What Exactly Is the Yanomami Controversy?

American Anthropology's Response, continued . . .

For example, why did no American organization ever investigate the accusations surrounding Chagnon before the publication of Tierney's Darkness in El Dorado in 2000, although the accusations had been circulating for years and were supported, in part, by Chagnon's own writings. Rather than investigating these accusations, most members of the discipline seemed content to ignore them. In fact, thousands of anthropologists continued to use Chagnon's ethnography Yanomamö in their classes, even though it was clear that the field practices he described in it violated the American Anthropological Association's code of ethics. Whatever Chagnon's ethical lapses, he remained a hero to many in the discipline. We might ask why so many chose to ignore, rather than investigate, the accusations against him.

We might also voice concern over the way the American Anthropological Association (AAA), American anthropology's largest organization, initially responded to the publicity generated by the publication of Tierney's book. The AAA organized an "open forum" with a number of panelists at its 2000 annual meeting. But most of the panelists were biased against Tierney. In criticizing him, they focused on Tierney's accusation against Neel that had already been disproved. Tierney's accusations against Chagnon were not really addressed.

Readers will have a chance to evaluate for themselves where they stand on this issue. But my impression—if I may inject it at this point—is that the leaders of the American Anthropological Association initially addressed the controversy more as a problem in public relations than as a problem of professional ethics: they were more concerned with protecting the discipline's image than with dealing directly with the issues Tierney had raised.

To its credit, the association set up a task force to inquire further into the matter. But when the El Dorado Task Force's preliminary report was made public, it appeared to be following the same tack as the panelists at the open forum. The preliminary report caused an uproar among those who wanted to call Chagnon to account. In an effort to calm the troubled waters generated by the report, the Task Force requested public comment on it. The more than 170 responses posted at the association's Web site—119 of them from students—caused the Task Force to change course. The comments drew the Task Force into seriously assessing, in its final report, Chagnon's various deeds and misdeeds. It was the first time the association had seriously done so.

Whatever one's view of the Task Force's final report—and opinions differ—it is important to acknowledge the role students played in this phase of the controversy. Never before in the discipline's history, I believe, had students participated with such impact in such a prominent disciplinary debate. At a critical time, they stood up, got involved, and made a difference in the discipline's politics.

To summarize, the controversy is not simply about the accusations Tierney made against Neel and Chagnon or the accusations various other people have made against Neel, Chagnon, and Tierney. It is also about how American anthropology has responded to these accusations. There is room for cynicism regarding how the controversy has played out in the discipline. But there is also room for hope, given how students helped draw the association's Task Force into directly assessing accusations against a former member.