From the cultural anthropologist’s point of view, applied studies—that is, research meant to give practical aid and guidance to governments and other organizations—have in many ways been an undoubted gain. Concerned as they so often were with the effects of social change, applied studies offered the nearest approach to the controlled experiment in the social sciences. The specialized inquiries greatly deepened the knowledge of particular aspects of primitive society and culture, especially of economic and political organization, land tenure, and law. The scientific value of such research apart, work in the applied field also offered to many anthropologists the purely human satisfaction of aiding backward peoples in their struggle to meet and master the forces of Western civilization.

The concrete gains derived by colonial governments were more difficult to assess, partly because the officials were not bound to act upon the cultural anthropological findings and partly because the value of the findings was not always wholeheartedly accepted. Sometimes, it is true, the cultural anthropologist found himself embarrassed by the excessive confidence of his employers that he had the key to all problems. More often, the employers were inclined to question whether cultural anthropology was in fact as helpful and the information it provided as indispensable as enthusiasts would make it out to be. Some impatience was felt with the “academic” cultural anthropologist who would insist on comprehensive studies when only some specific information was asked for, or who seemed to deal in a complicated fashion, using complicated language, with issues that to the practical man appeared straightforward. To all this cultural anthropologists could reply that, though the knowledge they sought was not indispensable to government, it facilitated informed and smooth government.

But cultural anthropologists also had to face another, more disturbing criticism—that they overemphasized the importance of tradition and were hostile to modern development. Nor was this view limited to colonial administrators; educated Africans and Indonesians openly expressed their distrust of a science the primary interest of which was in “primitive” peoples and which might play into the hands of reactionaries and upholders of “colonialism.”

If these objections did not promise too well for the future of applied cultural anthropology, cultural anthropologists themselves had grown more cautious. They came to fear that the applied work might entice too many of the younger cultural anthropologists away from general and theoretical research, so that the very progress of the discipline might be endangered. Conversely, the man fully committed to applied work, like the permanent government cultural anthropologist, would be in danger of losing touch with universities and academic centres, and hence with the advances achieved in his discipline. He would turn into a mere technician, perhaps still useful to his employers but no longer truly representing anthropological knowledge.

There were graver problems of an ethical nature. A change of roles is forced upon the cultural anthropologist when he is consulted on the best way to implement government policies. To be sure, he might see no cause for disagreeing with the policy, and the best way of imposing it might well be understood to be the one best serving the interests of the native peoples. Even so, the cultural anthropologist, in abandoning the point of view of the scientist, must pronounce upon the merits and demerits of particular courses of action and thus introduce value judgments. Nor will the issues always be clear-cut and uncontroversial; in that case the cultural anthropologist might have to take sides and argue from his own political and moral convictions. And if his recommendations had little chance against administrative considerations or the dictates of “higher policy,” personal frustrations would be added to the dubiousness of his position.

On the other hand, if the cultural anthropologist presented his facts without adding recommendations or warnings, he would be furnishing information that might be put to uses with which he could not in good conscience agree. Or again, he might be tempted to restrict his advice to the most efficient means for achieving certain ends, dismissing the ends themselves, the policy to be implemented as not of his concern—which would hardly diminish his ethical commitment.

All these issues were widely and on occasion heatedly debated among cultural anthropologists. In an attempt to clear the air the Society for Applied Anthropology published in 1951 a carefully worded code of ethics. It appealed to the social conscience of the individual research worker and to his responsibility at all times to uphold the moral tenets of civilization—respect for the individual and for human rights and the promotion of human and social well-being. Not all cultural anthropologists were prepared to endorse this assumption of a moral mission on the part of the “disinterested” scientist. The dilemma, then, though vital for the future of applied cultural anthropology, remained unresolved.