logo

Last Update

This profile was last updated on 1/30/2015 and contains contributions from the  Zoominfo Community.

is this you? Claim your profile.

Wrong Felix Moos?

Felix Moos

Professor

University of Kansas

HQ Phone:  (913) 588-5000

Email: f***@***.com

GET ZOOMINFO GROW

+ Get 10 Free Contacts a Month

Please agree to the terms and conditions.

I agree to the  Terms of Service and  Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Grow at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.

THANK YOU FOR DOWNLOADING!

computers
  • 1.Download
    ZoomInfo Grow
    v sign
  • 2.Run Installation
    Wizard
  • 3.Check your inbox to
    Sign in to ZoomInfo Grow

I agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Community Edition at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.

University of Kansas

3901 Rainbow Blvd

Kansas City, Kansas,66160

United States

Company Description

Opened in 1866, the University of Kansas ( www.ku.edu) is a comprehensive public teaching and research institution with 29,272 students and more than 2,100 faculty members. The university offers more than 40 nationally ranked academic programs, including 26 in...more

Background Information

Employment History

German-born Anthropologist

The H.W. Wilson Company


Professor of Anthropology

KU Alumni Association


Instructor At the Staff

U.S.


Vice Chair and International

International Association for Intelligence Education


Affiliations

Micronesian Negotiations

Advisor To the Office


Education

MA

Anthropology and Asian Studies

University of Washington


Ph.D.

Anthropology and Asian Studies

University of Washington


Web References(57 Total References)


Welcome to Crimson Publishers

crimsonpublishers.com [cached]

Felix Moos
University of Kansas, USA View Profile Felix Moos was educated in Germany, Switzerland, the United States and Japan. He received his MA and Ph.D. in Anthropology and Asian Studies (Far Eastern & Russian Institute) from the University of Washington (Seattle). Currently, he is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Anthropology, The University of Kansas (Lawrence). He has taught, among other institutions, at the universities of Heidelberg (FRG), Tokyo (Todai) Japan, Kasetsart (Thailand), Korea University (ROK) and Durham (UK). He held the Ricketts Chair for Comparative Cultures at the Naval War College (Newport, R.I) and taught at the Command and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, specializing on military applications of Anthropology. His fieldwork, spanning more than 45 years with a special focus on Applied Anthropology, has concentrated on East, Southeast and South Asia and the Pacific (Micronesia). He served as an advisor to the Office of Micronesian Negotiations. He was a consultant/specialist of the World Bank in Southeast Asia. He has served in various US Government positions, and in the US Armed Forces in Korea. Since 9/11, he intensified his long-standing interest in anthropological applications for national security. From 2005-08, he served as Vice Chair/International of the International Association for Intelligence Education (IAFIE). His most recent (1997-present) fieldwork has focused on the dynamics and dilemma of sociopolitical development and conflicts in Nepal, India and Peru.


The Phoenix Society - Community Affairs

thephoenixsociety.org [cached]

The ROTC-style program is the brainchild of Felix Moos, a Kansas University professor of anthropology, and is part of an effort to attract qualified candidates to the field of intelligence gathering, especially in targeted areas of the world, including Afghanistan, China, Korea and the Middle East.
The program was suggested by Moos to Roberts, who shepherded the measure through Congress, which approved $4 million for the pilot project.


Ethics discussions

www.theasa.org [cached]

