps: Nazi Germany as a crisis cult. Ethos 17:259–
88
Dalton R, Garb P, Lovrich N, Pierce J, Whiteley J. 1999. Critical Masses: Citizens, Nu-
clear Weapons Production, and Environmental Destruction in the United States and Russia.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Daniel EV. 1996. Charred Lullabies: Chapters in an Anthropography of Violence. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Das V, ed. 1990. Mirrors of Violence: Communities, Riots and Survivors in South Asia. Delhi:
Oxford Univ. Press
Denich B. 1994. Dismembering Yugoslavia: nationalist ideologies and the symbolic revival of
genocide. Am. Ethnol. 21:367–90
Dentan R. 1968. The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston
Der Derian J. 2001. Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Net-
work. Boulder, CO: Westview
Eden L. 2005. Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Weapons Devastation.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Edwards P. 1996. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Ember CR, Ember ME. 1992. Resource unpredictability, mistrust and war. J. Confl. Resolut.
36:242–62
Enloe C. 1983. Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives. Boston: South End
Press
Enloe C. 1990. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Enloe C. 1993. The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Enloe C. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Enloe C. 2004. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 167

 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Epstein B. 1991. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970s
and 1980s. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Falla R. 1994. Massacres in the Jungle: Ixcan, Guatemala, 1975–1982. Boulder, CO: Westview
Feldman A. 1991. Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in Northern
Ireland. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Feldman A. 1994. From Desert Storm to cultural anesthesia. Am. Ethnol. 21:404–18
Ferguson N. 2006. The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Decline of the West.
New York: Penguin
Ferguson RB. 1989. Anthropology and war: theory, politics, ethics. See Turner & Pitt 1989,
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

pp. 141–59
Ferguson RB. 1990a. Blood of the leviathan: western contact and warfare in Amazonia. Am.
Ethnol. 17:237–57
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Ferguson RB. 1990b. Explaining war. See Haas 1990, pp. 26–55
Ferguson RB. 1995. Yanomami Warfare: A Political History. Santa Fe, NM: SAR
Ferguson RB, Whitehead NL, eds. 1992. War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous
Warfare. Santa Fe, NM: SAR
Fornari F. 1975. The Psychoanalysis of War. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
Foster M, Rubinstein R, eds. 1986. Peace and War: Cross Cultural Perspectives. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Books
Franklin H. 1988. War Stars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press
Frese P, Harrell M, eds. 2003. Anthropology and the United States Military: Coming of Age in the
Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Freud S. 1973 [1932]. Why war? In Aggression, Hostility, and Violence: Nature or Nurture?, ed.
T Maples, D Matheson, pp. 16–26. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Fussell P. 1975. The Great War and Modern Memory. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Garb P. 1997. Complex problems and no clear solutions: difficulties of defining and assigning
culpability for radiation victimization in the Chelyabinsk region of Russia. In Life and
Death Matters, ed. B Johnston, pp. 307–29. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Garb P, Komarova G. 2001. Victims of “friendly fire” at Russia’s nuclear weapons sites. In
Violent Environments, ed. N Peluso, M Watts, pp. 287–302. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ.
Press
Gibson J. 1994. Warrior Dreams: Violence in Post-Manhood America. New York: Hill & Wang
Gill L. 1997. Creating citizens, making men: the military and masculinity in Bolivia. Cult.
Anthropol. 12:527–50
Gill L. 2004. The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Gonzalez R. 2007. We must fight the militarization of anthropology. Chron. High. Educ. 53:B20
Gourevitch P. 1999. We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families:
Stories From Rwanda. New York: Picador
Gray CH. 1997. Postmodern War: The New Politics of Conflict. New York: Guilford
Gray CH. 2005. Peace, War, and Computers. New York: Routledge
Gregory D, Pred A, eds. 2007. Violent Geographies: Fear, Terror, and Political Violence. New York:
Routledge
Green L. 1994. Fear as a way of life. Cult. Anthropol. 9:227–56
Green L. 1999. Fear as a Way of Life: Mayan Widows in Rural Guatemala. New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Gregor T, ed. 1996. A Natural History of Peace. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ. Press

168 Gusterson
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Groebel J, Hinde RA, eds. 1989. Aggression and War: Their Biological and Social Bases. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Guillemin J. 2001. Anthrax: The Investigation of a Deadly Outbreak. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Guillemin J. 2006. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contem-
porary Bioterrorism. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Gusterson H. 1993. Exploding anthropology’s canon in the fields of the bomb: ethnographic
writing on militarism. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 22:59–79
Gusterson H. 1996. Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

