Decoding ethics

Abstract

Professional associations of archaeologists and anthropologists have produced numerous codes of ethics in recent years. Their compilation is motivated as much by the desire to promote standardized professional practice as a wish to enshrine correct ethical responses. The precise wording of these is often minutely scrutinized (although not minutely enough, I argue), but their overall purpose, status or value is rarely considered. This paper considers that the formulation of ethical codes is of limited value and may even be counter-productive. The ambiguities and problems in interpreting concepts such as ‘respect’, ‘indigenous’ and ‘compromise’ are never explored or even acknowledged. Instead, the complexities of genuine ethical dilemmas, when contradictory or incompatible values collide, are circumvented or ignored. Codes of ethics fail to provide a clear guide to practice in cases of profound and complex conflicts of interest. Instead, it is argued here that ethics are historical and contextual; appropriate responses to ethical dilemmas should be developed on a case-by-case basis and require thought, debate and discussion, rather than the application of a rule. Codes of ethics promote conservatism and conformity, reinforce the power of hegemonic institutions and pre-empt ethical debate. Moreover, because they pretend to supra-contextual applicability, several of the principles enshrined in ethical codes could easily be used to support racist or otherwise politically objectionable movements.