Clare Sammells
Miguel Centellas
Maria Bruno
Sara Simon
Chris Exner
Kate McGurn Centellas
Claudine Vallières
Jonathan
Andres Vaughan
Donna YatesThe forthcoming issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article on the Fulbright espionage scandal by Monica Campbell (click here, subscription only). In it, Mr. van Shaick says he came forward because “he believes the incident jeapordizes the Fulbright Program’s integrity and violates Bolivia’s sovereignty.” Furthermore, van Shaick is quoted as saying his actions protect Bolivians: “My Bolivian friends and co-workers would have wanted me to come forward on this…For me this is about respecting their rights.”
What does “Bolivia’s sovereignty” mean here? After all, the whole scandal is about a U.S. citizen conducting research with funds from a State Department program who is asked to report on or be aware of (in whatever capacity) Venezuelan and Cuban nationals, with all parties resident foreigners.
More pointedly, I am unsure van Shaick means in terms of protecting Bolivian citizens’ rights by going public, since he never alleges he was asked to report on Bolivians to the U.S. Embassy (which would have been a much clearer violation of the rights, ethics, and guidelines on all sides). To me this comment comes across as a smidge paternalistic. And I suspect that many Bolivians in the lowlands (where van Shaick works) also might be put off by the idea of a young American reporting to the MAS government in La Paz.
Filed under: Politics, U.S.-Latin American relations
Bolivia sovereignty is clearly at issue since a foreign governement attempted to recruit Americans to spy on people operating within the borders of Bolivia. Control of a state’s territory, the geographical space that the nation occupies, is fundamental to the idea of sovereignty. Even though the intended subjects of the US government’s surveillance were foreign to Bolivia, it still violated Bolivia’s sovereignty.
Van Shaik observed unethical and unlawful activities and reported on them. It is easy to criticize, but in the end the he did the right thing and it took courage to do so. The possibility of retaliation and the loss of the Fulbright certainly cross his mind. Whether or not he posed for photos with a Che symbol, or defended his actions as a move on behalf of all Bolivians does not matter. The US Department of State was wrong. They know that they were wrong. They apologized and the official has been sent packing. Going after Van Shaick seems petty.
As to whom he reported the incident, who cares what Santa Cruz thinks. The central government, empowered to defend Bolivia’s sovereignty currently controlled by MAS. They won it fair and square and democratically. It is logical that Van Shaick would bring it to their attention.
I don’t think anyone’s “going after” Van Shaick. And no one disagrees w/ the fact that it was wrong for Van Shaick to have been approached by the embassy official in such a way.
But discussing his motives & the consequences of his actions is also appropriate. As a social scientist, I’m sensitive to the difference between being an observer of events, and being a shaper of events. Van Shaick’s political acts will also taint his research, since the behavior of any subjects he studies will now be altered.
Did Van Shaick do the “right” thing to do? I’m not sure; there were other ways for him to bring this to the attention to the State Department. But I don’t think it was the best thing, from a researcher standpoint.
And just as Van Shaick is entitled to his opinion, so are others. But I do think that intentions matter. Doing the right thing is good … but I would hope it was done for the best reasons .
Imagine the following scenario:
I’m a researcher studying kinship networks in a local community. Early in my research, I publicly announce my preference for a specific kin group. I then move into the community and observe day to day events. Will in-kin group members behave differently towards me and around me than they otherwise would have? Yes. Will out-kin group members behave differently towards me and around me than they otherwise would have? Yes. Under such conditions, will my results actually represent how kin networks behave in the local community? No.
It was important for the State Department to correct its actions. Could it have been done in a way that didn’t make Van Shaick a public figure, in essence “outing” his political preferences? Yes. Has Van Shaick’s publicity harmed his research? Yes.
Even ignoring the broader ethical issues raised by some here, Van Shaick’s has injected himself into his research in a way that, IMO, is problematic.
miguel, I agree with you. Miguel, you raise important issues that anthropologists have dealt with since the discipline became a discrete intellectual endeavor. Few anthropologists would claim that anything they write could replace the experience of the peoples they interacted with in order to write it. The positioning of the ethnographer is always a factor, and good ethnography acknowledges this openly.
Of course Van Shaick’s actions will affect how people react to him, and presumably he thought about that ahead of time. It might even be a positive reaction, given the situation. But in the end all researchers have ethical dilemmas in the field. Most of us are lucky enough to have dilemmas that are not so public or political, but our responses to them are never neutral. People notice and respond, but in the end we have to live with ourselves.