Gusterson H. 1999. Nuclear weapons and the other in the western imagination. Cult. Anthropol.
14:111–43
Gusterson H. 2004. People of the Bomb: Portraits of America’s Nuclear Complex. Minneapolis, MN:
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Univ. Minn. Press

Gusterson H. 2005. A Pedagogy of diminishing returns: scientific involution across three
generations of nuclear weapons science. In Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical
and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. D Kaiser, pp. 75–109. Cambridge: MIT Press
Gusterson H, Price D. 2005. Spies in our midst. Anthropol. News 46:39–40
Haas J, ed. 1990. The Anthropology of War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hannerz U. 2004. Foreign News: Exploring the World of Foreign Correspondents. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Hawkins JP. 2001. Army of Hope, Army of Alienation: Culture and Contradiction in the American
Army Communities of Cold War Germany. Westport, CT: Praeger
Hayden R. 1996. Imagined communities and real victims: self-determination and ethnic cleans-
ing in Yugoslavia. Am. Ethnol. 23:783–801
Hayden R. 2000. Rape and rape avoidance in ethno-national conflicts: sexual violence in limi-
nalized states. Am. Anthropol. 102:27–41
Herman E, Chomsky N. 2002. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
New York: Pantheon
Hinton A. 1996. Agents of death: explaining the Cambodian genocide in terms of psychosocial
dissonance. Am. Anthropol. 99:818–31
Hinton A. 1998. A head for an eye: revenge in the Cambodian genocide. Am. Ethnol. 25:352–77
Hinton A, ed. 2002a. Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Hinton A, ed. 2002b. Genocide: An Anthropological Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Hinton A. 2004. Why Did They Kill?: Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Hirsch S. 2006. In the Moment of Greatest Calamity: Terrorism, Grief, and a Victim’s Quest for
Justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Homer-Dixon T. 2001. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
Howell S, Willis R, eds. 1989. Societies at Peace: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Routledge
Huntington S. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York:
Simon & Schuster
Ignatieff M. 2000. Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. New York: Metropolitan Books
Johnson C. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic. New
York: Metropolitan Books
Johnson C. 2007. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. New York: Metropolitan
Books

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 169

 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Johnston B, ed. 2007. Half-Lives and Half-Truths: Confronting the Radioactive Legacies of the Cold
War. Santa Fe, NM: SAR
Johnston R. 2005. Analytic Culture in the United States Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic
Study. Washington, DC: GPO
Kaldor M. 1999. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press
Kapferer B. 1988. Legends of People, Myths of State: Violence, Intolerance, and Political Culture in
Sri Lanka and Australia. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Kapferer B, ed. 2004a. State, Sovereignty, War: Civil Violence in Emerging Global Realities. New
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

York: Berghahn
Kapferer B. 2004b. The World Trade Center and Global Crisis: Some Critical Perspectives. New
York: Berghahn
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Kaplan R. 2001. The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post-Cold War. New York:
Vintage
Keiser L. 1991. Friend by Day, Enemy by Night. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Kilcullen D. 2006. Twenty-eight articles: fundamentals of company-level counterinsurgency.
Mil. Rev. May–June:103–8
Kirsch S. 2005. Proving Grounds: Project Plowshare and the Unrealized Dream of Nuclear Earth-
moving. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Klare M. 1995. Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy. New
York: Hill & Wang
Klare M. 2001. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York: Metropolitan
Krasniewicz L. 1992. Nuclear Summer: The Clash of Communities at the Seneca Women’s Peace
Encampment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Krause K, Williams M, eds. 1996. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. Minneapolis:
Univ. Minnesota Press
Kuletz V. 1998. Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West. New York: Routledge
Kuper L. 1981. Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
Press
Kuper L. 1990. The genocidal state: an overview. In State Violence and Ethnicity, ed. PL van
den Berghe, pp. 19–51. Boulder: Univ. Colo. Press
Kwon H. 2006. After the Massacre: Commemoration and Consolation in Ha My and My Lai.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Lakoff A, Rabinow P, Collier S. 2004. Biosecurity: proposal for an anthropology of the con-
temporary. Anthropol. Today 20:3–7
Lan D. 1985. Guns and Rain: Guerillas and Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Lee R. 1984. The Dobe !Kung. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Leslie S. 1994. The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at
MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Lewin C. 1992. The holocaust: anthropological possibilities and the dilemma of representation.
Am. Anthropol. 94:161–66
Lewin C. 1993. Negotiated selves in the holocaust. Ethos 21:295–318
Lewis IM. 1998. Doing violence to ethnography: a response to Catherine Besteman’s “Repre-
senting violence and ‘othering’ Somalia”? Cult. Anthropol. 13:100–8
Lifton R, Mitchell G. 1995. Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial. New York: Putnam
Linenthal ET. 2001. Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America’s Holocaust Museum.
New York: Columbia Univ. Press