Although PRISP is the brainchild of Professor Felix Moos, an anthropologist at the University of Kansas whose forty-four year career has been consistently dedicated to fostering collaboration between academic anthropologists and the military and intelligence communities in the interests of fostering national defence and security at home and abroad, it is not restricted to students in anthropology programs.
PRISP is interested in recruiting scholars with linguistic and other kinds of area expertise on regions of the world currently thought to be strategic in terms of terrorist threats and US interests more generally. People of my age therefore feel a rather ironic dejá vu sensation. Having lived through the Cold War period in which "area studies" was perceived as useful by the intelligence community and subsequently witnessed proclamations of its "death" in the era of globalization, we now find old conceptions resuscitated in a post 9/11 context which allows Professor Moos to reassert his longstanding preoccupations, yet now in terms of "global challenges" no longer coupled to nation state rivalries or conflicts confined to "one particular culture or one geographical setting" (these quotes are from his response in AT 21(3)). Many of us would see the construction of sustained, open and mutually respectful international collaborative relations as essential to the construction of a post-imperial anthropology better equipped to produce an understanding of the "more complex" world that Professor Moos invokes. Professor Moos himself does not seem unduly concerned with the issue of international trust and cordiality, to judge from the robustness of his published responses to critics (which include the proposition that it doesn't really matter if people abroad don't like North Americans). Yet there are clearly a number of different perspectives from which his dismissal of counter-arguments could be contested. Professor Moos himself responds to most expressions of doubt by repeating the litany that "we" are "at war". It appears that this is a war with an enemy whose diffuseness and facelessness multiplies suspects and potential threats, a war which "will not be of short duration", though what would constitute "victory" perhaps remains a little too uncomfortably unstated. I find it difficult to decide whether I find the paranoia inherent in this perspective more disturbing than the way in which it threatens to silence debate about the less noble aspects of recent Anglo-American foreign policy, but what I am convinced of is that anthropologists need to maintain a strong critical distance from this kind of proposition. We need to think about Professor Moos's position in a historically contextualized way that would remind us of the grim lessons of previous experience while also enabling us to treat it anthropologically in terms of understandings of how the social and cultural history of the United States relates to its politics. Fortunately, it seems clear that most anthropologists in the United States itself remain reluctant to embrace the transcendent "we" and categorical imperatives of Professor Moos's vision. For that reason we need to look beyond PRISP and other related US developments to the broader problems of which they are simply minor symptoms. I hope that this blog will open up a space for full and wide-ranging reflections on these dilemmas and how a much more inclusive, international "we" can face up to them. Let us be clear, though, that the challenges facing anthropology (and other researchers working within cross-cultural and transnational frameworks) are growing today, even if some of them have past precedents. Developments over the past twenty years have made university autonomy increasingly precarious and pressures of funding, marketing our services and employment for our graduates have continued to increase in intensity. A further intensification of global intelligence gathering efforts on the part of states, linked to the transformed definition of "security" issues expounded by Professor Moos, coupled with renewed interest in interventions to shape local developments in line with external interests, couples those changes in the position of academic institutions to pressures that were less marked for a short while as the "spectre of communist revolution" diminished. Add that to what is going on politically within countries such as Britain and the United States today in the wake of domestic terrorist attacks, and the sensitivity of the conversations on which we are embarking are rather apparent. Many anthropologists and people with anthropology training working for NGOs and government sponsored agencies in places and situations deemed relevant to security concerns are now likely to experience new levels of state intrusion on their working lives and ethics. Sometimes, they will face serious risks as individuals if they chose to follow the path of conscience rather than acquiescence to these demands and restraints. In confronting these dilemmas collectively, what we have going for us is ethnographic knowledge of concrete cases coupled with that important sense of perspective that the comparative and universalizing horizons of anthropology evoke. The best way to respond to Professor Moos is, I suggest, to use our knowledge and experience to show that there are other, and much better, ways to foster the production of knowledge that can contribute to promoting peace and security on a planetary scale.


Ethics discussions

www.theasa.org [cached]

