Guest post by Nick Bluhm

Can numbers alone capture the essence of human behavior? This is a question that most anthropology professors would quickly rebuff; yet former General Counsel of General Electric Benjamin Heineman posed this question in a recent article in The Atlantic.

Heineman suggests that in certain situations, an understanding of a community, country, or region requires more than just mathematics or formulas. As an anthroplogist, I agree that these “numbers” are insufficient for understanding human behavior. However, I would go further, and argue that anthropology is a necessary component of any community analysis.

At the heart of all human activity, at the most basic level, is an interaction between two individuals, who have preferences, biases, desires and idiosyncrasies. Anthropology examines these aspects in the collective, carefully developing an understanding of the qualitative, integral components of what drives a culture and a people. By aggregating these individual observations, mostly without the aid of numbers or formulas, anthropologists create a holistic picture, one that I believe is necessary for formulating effective foreign policies.

Tedious? Possibly. Essential? Certainly. Heineman provides an apt case study that highlights the need for qualitative data and field research: Vietnam. Heineman takes aim at former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who clearly failed at forecasting the failure of American troops to surmount the determined North Vietnamese.

McNamara, in his memoir, acknowledges that the failure of Vietnam can be attributed to the “profound ignorance in the history, culture, and politics of the people.” Although the mea culpa came 30 years too late, as an anthroplogist, I find it validating to hear a former U.S. senior official admit to the importance of this knowledge, something that anthropology is ideally suited to provide.

Michael Dove shares Heineman’s sentiment, championing the importance of anthroplogy for a deeper understanding of foreign affairs. In his New York Times article, Dove describes the work of Dr. Ann Soetoro, renowned development anthropologist and mother of current President Barack Obama.

Dove explains that, much like the Pentagon in conducting the Vietnam War, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) lacked the essential perspective gained by Dr. Soetoro during her studies in Indonesia. Dr. Soetoro, who consulted with USAID, attempted to dispel its misguided assumption that the proper village delegate for channeling aid was the village official. Instead, she pioneered the notion of micro-credit, eschewing the USAID approach that she found exacerbated social stratification in the Indonesian villages.

And this is where the two articles agree. In any policymaking or decision-making capacity, there is an urgent need for a dissenting perspective, especially one that captures the spirit, social structure and culture of a community. Anthropologists must continue to challenge the numbers and rigid, formulaic policies heralded as the explanation and objective solution. Anthropology, though often unacknowledged for its contributions, provides an essential toolset for anyone who seeks to thoroughly comprehend the world.

Nick Bluhm is a public policy analyst at the law firm Cooley Godward Kronish, in downtown D.C. He holds an M.A. in anthropology from the George Washington University.

Image: “Lego People.” Source: Joe Shlabotnik.