170 Gusterson
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Linenthal ET, Englehardt T, eds. 1996. History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the
American Past. New York: Metropolitan
Lisle D. 2000. Consuming danger: reimagining the war/tourism divide. Alternatives 25:91–116
Lizot J, Dart S. 1994. On warfare: an answer to N.A. Chagnon. Am. Ethnol. 21:845–62
Lowen R. 1997. Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Lutz C. 1999. Ethnography at the war century’s end. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 28:610–19
Lutz C. 2002a. Homefront: A Military City and the American Twentieth Century. Boston: Beacon
Lutz C. 2002b. Making war at home in the United States: militarization and the current crisis.
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

Am. Anthropol. 104:723–35

Lutz C. 2006. Empire is in the details. Am. Ethnol. 33:593–611
MacArthur J. 1992. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. New York: Hill &
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Wang
Mackenzie D. 1990. Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Mahmood CK. 1996. Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dialogues with Sikh Militants. Philadelphia:
Univ. Penn. Press
Malkki L. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, memory and National Cosmology Among Hutu Refugees
in Tanzania. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Malkki L. 1996. Speechless emissaries: refugees, humanitarianism and dehistoricization? Cult.
Anthropol. 11:377–404
Mamdani M. 2002. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in
Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Manoff R. 1989. Modes of war and modes of address: the text of SDI. J. Commun. 39:59–83
Manz B. 1988. Refugees of a Hidden War: The Aftermath of Counterinsurgency in Guatemala.
Albany: State Univ. NY Press
Manz B. 2005. Paradise in Ashes: A Guatemalan Journey of Courage, Terror, and Hope. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Markusen A, Hall P, Dietrich S. 1991. The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial
America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Masco J. 1999. States of insecurity: plutonium and postcold war anxiety in New Mexico. See
Weldes et al. 1999, pp. 203–31
Masco J. 2002. Lie detectors: on secrets and hypersecurity in Los Alamos. Public Cult. 14:441–67
Masco J. 2004a. Mutant ecologies: radioactive life in postcold war New Mexico. Cult. Anthropol.
19:517–50
Masco J. 2004b. Nuclear technoaesthetics: sensory politics from trinity to the virtual bomb in
Los Alamos. Am. Ethnol. 31:349–73
Masco J. 2006. The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
McCaffrey KT. 2002. Military Power and Popular Protest: The U.S. Navy in Viecques, Puerto Rico.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
McFate M. 2005a. The military utility of understanding adversary culture. Jt. Force Q. 38:42–48
McFate M. 2005b. Iraq: the social context of IEDs. Mil. Rev., May-June:37–40
McNamara L. 2001. Ways of knowing about nuclear weapons. PhD thesis. Univ. New Mex.,
Albuquerque
Mead M. 1940. War is only an invention—not a biological necessity. Asia 40:402–5
Melman S. 1974. The Permanent War Economy. New York: Touchstone
Menchu R, Burgos-Debray A, Wright A. 1987. I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in
Guatemala. New York: Verso

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 171

 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Montagu A, ed. 1978. Learning Non-Aggression: The Experience of Non-Literate Societies. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
Moos F. 2005. Some thoughts on anthropological ethics and today’s conflicts. Anthropol. News
46:40–42
Nader L. 1997. The phantom factor: impact of the Cold War on anthropology. See Chomsky
et al. 1997, pp. 107–46
Nagengast C. 1994. Violence, terror and the crisis of the state. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:109–36
Nash J. 1989. From Tank Town to High Tech: The Clash of Community and Industrial Cycles. Albany:
State Univ. NY Press
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