Although PRISP is the brainchild of Professor Felix Moos, an anthropologist at the University of Kansas whose forty-four year career has been consistently dedicated to fostering collaboration between academic anthropologists and the military and intelligence communities in the interests of fostering national defence and security at home and abroad, it is not restricted to students in anthropology programs.
PRISP is interested in recruiting scholars with linguistic and other kinds of area expertise on regions of the world currently thought to be strategic in terms of terrorist threats and US interests more generally. People of my age therefore feel a rather ironic dejá vu sensation. Having lived through the Cold War period in which "area studies" was perceived as useful by the intelligence community and subsequently witnessed proclamations of its "death" in the era of globalization, we now find old conceptions resuscitated in a post 9/11 context which allows Professor Moos to reassert his longstanding preoccupations, yet now in terms of "global challenges" no longer coupled to nation state rivalries or conflicts confined to "one particular culture or one geographical setting" (these quotes are from his response in AT 21(3)). Many of us would see the construction of sustained, open and mutually respectful international collaborative relations as essential to the construction of a post-imperial anthropology better equipped to produce an understanding of the "more complex" world that Professor Moos invokes. Professor Moos himself does not seem unduly concerned with the issue of international trust and cordiality, to judge from the robustness of his published responses to critics (which include the proposition that it doesn't really matter if people abroad don't like North Americans). Yet there are clearly a number of different perspectives from which his dismissal of counter-arguments could be contested. Professor Moos himself responds to most expressions of doubt by repeating the litany that "we" are "at war". It appears that this is a war with an enemy whose diffuseness and facelessness multiplies suspects and potential threats, a war which "will not be of short duration", though what would constitute "victory" perhaps remains a little too uncomfortably unstated. I find it difficult to decide whether I find the paranoia inherent in this perspective more disturbing than the way in which it threatens to silence debate about the less noble aspects of recent Anglo-American foreign policy, but what I am convinced of is that anthropologists need to maintain a strong critical distance from this kind of proposition. We need to think about Professor Moos's position in a historically contextualized way that would remind us of the grim lessons of previous experience while also enabling us to treat it anthropologically in terms of understandings of how the social and cultural history of the United States relates to its politics. Fortunately, it seems clear that most anthropologists in the United States itself remain reluctant to embrace the transcendent "we" and categorical imperatives of Professor Moos's vision. For that reason we need to look beyond PRISP and other related US developments to the broader problems of which they are simply minor symptoms. I hope that this blog will open up a space for full and wide-ranging reflections on these dilemmas and how a much more inclusive, international "we" can face up to them. Let us be clear, though, that the challenges facing anthropology (and other researchers working within cross-cultural and transnational frameworks) are growing today, even if some of them have past precedents. Developments over the past twenty years have made university autonomy increasingly precarious and pressures of funding, marketing our services and employment for our graduates have continued to increase in intensity. A further intensification of global intelligence gathering efforts on the part of states, linked to the transformed definition of "security" issues expounded by Professor Moos, coupled with renewed interest in interventions to shape local developments in line with external interests, couples those changes in the position of academic institutions to pressures that were less marked for a short while as the "spectre of communist revolution" diminished. Add that to what is going on politically within countries such as Britain and the United States today in the wake of domestic terrorist attacks, and the sensitivity of the conversations on which we are embarking are rather apparent. Many anthropologists and people with anthropology training working for NGOs and government sponsored agencies in places and situations deemed relevant to security concerns are now likely to experience new levels of state intrusion on their working lives and ethics. Sometimes, they will face serious risks as individuals if they chose to follow the path of conscience rather than acquiescence to these demands and restraints. In confronting these dilemmas collectively, what we have going for us is ethnographic knowledge of concrete cases coupled with that important sense of perspective that the comparative and universalizing horizons of anthropology evoke. The best way to respond to Professor Moos is, I suggest, to use our knowledge and experience to show that there are other, and much better, ways to foster the production of knowledge that can contribute to promoting peace and security on a planetary scale.


The Phoenix Society - Resources & Services

www.thephoenixsociety.org [cached]

The ROTC-style program is the brainchild of Felix Moos, a Kansas University professor of anthropology, and is part of an effort to attract qualified candidates to the field of intelligence gathering, especially in targeted areas of the world, including Afghanistan, China, Korea and the Middle East.
The program was suggested by Moos to Roberts, who shepherded the measure through Congress, which approved $4 million for the pilot project.


Similar Profiles

city

Browse ZoomInfo's Business
Contact Directory by City

city

Browse ZoomInfo's
Business People Directory

city

Browse ZoomInfo's
Advanced Company Directory