yeah. i didn't know that but it's not surprising. there's quite a long history of anthropologists and 'area studies' people working with the CIA and other intelligence agencies. it's a pretty natural link to make. i've done bits and pieces which are not a million miles away from that myself. i know the way i've written that leaves a lot of questions but i'm not doing that to create intrigue, the reality is not as interesting as that might imply, it's just that there's a limit to what i want to write about on the internet
there was a really interesting program by the US government in the early to mid days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where they were pouring money into it as part of the 'War on Terror' (a more stupid name than even cultural marxism), where they recruited anthropologists from universities to help them out. big backlash from the American Anthropology Association, a lot of stigma for the academics who did get involved. it is a very interesting use of social scientists to try to, especially in afghanistan, support the statebuilding project though. it didn't work very well. especially the guys who embedded in the military, no one took them seriously. one very sadly got burnt to death by a random person in Kandahar, set on fire on the street, as the war there got more intense than the americans and NATO had bargained for.
actually there is a whole overlap between James Scott and Afghanistan. legibility being one of the main issues that the occupying forces had. their inability to 'see like a state'.
There's a geologist in William Gaddis'
Carpenter's Gothic who may or may not have worked for the CIA in Africa.
Someone's response re: Scott,
"So I looked this up — looks like it has to do with the counterinsurgency stuff in Thailand and mainland SE Asia during the Vietnam War which has been known about for decades — I think AAA has a website about it.
Seems like Scott was basically just being honest about the situation with Area Studies research in the 60’s esp wrt SE Asia which is that it would have found its way to the CIA sooner or later, esp via Cold Warriors like Samuel Huntington. There’s absolutely zero concrete connection to the 1965 killings.
Imo it’s a nothingburger both in that the politics of this research is now well known (it goes back to Edmund Leach, Evans-Pritchard was arguably also doing counterinsurgency in a much more detailed way)—it was much more of an incidental thing and not like Scott was making an active choice to funnel information to the CIA and
b.) he’s really only an anarchist in a vague uncommitted methodological way where he’s critical of the state as an assumption in political science, he’s not like an activist in the way Graeber was.
I generally like Vijay Prashad but the way he’s raising this is shitty wrt Scott personally as far as I can tell. It’s also kind of willingly misunderstanding Scott’s work in that he’s saying ‘if it’s all going to end up in the colonial archive anyway you might as well put something in the archive saying none of this shit works and you’re going to end up digging the wells sideways’ etc.