Nathanson C. 1988. The social construction of the Soviet threat. Alternatives 13:443–83
Nobile P, ed. 1995. Judgment at the Smithsonian. New York: Marlowe & Co.
Nordstrom C. 1997. A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Nordstrom C. 2004. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profiteering in the Twenty-
First Century. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Nordstrom C, Martin J, eds. 1992. The Paths to Domination, Resistance, and Terror. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Nordstrom C, Robben A, eds. 1995. Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and
Survival. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Olujic M. 1998. Embodiment of terror: gendered violence in peacetime and wartime in Croatia
and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Med. Anthropol. Q. 12:31–50
O’Neill D. 1995. The Firecracker Boys. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin
O’Rourke D. 1986. Half-Life: A Parable for the Nuclear Age. Los Angeles: Direct Cinema
Orr J. 2004. The militarization of inner space. Crit. Sociol. 30:451–81
Otterbein K. 2000. A history of research on warfare in anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 101:794–
805
Packer G. 2006. Knowing the enemy: Can social scientists redefine the “war on terror”? New
Yorker, Dec. 18:60–69
Peattie L. 1988. Economic conversion as a set of organizing ideas. Bull. Peace Propos. 19:11–20
Pedelty M. 1995. War Stories: The Culture of Foreign Correspondents. New York: Routledge
Peteet J. 1991. Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance Movement. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press
Peteet J. 1994. Male gender and rituals of resistance in the Palestinian “Intifada”: a cultural
politics of violence. Am. Ethnol. 21:31–49
Petersen G. 1992. The Vietnam War as an exemplar of American culture. Dialect. Anthropol.
17:217–23
Price D. 1998. Gregory Bateson and the OSS; World War II and Bateson’s assessment of
applied anthropology. Hum. Organ. 57:379–84
Price D. 2000. Anthropologists as spies. The Nation, Nov. 20:24–27
Price D. 2002a. Interlopers and invited guests: on anthropology’s witting and unwitting links
to intelligence agencies. Anthropol. Today 18:16–21
Price D. 2002b. Past wars, present dangers, future anthropologies. Anthropol. Today 18:3–5
Price D. 2004. Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist An-
thropologists. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Reyna SP, Downs RE, eds. 1994. Studying War: Anthropological Perspectives. Langhorne, PA:
Gordon & Breach
Rigi J. 2007. The war in Chechnya: the chaotic mode of domination, violence and bare life in
the post-Soviet context. Crit. Anthropol. 27(1):37–62
Robarchek C. 1977. Frustration, aggression, and the nonviolent Semai. Am. Ethnol. 4:762–79

172 Gusterson
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Robben A. 1995. The politics of truth and emotion among victims and perpetrators of violence.
See Nordstrom & Robben 1995, pp. 81–103
Rosaldo R. 1980. Ilongot Headhunting, 1883–1974. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Rubinstein RA, Foster ML, eds. 1997. The Social Dynamics of Peace and Conflict: Culture in
International Security. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Sanford V. 2004. Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala. New York: Palgrave
Scarry E. 1985. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press
Scheper-Hughes N, Bourgois P, eds. 2003. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Malden,
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

MA: Blackwell
Schirmer J. 1998. The Guatemala Military Project: A Violence Called Democracy. Philadelphia:
Univ. Penn. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Schwartz S, ed. 1998. Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since
1940. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
Shapiro M. 1997. Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Press
Shapiro M, Alker H, eds. 1996. Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities.
Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Shaw R. 2007. Displacing violence: making pentecostal memory in postwar Sierra Leone. Cult.
Anthropol. 22:66–93
Shawcross W. 1979. Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia. New York: Simon
& Schuster
Simons A. 1997. The Company They Keep: Life Inside the U.S. Army Special Forces. New York:
Free Press
Simons A. 1999. War: Back to the future. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:73–108
Singer P. 2004. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell Univ. Press
Singer P. 2005. Children at War. New York: Pantheon
Skidmore M. 2003. Darker than midnight: fear, vulnerability, and terror making in urban
Burma (Myanmar). Am. Ethnol. 30(1):5–21
Slayton R. 2007. Discursive choices: Boycotting star wars between science and politics. Soc.
Stud. Sci. 37:27–66
Sluka J. 1989. Hearts and Minds, Water and Fish: Support for the IRA and INLA in a Northern
Irish Ghetto. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Sluka J, ed. 2000. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Slyomovics S. 1998. The Object of Memory: Arab and Jew Narrate the Palestinian Village.
Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Slyomovics S. 2005. The Performance of Human Rights in Morocco. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.
Press
Sontag S. 2004. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Penguin
Sponsel LE. 2000. Response to Otterbein. Am. Anthropol. 102:837–41
Sponsel LE, Gregor T, eds. 1994. The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence. Boulder, CO:
Westview
Starn O. 1986. Engineering internment: anthropologists and the war relocation authority. Am.
Ethnol. 13:700–20
Starn O. 1991. Missing the revolution: anthropologists and the war in Peru? Cult. Anthropol.
6:63–91
Stephen L. 2000. The construction of indigenous suspects: militarization and the gendered
and ethnic dynamics of human rights abuses in southern Mexico. Am. Ethnol. 26:822–42

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 173

 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Strathern A, Stewart PJ, Whitehead NL, eds. 2005. Terror and Violence: Imagination and the
Unimaginable. London: Pluto
Sturken M. 1997. Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politics
of Remembering. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Suarez-Orozco M. 1990. Speaking of the unspeakable: toward a psycho-social understanding
of responses to terror. Ethos 18:353–83
Tambiah S. 1986. Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Tambiah S. 1996. Leveling Crowds: Ethnonationalist Conflicts and Collective Violence in South Asia.
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Taussig M. 1984. Culture of terror, space of death, Roger Casement and the explanation of
torture. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 26:467–97
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Taussig M. 1986. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Taylor B. 1998. Nuclear weapons and communication studies: a review essay. West. J. Commun.
62(3):300–15
Taylor C. 1999. Sacrifice as Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994. New York: Berg
Taylor C. 2002. The cultural face of terror in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. See Hinton
2002a, pp. 137–78
Theweleit K. 1987. Male Fantasies, Vol. 1: Women, Floods, Bodies, History. Minneapolis: Univ.
Minn. Press
Thomas EM. 1958. The Harmless People. New York: Random House
Thompson EP. 1982. Notes on exterminism, the last stage of civilization. In Exterminism and
Cold War, ed. New Left Rev. 121:1–34. London: Verso
Tierney P. 2000. Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon.
New York: Norton
Tishkov V. 2004. Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.
Tsing A, ed. 2004. Shock and Awe: War on Words. Santa Cruz, CA: New Pacifica Press
Turnbull C. 1961. The Forest People. New York: Simon & Schuster
Turner P, Pitt D, eds. 1989. The Anthropology of War and Peace: Perspectives on the Nuclear Age.
South Hadley, MA: Begin & Garvey
Turney-High H. 1991. Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts. Columbia: Univ. S.C. Press. 2nd
ed.
Vine D. 2004. War and forced migration in the Indian Ocean: the U.S. military base at Diego
Garcia. Int. Migrat. 42(3):111–43
Virilio P. 1989. War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception. London: Verso
Virilio P, Lotringer S. 1983. Pure War. New York: Semiotext(e)
Wakin E. 1992. Anthropology Goes to War: Professional Ethics and Counterinsurgency in Thailand.
Madison: Univ. Wis. Cent. SE Asian Stud. Monogr. No. 7
Wallace AFC. 1968. Psychological preparations for war. In War: The Anthropology of Armed
Conflict and Aggression, ed. M Fried, M Harris, R Murphy, pp. 173–82. Garden City, NY:
Nat. Hist. Press
Waltz K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House
Warren K. 1993. Interpreting la violencia in Guatemala: shapes of Mayan silence and resistance.
In The Violence Within: Cultural and Political Opposition in Divided Nations, ed. K Warren,
pp. 25–56. Boulder, CO: Westview
Weber C. 2005. Imagining America at War: Morality, Politics, and Film. London: Routledge
Weldes J, Laffey M, Gusterson H, Duvall R, eds. 1999. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities,
and the Production of Danger. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

174 Gusterson
 ANRV323-AN36-10 ARI 13 August 2007 17:24

Whitehead N. 2000. A history of research on warfare in anthropology—reply to Keith

Otterbein. Am. Anthropol. 102:834–37
Wilson L. 1988. Power and epistemology: rethinking ethnography at Greenham. In Anthro-
pology for the ‘90s, ed. J Cole, pp. 42–58. New York: Free Press
Wolf E. 2002. National socialist Germany. See Hinton 2002b, pp. 192–208
Wolf E, Jorgenson J. 1970. Anthropology on the warpath in Thailand. New York Rev. Books,
Nov. 19:26–35
Yans-McLaughlin V. 1986. Science, democracy, and ethics: mobilizing culture and personality
for World War II. In Malinowski, Rivers, Benedict and Others: Essays on Culture and Personality,
by UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (BMC - BIBLIOTEKEN) on 09/12/10. For personal use only.

ed. G Stocking, pp. 184–217. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press

Yoneyama L. 1999. Hiroshima Traces: Time, Space and the Dialectics of Memory. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:155-175. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology and Militarism 175